More realistic WMD in Civ4 needed

[Kuciwalker]

The thing about this is the chemical weapons is that it creates three distinct classes of WMD for use by different types of countries. Small, militarily weak countries would use bioweapons and assymetrical warfare, because they wouldn't have the forces to exploit a chemical attack and the bioweapon wouldn't necessarily give away the attacker (and nuclear missiles are far out of their reach). Chemical weapons would give medium-sized states the advantage they need when fighting conventional war (and because they are less important, the diplomatic repercussions are less significant). A large state a) wouldn't need chemical weapons and b) would have larger diplomatic repercussions from their use (though like nukes there is a grace period of 10 or 20 turns during which they can be used without repercussions). Example: Iran-Iraq war. Nuclear weapons would need a large infrastructure to support building them (make them cost a lot of shields) and would be the most powerful weapon in the game, making them suited to large states. However, the diplomatic repercussions are severe (as we've described), so what should often result in-game is an "arms race" rather than outright nuclear war.

Because of these three different types, I don't think "plant nuclear bomb" should be an espionage option.

[DarkCloud]

Hmm... we had some discussion on this subject in this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104259&pagenumber=2

Just for future referencers and list organizers

[wrylachlan]

I think there should be a special screen for nuclear wars. If you launch a nuke, all the nations get together on the red phones and try to avert disaster. You can make deals with other nations "I'll call it off if you give me...", and third party nations can sit down and go "Are you gonna get me involved?".

But when it finaly happens it should be simultaneous. Instead of individual unit movement, nukes just target a city, and when everyone has targeted theirs they all go at once. That prevents 3rd parties from being pulled into nuclear conflagrations they're not really a part of.

[DarkCloud]

I think there should be a special screen for nuclear wars. If you launch a nuke, all the nations get together on the red phones and try to avert disaster. You can make deals with other nations "I'll call it off if you give me...", and third party nations can sit down and go "Are you gonna get me involved?".

Very good idea- but maybe it should only be possible when there is such thing as a United Nations... that way the nations would be more coordinated.

if there was no UN, then the nations responsible and the bordering ones and the hostile ones should probably do as you suggest, but the neutral ones (unless they were eco-friendly) shouldn't really care or want to get involved/dragged into a possible nuclear holocaust

--

But when it finaly happens it should be simultaneous. Instead of individual unit movement, nukes just target a city, and when everyone has targeted theirs they all go at once.

I don't really think that this is a good idea for civ. Nukes have to travel different distances- and if the game stops for nukes- why not have it stop for other things, like chemical warheads- or any air unit- if you're basing this game stoppage on speed?

I would argue that unless the nuclear missiles are abstracted, and instead of being conventional units, they are represented instead as 'points' inside silos somewhere within your empire, that they nuclear missiles should be subject to the 'first mover advantage'

however, if they ARE abstracted and they aren't really 'units per se' then I would posit that although the city they are held within might be destoryed in 1/2 of a turn, that the player can still launch the nukes in his half of the turn- even though all the units inside of his city will be dead- the nukes will remain for one turn, until they expire (IE they would not have been fired during that turn)

actually, now that I think of it- I like this idea- making nukes and chems and biowarheads as a sort of 'interim unit' that can be launched but cannot be 'flown' like they were in civ II... but also can be transported by some sort of unit between cities...

[mrmitchell]

A large amoun of fallout, as opposed t industrial polution cause nucear winter.

That's why I tied in the requirement of "x" nukes launched as well. But that would be a good replacement for fallout--EXCEPT that it's just a "rush a lot of workers and clean it and go" thing. It minimizes the impact of nuclear holocaust.

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

"Fission" and "Fusion" (or better yet Atomic and Hydrogen) are better names. I was just using the names for nukes that are already in Civ3.

[POTUS]

For the hotline type of thing, once you research some tech, i.e. International Communications, you can upgrade your embassies to add hotlines which decrease the chance of war, and surprise attacks, i.e. they will demand something from you first, instead of just attacking you.

And, biological weapons have been very important. In the middle ages, seiges were often decided by who got the plague first, the attackers or the defenders.

[Paddy]

I too would like to see nukes beefed up some what, and there to be substantal fallout when they go off.

In this day and age, I believe that we should have nukes that our spies can deliver too.

Bring on the Hotline idea.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I don't really think that this is a good idea for civ. Nukes have to travel different distances- and if the game stops for nukes- why not have it stop for other things, like chemical warheads- or any air unit- if you're basing this game stoppage on speed?

I would argue that unless the nuclear missiles are abstracted, and instead of being conventional units, they are represented instead as 'points' inside silos somewhere within your empire, that they nuclear missiles should be subject to the 'first mover advantage'

however, if they ARE abstracted and they aren't really 'units per se' then I would posit that although the city they are held within might be destoryed in 1/2 of a turn, that the player can still launch the nukes in his half of the turn- even though all the units inside of his city will be dead- the nukes will remain for one turn, until they expire (IE they would not have been fired during that turn)

actually, now that I think of it- I like this idea- making nukes and chems and biowarheads as a sort of 'interim unit' that can be launched but cannot be 'flown' like they were in civ II... but also can be transported by some sort of unit between cities...

The reason I think they should be simultaneous is the 3rd party issue, and time realism. If I launch an ICBM, it's detected within a few minutes and my enemy makes the decision to retaliate or not. I call my allies and they launch (or don't), and all of this happens within (at most) the couple of hours it takes the original ICBM to make its journey.

In civ terms, since each turn is a year, this should happen instantaneously. If you go with the 1/2 turn idea, you run into the problem of turn order. If the agressor comes after his target in turn order, a year passes before the retaliation. If there is a third party that is waiting to see the nature of the retaliation before deciding whether to engage, and is even earlier in the turn order, then it takes 2 years for that country to enter the fray. If you have 4th or 5th parties waiting to see how many countries will launch to decide what to do, you can have the last nuclear launch 4 or 5 years after the first.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with this, is that you get to gauge the damage before committing which is really problematic.

I agree that making a special screen for ICBM nuclear war does beg the question - what about bombs dropped from planes, tac nukes, chemical, biological, etc. but I think that the mechanics of an ICBM exchange are unique enough to warrant their own special handling.

[joncha]

Maybe you could have a "fail-safe" option that works kind of like mutual defence pacts in civ3. If you enable it (maybe on the military advisor's screen... available with ICBMs) you automatically launch all of your nukes against whoever nukes you. If you don't enable it, you need to manually launch all your nukes (all that survive, anyway) when your turn comes up. Any civs that you have a mutual defence pact with (and fail-safe) will also fire-off all of their nukes.

I think this makes for a much less complicated way of dealing with mutual assured destruction, etc. while still keeping to the turn-based format. As an added plus, if you don't like it, don't enable it.

jon.

[GePap]

I don't agree with a "nuclear war" page or screeb, for it makes it seem nuclear war is an integral part of civ- and it aint. At most, it could show up in the military advisor screen.

There should be no set diplomatic consequences for the use of nukes besides changes in prestige and reputation. For example, the use of nukes vs non-nuclear enemies would carry huge hits of prestige and reputation. First use of a nuke in a war would carry a smaller but still significant hit. Still, there should not be set consequences diplomatcaly- that is as unrealitic a move as possible.

[Kuciwalker]

I think that as soon as a nuke is launched, the game should go into a special "nuke-phase" - not a special screen, but something similar to placing the initial armies in Risk. Each player gets to launch 1 nuke at time, taking "turns" (though this all occurs during the turn the first nuke was launched). Once every nuclear missile has been launched or spacebar-ed, the nuke-phase ends. This keeps the person to launch first from getting a HUGE advantage while still giving them a small one.

There should be no set diplomatic consequences for the use of nukes besides changes in prestige and reputation. For example, the use of nukes vs non-nuclear enemies would carry huge hits of prestige and reputation. First use of a nuke in a war would carry a smaller but still significant hit. Still, there should not be set consequences diplomatcaly- that is as unrealitic a move as possible.

I agree. What I was talking about was the behavior of the AI in response to a nuclear launch - a response that would be pretty realistic and add to the MAD feeling.

[mrmitchell]

Player A nukes Player B on Turn 1. Player B doesn't get nuked, but recieves a warning that thousands of ICBMs are screaming their way toward his capital. Then Player B has the option to return nuke fire. Then on Turn 2, the nukes reach Player B, and annihlate his civilization.

This balances the first-strike advantage...no longer can you just nuke first, hit all their nuclear cities, and get no return fire.

(In effect, nukes simply take 2 turns in transit across the world. Since a turn is a full year, it might seem unrealistic, but it's the easiest way to balance the situation.)

[Fosse]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Player A nukes Player B on Turn 1. Player B doesn't get nuked, but recieves a warning that thousands of ICBMs are screaming their way toward his capital. Then Player B has the option to return nuke fire. Then on Turn 2, the nukes reach Player B, and annihlate his civilization.

This balances the first-strike advantage...no longer can you just nuke first, hit all their nuclear cities, and get no return fire.

(In effect, nukes simply take 2 turns in transit across the world. Since a turn is a full year, it might seem unrealistic, but it's the easiest way to balance the situation.)

This is the most elegant and brilliant suggestion for this yet!
You include MAD, don't add anything that isn't needed or cumbersome (extra screens, etc... which I was in favor of until a few seconds ago), and actually create a more exciting nuclear exchange.

Way to go, mrmitchell!

[Kuciwalker]

that's way better than my idea

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Player A nukes Player B on Turn 1. Player B doesn't get nuked, but recieves a warning that thousands of ICBMs are screaming their way toward his capital. Then Player B has the option to return nuke fire. Then on Turn 2, the nukes reach Player B, and annihlate his civilization.

This balances the first-strike advantage...no longer can you just nuke first, hit all their nuclear cities, and get no return fire.

(In effect, nukes simply take 2 turns in transit across the world. Since a turn is a full year, it might seem unrealistic, but it's the easiest way to balance the situation.)

This has 2 problems:
1) It still doesn't solve the third party problem.
Turn 1 - Civ A launches at Civ B
Turn 2 - Civ B launches at Civ A
Turn 3 - Civ A's nukes hit. Civ B's are in the air, but Civ C, which was waiting to see the nature of the retaliation, only now launches.
Turn 4 - CivD which was waiting to see what Civ C would do...

Because the civ's decision making on whether to launch or not is dependant on the actions of other civs the time from the start of the nuclear war to the end of the nuclear war could be a lot of turns.

2)Other Unit's movement.
If it takes 2 turns for a nuke to arrive, you can have all of your units safely away from the blast zone before they hit.

I would much rather have some sort of simultaneous launch mechanism. I think the easiest thing would be to stop time when the first launch is declared. Then each civ picks its targets in some sort of order.
Round 1 - China targets Washington.
2 - US targets Beijing
3 - India passes
4 - Russia passes
5 - France passes
6 - China targets San Fransisco
7 - US Targets Shanghai
8 - India is pissed that US is targeting something near its border so India targets Los Angeles.
9 - Russia was content to leave it US vs. China, but since India is in the fray, Russia targets Bangalore.
etc. etc.

Once everyone has gone through their arsenal, you go to the trade screen, and can trade targets. "I'll deactivate the 3 nukes coming towards Beijing if you'll deactivate the 2 headed for Washington and give me 300 gold and spices...

Once everyone agrees that they have no trades left to make, any targets remaining outstanding are hit simultaneously, and we continue with normal turns.

To prevent the use of nukes to leverage deals, there should be a loss of reputation for initiating a nuclear conflict, even if no actual launches happen.

I don't really care if the mechanism for launching is done in it's own screen or on the world map, though I do think that nuclear war is important enought to warrant some special attention. And I disagree that having a special screen for it would imply that the game is "about nuclear war". I think it's just an admition that if you choose to engage in a nuclear war, you're doing something very different than any other action in the game.