More realistic WMD in Civ4 needed

[Lambiorix_be]

In Civ3 nuclear missiles are too local. As in the real world I would like to see the effects of an atomic explosion to have global implications (i don't mean a 'global warming effect') If in the real world there would be a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, the radioactive cloud would kill many millions of asians and/or europeans depending on the wind. In todays games nuclear missiles are just more powerful weapons like any other. (which I find a bit uncomfortable in an educational point of view)

Also if Biological weapons are concerned they too cannot be contained if for instance all empires have connecting airports, roads and sea ports...

Only chemical weapons could remain local.

The use of any of these weapons should however have very substantial negative implications on a diplomatic, cultural and trade level.

Anybody has an opinion about this?

[Sandman]

Chemical and biological weapons have had relatively little effect on warfare and should not be included in the game.

I mean, would you spend time researching a gas warfare tech, then a gas mask tech, then a blistering agent tech, and so on?

It's better ignored, abstracted like a lot of minor advances are in civ. Flamethrowers, armour-piercing weapons, arquebusiers, petrol and electricity driven trains, etc. Chemical and biological weapons should belong to this unseen category.

[mrmitchell]

Not "adding" anything. But expanding nuclear weapons.

Tactical nukes
The first three tactical nukes that are used fall under a "grace period" where the other AIs don't hate you for using them (UNLESS you're using them in a first strike, and not defensively or continuing in war.) This is a pretty good simulation of the fact that no one utterly hates the USA because we nuked Japan, and that back then IIRC the full horrors of nukes hadn't been thought out.

Tactical nukes reduce a city's population by half, destroy 3/4 of its improvements, and put pollution in + kill all improvements in all tiles surrounding the city. Units in the tactical nuke's target tile have 1 1/10 chance of surviving, and those in the surrounding tiles have a 1/2 chance.

Nukes also, incidentally, cut forests and jungles. However, no shields are returned to the nearest city, and the pollution and tile improvement destruction still happens.

In the event of a nuclear strike on a city with a nuclear power plant, you get pollution in a two-tile-out area, not just one.

ICBMs
There is no "grace period" for the first ICBMs. Use one, and all the other Civs of the world will automatically embargo you. Start a nuclear war with them, and the world allies against you.

ICBMs raze a city to the ground, with no surviving citizens or units. Improvements on every tile in a 2-tile radius are obliterated, and polluted. All units in the target are destroyed, all within the 2-tiles have a 1/10 chance of survival.

Again, ICBMs will cut a forest or jungle for you, but the pollution and tile improvements loss might want you to think of another way to get rid of those pesky jungles.

The existence of a nuclear power plant will have no effect on an ICBM's total extermination spree.

Global Warming/Nuclear Winter
When "x" number of nukes have been launched (depending upon map size) AND "x" number of tiles are polluted (also depending), your game enters "nuclear winter", a friendly reminder that using nukes means you're ****ed. Anything that happens here will be detrimental to cities, but for a start, the tundra advances closer to the Equator, Plains becomes Desert, Grassland becomes Plains, and Forests and Jungles that haven't yet been harvested go bye-bye. When a tile changes, its resource supply dies (unless it can exist in the new tile as well). Also, once in "x" turns, ANY TILE has a very small chance of becoming "radioactive", meaning it will not be workable or passable again. Until "x" turns after the last nuke has been detonated, or all the pollution has been cleared, this state of things will continue, and cities will have "x" chance of losing population (this chance is reduced by having Hospitals).

PREVENTION
SDI Defense will reduce the chance of a nuclear weapon hitting its target to 1/4. If a city has the "Preparedness" improvement (I dunno), it will lose less citizens during a nuclear strike or the following nuclear winter.

Any Civ that uses tactical nukes after the 3-nuke grace period will have the **** beat out of it by an alliance of all the other nations.

So, basically, I want nukes to be more powerful, and I want the effects of using them in mass numbers to be strong enough to provide a huge deterrent that keeps away all but simply suicidal players.

[Fosse]

Having not read the above posts very closely (at work), there is one thing I would really like to add:

No forced diplomacy when nukes are used!

It's silly to nuke a mutual enemy, only to have your ally declare war on you. Making nuclear weapons have a diplomatic penalty should be done via a United Nations.

Barring that though, it is downright stupid for anything in the game to have an all or nothing effect. If nuking my neighbor makes the rest of the world so furious at me they declare war, fine. If they have no choice but to delcare war, bullhonkey.

[POTUS]

What about Global Warming? Would flood plains and costal land turn to costal water, and there be more deserts?

[Nikolai]

I like your ideas mrmichell, but I think that not the whole world should attack you. You would be looked down upon, and get DoWs from your non-allies, but your allies would stay with you. After all, if the US had nuked the communists under the cold war, there is little doubt IMHO that it's allies in Europe would have supported the US.

[Kuciwalker]

If you use nukes, your allies should shoot off all their nukes too, and neutral civs should shoot off their nukes at a random target, and your enemies (or people who don't like you) should shoot their nukes at you and your allies.

I think chemical and biological weapons should be in tool. Bioweapons are an option from the espionage menu (instead of nukes) and basically create a plague (plagues could also occur naturally, the chance being reduced by a hospital and certain techs). Plagues would kill lots of pop and spread to cities that are connected through a trade network, ESPECIALLY through airports. It can spread to other countries too, even yours. "Gas bombardment" is an ability of artillery units and damages every unit in the square (as well as destroying a few pop points if used on a city).

[POTUS]

Go Diseases!!!
The pesky (insert annoying enemy Civ's name here) are no match for the power of my friends, (insert devestating disease here).

[mrmitchell]

Well, ok, the all-alliance deal was a little far-fetched. But (although maybe I'm just not so sure about how crazy people are now a days) even a nation's ALLIES would look down upon an agressive (not defencive) nuclear strike.

How's about:
-Tactical:
Allies are dropped by one level, say, from Gracious to Friendly, but they launch in unison with you if they have any.
Your enemies (especially the guy you nuked) drop to a kind of Perma-Furious state.
"Neutral" Civs (I'm wondering how that would be put in the game) are dropped by one level as well. Perhaps they sign an embargo against you too, horrified at your outrageous arrogance in use of the Bomb.
(Remember, the first three has no effect at all.)
-ICBM:
Allies are dropped by two levels, but they launch in unison anyways.
All of your enemies are dropped to the perma-furious state.
Neutral civs ally with your enemy.

HOWEVER, all of this just applies to a first strike. Return fire of nukes should have a much less destructive effect on your reputation.

In addition, if the round of nuclear warfare you started degenerates into a Nuclear Winter, then drop everyone's views of you by another full level.

I don't think chem or bio warfare should be included, it's just not "major" enough in history. There are a lot of other things that are cut too because they're just not damn important enough to make it in the game...

[joncha]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
This is a pretty good simulation of the fact that no one utterly hates the USA

hmm... not so sure you can easily say that....

Anyway, I like most of the rest of your idea. I don't like the idea of a grace period. Maybe a set of percentages that increases dramatically each time a nuke is used (by anyone) would be better for deciding when the world turns against.

Repsonses should also vary based on each civs current attitude towards you (ie, not everyone declares war, but everyone ends up hating you). And, as mentioned, your allies should back you regardless.

jon.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Well, ok, the all-alliance deal was a little far-fetched. But (although maybe I'm just not so sure about how crazy people are now a days) even a nation's ALLIES would look down upon an agressive (not defencive) nuclear strike.

How's about:
-Tactical:
Allies are dropped by one level, say, from Gracious to Friendly, but they launch in unison with you if they have any.
Your enemies (especially the guy you nuked) drop to a kind of Perma-Furious state.
"Neutral" Civs (I'm wondering how that would be put in the game) are dropped by one level as well. Perhaps they sign an embargo against you too, horrified at your outrageous arrogance in use of the Bomb.
(Remember, the first three has no effect at all.)
-ICBM:
Allies are dropped by two levels, but they launch in unison anyways.
All of your enemies are dropped to the perma-furious state.
Neutral civs ally with your enemy.

HOWEVER, all of this just applies to a first strike. Return fire of nukes should have a much less destructive effect on your reputation.

In addition, if the round of nuclear warfare you started degenerates into a Nuclear Winter, then drop everyone's views of you by another full level.

I think the neutral civs should just randomly pick targets (though based on who they like and don't like). The idea being, if nuclear war is starting, I might as well get in a shot before I'm wiped out.

I don't think chem or bio warfare should be included, it's just not "major" enough in history. There are a lot of other things that are cut too because they're just not damn important enough to make it in the game...

Biowar *could* be important in the near future, and it allows for some assymetrical warfare. And chem weapons were used pretty extensively during WWI IIRC.

[Lambiorix_be]

I like the ideas of mrmitchel. Although I do think that the reaction to the use of a nuke (even tactical) should also depend on the fact if the opposing empire has himself nukes or not.

If you are fighting a 19th century empire the use use of a tactical nuke should be regarded as a barbarous act. Your allies should immediately become 'annoyed'. Trade embargo's should have to be raised against you etc..

Also if your military power has not been decreased considerably the use of a nuke should have a bigger negative impact then when you use them as a last 'resort'

There should also have to be a diplomatic option to threaten your opponent with the use of nuclear weapons. This could avoid the actual use of them...

[Kuciwalker]

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Something like that?

[mrmitchell]

I think the neutral civs should just randomly pick targets (though based on who they like and don't like). The idea being, if nuclear war is starting, I might as well get in a shot before I'm wiped out.

Well, yeah, but if it just happens to be the 4th nuke launched and then no one has any more, then it's not a nuclear war exactly. So the neutrals should at least wait for "x" number launched within "x" amount of turns--and then, nuke whoever they dislike the most.

If you are fighting a 19th century empire the use use of a tactical nuke should be regarded as a barbarous act. Your allies should immediately become 'annoyed'. Trade embargo's should have to be raised against you etc..

Also if your military power has not been decreased considerably the use of a nuke should have a bigger negative impact then when you use them as a last 'resort'

[GePap]

First, add fallout as a different type of pollution_ twice as long to clean up, acts like jungle or floodplain in that it spawns disease. A large amoun of fallout, as opposed t industrial polution cause nucear winter.

I agree nukes should some in sizes-2 levels. The first level are fission bombs, followed by fussion bombs.

We could add MIRV technology, making it harder for any SDI to end the enemy nuclear threat- the way it wuld work is that an ICBM, instea of having one sngle big warhead would be given 3 smaller ones. NOw the SDI as to be sure to shoot down 3 wareads, not just one.

As for damage- for a small level one-5-10 population killed- and has chance to wipe out cities of this size (so a level 4 city is gone if nuked), destroys all larg city improvments (anything you would pay more than 1 gold to upkeep), all military units on the tile get hit by a bombardment value, meaning some might be destoryed, most damaged. 3 tile of fallout created, which spread out randomly around the city or tile attacked. Roads into the city cut, though no damage to irrigation or mines. Cty square ceases production until cleaned up. If it fall on forest or jungle, clears terrain.

For Large nuke- 10-30 population damage- chance to wipe out any city smaller than this (size 10 cities or bellow, gone). All city imporvements destroyed. 12 tiles of fallout created, randomly spread around tile. All military units 50 chane of destruction, all other end with 1 hp. Damage to all units in surrounding tiles. All city improvements in radius of city destroyed. Forests and jungles cleared by this.

NOw, any nuke placed by terrorists will always be level 1.

I agree with adding biological wepaon, as an extension of a system that includes plagues as a possible natural disaster. There is less need for Chemical weapons realy.