Favorite Era of Warfare

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by planetfall

Lessons learned:
-- Nukes only hit 9 tiles and don't kill everything unlike RL
-- nuking a city does NOT do anything to ICBM there, it may
hit you next turn
-- dumb ICBM's don't even have a movement of 1 on RR. ?Guess they did not hear of RR nukes.

== PF

planetfall,
You make some good points (heheh, I just read this topic with someone's recent resurrection of it), but I have a few comments to make.

Real nukes don't kill everything. Within a certain radius (and smaller radius than many people realize) yeah, everything is about trashed (what IS the square mile coverage of one "square" in civ?!). But they don't completely obliterate a city, all buildings, all units, etc.

I think it is reasonable to assume the ICBMs "in a city" are really in silos outside the city, but the game doesn't model this directly by having you base them in the countryside. So a strike at a city wouldn't touch the ICBMs.

Rail based nukes are not the same as silo nukes (there are similarities, there are differences). From how the game has it set up, we build silo nukes. Not to mention that RR nukes are limited in certain ways, too.

So all in all I think the game has the effect of nukes pretty reasonable for game purposes, though they are fairly abstract like all the warfare aspects of Civ (I, II and III) and SMAC/X.

More direct on the topic, I'm mainly a builder, and when I fight wars it's mostly in a counter-punch role. (and as a result, I don't play above Monarch level, except when I make a concious decision to go more war mongering which is rare). Therefore, I tend to like medieval warfare through industrial or slightly into modern. And of course, while RR are kind of silly with the unlimited movement, for a counter puncher it's great! Still, I do like Arrian's idea for modifying them in the next Civ.

[Dis]

rail based nukes are tactical nukes. It's important to make this distinction.

ICBM's are very powerful. And while they won't take out a city's entire population. The entire industrial center will be annhilated. The city will have no means of producting anything. I would like to see this modelled in the game. Civ3 ICBM's are too weak imho.

I suppose the easiest way is to wipe the city off the earth as in SMAC. But I hate that.

A realistic way is to detroy every single improvement including wonders, and destroy half the population. And put the city in a state of disorder (can't produce anything) for 10 turns.

Tactical nukes are a different story. They should really only destroy a couple of improvements at most, and 1/4 of the population at most. I'm not sure how they are used in civ3 (I've never actually used a tactical nuke)

[Petrus2]

Hiya Dissident.

Hate to dispute you here, but rail nukes are strategic weapons not tactical. This is based on range and weapon yield. Also from international treaty points of view (START and INF Treaties). A rail-based system could be tactical, if wanted, but tactical systems are mobile by their nature, so not much is gained by making a tactical system rail based. Really, flexibility is LOST because rails don't go everywhere that artillery (aka tactical nukes) can.

However, I do like your idea about civil disorder and no production for a period of time after a strike. Or at least reduced production. Since a factory you build in a city is a representation of many factories built in and near a city, all wouldn't be wiped out in any attack. In the nuke case though, the disruption would likely paralyze most anything in the city for a while even for things not destroyed.

[Shogun Gunner]

I have to say Medieval.

When I play Japan and my evil bands of ninja warriors cut down enemy soldiers by the regiment...that's when I'm most at peace.

It's the ying and the yang, you see.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Petrus2
Hiya Dissident.

Hate to dispute you here, but rail nukes are strategic weapons not tactical. This is based on range and weapon yield. Also from international treaty points of view (START and INF Treaties). A rail-based system could be tactical, if wanted, but tactical systems are mobile by their nature, so not much is gained by making a tactical system rail based. Really, flexibility is LOST because rails don't go everywhere that artillery (aka tactical nukes) can.

However, I do like your idea about civil disorder and no production for a period of time after a strike. Or at least reduced production. Since a factory you build in a city is a representation of many factories built in and near a city, all wouldn't be wiped out in any attack. In the nuke case though, the disruption would likely paralyze most anything in the city for a while even for things not destroyed.

I'll agree there. Especially now days. Factories are increasingly being built outside the city. Because no one likes the pollution in their cities. The "not in my backyard" mentality most americans have now. Same goes with power plants. They are almost never inside the city.

[stonewall]

I tend to like the Ancient to early Midievel warfare the most. It seems that you have tougher choices to make as to what units to create and how/when to use them. As the game progresses, it is too easy to just throw numbers at the enemy.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Dissident


I'll agree there. Especially now days. Factories are increasingly being built outside the city. Because no one likes the pollution in their cities. The "not in my backyard" mentality most americans have now. Same goes with power plants. They are almost never inside the city.

True but with the nukes that are in play now, it would make little difference. A 25 MT nuclear warhead leaves a crater 3 miles wide upon impact with the ground. Nuclear Fallout would be spread for hundreds (if not thousands) of kilometers in all directions. In a radius of 10 KM would be complete destruction, with about 50% destruction at a radius of 25-50 KM.

If a nuke of that size hit my hometown (Columbus, Ohio) there would be a 75-90% population loss (of 1.5 million in the Central Ohio region) and a 90-95% production loss. Nuclear fallout would likely cover the entire state of Ohio with most of Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Even a so called "tactical nuke' of 80 KT would cause 150,000 deaths and vaporize most of the city, raining nuclear fallout up to 10-20 KM.

[MyOlde]

A lot of you keep mentioning horses. I have a lot of trouble seeing their value. I've tried them a few times and keep getting slaughtered. I'd like to know how you're using them, what makes them so valuable to you?

I'm fine with them once I get to knights and cavalry, of course.

[Solomwi]

What units are you attacking with them? Horses have 2 attack, which is good, not great, in the ancient age, but their value is their mobility. Spears have 2 defense, so if you attack them on hills or mountains, across rivers or in cities and walled towns, the odds favor the spear. That doesn't mean overwhelming numbers can't carry the day, but you're going to lose some units. The three main ways to use them are:

1. As part of a Stack of Doom. Stack them with spears, cats and swords (if available) and use the horses to skirmish as the stack moves one tile per turn. You take out stray enemy units without slowing the stack down and when you get to an enemy city, the swords pack more of a punch and the cats can soften up defenders, so the horses are still useful.

2. A horse rush. This is a stack of horsemen moving as fast as possible. You sacrifice defense and some offensive power for speed, hoping to catch the enemy off guard.

3. Pillaging and raping. Here, you use the horse's speed to pillage a tile and move back out of reach, then repeat, over and over. This can seriously wreck the enemy's economy without you ever having to face its forces in its cities.

You should also be building them in barracks towns, so they come out veteran.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Solomwi
You should also be building them in barracks towns, so they come out veteran.

Veeeerrrryyyy important. Of the fastmover attackers, Horsemen face the most difficult comparable slowmover defenders.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Theseus


Veeeerrrryyyy important. Of the fastmover attackers, Horsemen face the most difficult comparable slowmover defenders.

I couldn't agree more, horse (and archers as well) need to be vets to be effective in an offensive. The Horse v. Spear is only slightly better option than Cavalry v. Infantry.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
The Horse v. Spear is only slightly better option than Cavalry v. Infantry.

horse a=2, spear d=2 + .5 (fortified) + 0.2 (grass terrain) = 2.7 : about 4 to 5 odds
cavalry a=6, inf d=10 + 2.5 (fortified) + 1 (grass terrain) + 5 (likely in a city) = 18.5 : about 1 to 3 odds

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


True but with the nukes that are in play now, it would make little difference. A 25 MT nuclear warhead leaves a crater 3 miles wide upon impact with the ground. Nuclear Fallout would be spread for hundreds (if not thousands) of kilometers in all directions. In a radius of 10 KM would be complete destruction, with about 50% destruction at a radius of 25-50 KM.

If a nuke of that size hit my hometown (Columbus, Ohio) there would be a 75-90% population loss (of 1.5 million in the Central Ohio region) and a 90-95% production loss. Nuclear fallout would likely cover the entire state of Ohio with most of Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Even a so called "tactical nuke' of 80 KT would cause 150,000 deaths and vaporize most of the city, raining nuclear fallout up to 10-20 KM.

A few thoughts on this.

First, while nukes aren't kiddie toys, that's an over-estimation of the damage they would cause.

Second, fallout is very much weather pattern dependent, so Indiana and Michigan would probably have little effect since weather in the US tends to move west-to-east.

Third and most important, for a game I don't think we want to have an area of the map totally unusable for 1000 years of game-time! Nukes as modeled in Civ have always been powerful, but not game-enders, for good reason.

Beyond the above, most talk about nuclear warfare, weapons, tactics, effects, etc is highly classified so can't be delved into much here.

To tie it all in to the topic, I think they do make the modern age more interesting than if they didn't exist. As someone else mentioned though, how often do most of us fight much in the modern era? Usually the game is effectively over by that time, which is something of a shame I guess, since the most fun in a conflict is when you are scrambling for the win, not steamrolling the other guy!

[JimiD]

comments on SP only

vote for medieval - can still be close enough that the outcome is not forgone, and requires some thought to do well.

Industrial / Modern is just too dull. Artillery is too (very) powerful IMO, and required to soften up defenders. Since the AI doesnt use it, it always seems a little like cheating. Combined with RR, I just end up moving a SoD around the empire, looking for a narrow cultural border, red lining all the defenders, and moping up.

I would also vote for reduced RR, perhaps even just 9 moves (3x road) if the more complex ideas arent implemented. At present there is no sense of a 'Western Front' vs an 'Eastern Front' idea. I should be managing units, anticipating sending more Inf to one border, Arts to elsewhere. If you send them the wrong way...... - means more strategy.

On nukes, they need to suit the game. I liked the SMAC nukes, and it was a way that desperate AIs could bring me down a peg in the late game. I liked the terraforming effect (you got a great big hole where your lovely big, wonder containing super city used to be), but it suited the game, which allowed such terraforming. Admitadly, it took a little longer to achieve similar results with formers (workers). If they are too much like real life they would be a 'Retire by Mutually Assured Destrution' option, or a race for a decisive tech to achive a (pyrhic) win by conquest. Would suggest an alternative to my bordem with moping up with Arts.....

[Petrus2]

One thought on railroads would be to limit the NUMBER of units you can move unlimited (i.e., you can go as far as you want until your rolling stock is used up). Not sure it's the best option; some other good ones have been presented.