c174# NUCLEAR WARFARE IN CIV3

[korn469]

Remember the scale of the game. If the map is supposed to represent a planet the size of the earth, then even in a huge map each square represents an area about 200 miles across. A single nuke is not going to obliterate an area 200 miles across. Also consider the large variety of nuclear weapons available today. They vary from free fall bombs, to nuclear artillery shells, to short range tactical rockets, to cruise missles. to silo launched ICBMs, to mobile launched long range missles. It would be difficult for this game to accomodate all the varieties of nuclear weapons, so it's just as well that there is only one unit that is relatively mobile.

if you think about it, most likely the one nuclear missle on the map represents a number of nuclear missles in real life, and that instead of one nuke destroying 200 miles it is a full nucler salvo hitting that civ

and i agree we need to keep the nuclear model simple, like with only one type of nuke (two at most, strategic and tactical...which should just be an option like nerve gas pods in SMAC) but i still think that the system can be improved, and that MAD if properly implemented would be an essential improvement to adding some excitment to the late game in civ3

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by korn469



and i agree we need to keep the nuclear model simple, like with only one type of nuke (two at most, strategic and tactical...which should just be an option like nerve gas pods in SMAC) but i still think that the system can be improved, and that MAD if properly implemented would be an essential improvement to adding some excitment to the late game in civ3

OK, I guess I agree. but I still think something should be done about the strategy of nukes and paras. or other stuff similar. there was a report of someone suitcase nuking every enemy city and taking them all on RR with a single mech inf on a single turn!

I suppose the biggest problem with nukes as they are, is they are a conquering tool, not a destroying tool.

some form of MAD would go a long way toward discouraging the way things are. right now, I just get teed off when someone builds Smokey, and I should get a chill. like there goes the game...
Destroying, not conquering. that's what nukes are for.

I had a time when I invaded a city and that city was nuked the next turn. 2 squares got polluted, and the AI never bothered to clean them up!

[jake03]

Originally posted by Father Beast


OK, I guess I agree. but I still think something should be done about the strategy of nukes and paras. or other stuff similar. there was a report of someone suitcase nuking every enemy city and taking them all on RR with a single mech inf on a single turn!

I suppose the biggest problem with nukes as they are, is they are a conquering tool, not a destroying tool.

some form of MAD would go a long way toward discouraging the way things are. right now, I just get teed off when someone builds Smokey, and I should get a chill. like there goes the game...
Destroying, not conquering. that's what nukes are for.

I had a time when I invaded a city and that city was nuked the next turn. 2 squares got polluted, and the AI never bothered to clean them up!

I am with you on this, this is no planned invasion with nukes, just nuke everyone and you win. I think they should be outragously expensive and highly inaccurate and devastating if they our used. for instance you build or by an icmb it uses most a huge number of shields to build and you launch it. It misses the target by 2 squares but completely destroys a 4 square area, and should reduce population for all nearby cities.

[korn469]

jake03

i do not understand your insistance on having inaccurate nukes...i mean i'm sure US peacekeeper missles can hit a target within half a mile of where it was aimed at no matter how far away the target is...

i don't think that it would make gameplay any better for nukes to be highly innaccurate, in fact i think it would make gameplay worse

also i don' think that making nukes "outragously expensive" would improve gameplay either, they should have a cost that is balanced

however i do agree with a nuke being destructive enough to incinerate a city, which coupled with MAD would make nuclear warfare something to be avoided...this could amply the effect of diplomacy and economic dominance on the game, and actually make the civ late game something exciting instead of a forgone conculsion

improving nuclear war in civ3 improves civ3 overall

[jake03]

i do not understand your insistance on having inaccurate nukes...i mean i'm sure US peacekeeper missles can hit a target within half a mile of where it was aimed at no matter how far away the target is...



i don't think that it would make gameplay any better for nukes to be highly innaccurate, in fact i think it would make gameplay worse

also i don' think that making nukes "outragously expensive" would improve gameplay either, they should have a cost that is balanced

__________________________________________________ ____
actually the nukes we have can hit a target the size of a dinner plate but that does not make the game any more fun, if we used the reality of nukes at a reasonable prize then you would simple build defensive units and develope icbm's. Sent over four or five and completely destroy someone else, parchute in and take the left over crators. There is not statigy or fun in that. then it is just a race to see whe can get them first.

Now if they were very expensive then knowone could easily build enough to wipe out someone else. and if there were inaccurrate then you could not count spicifically on them as your only strike force.

[Father Beast]

About MAD

I was just thinking about this subject....

for MAD to be an actuality, you have to be able to launch your nukes at the same time as the enemy. Otherwise an enemy civ could just launch against all of your cities with nukes (or silos) and there you would be without any retaliation.

I'm thinking something along the lines of whenever you build a nuke, you are allowed to target it (or not, for whatever reason. there will probably be strategies built up on why not to), so that if an enemy nuke hits your territory, all your nukes targeted toward the enemy civ are launched and you both sit in smoking ruins. probably with a quick popup on their turn asking if you wish to launch as well, but only a yes/no response. if you haven't targeted your nukes beforehand, or they're all targeted at someone else, you're screwed.

This targeting business could come in handy if you WANT to start a nuclear war (that's you, smokey). you could spend some time targeting your nukes, then hit the red button and they all fly at once. so do the enemies, if they have any pointed at you.

but without some sort of simultaneuos launch, MAD can be got around by an enterprising player targeting nuke locations.

[BorderPatrol]

Nukes

The silo restriction idea would be good in general, but the russians should get a special unit of mobil launchers since that is how it is in real life.

Anyway there is a ton of information I posted in another forum on this. Here are a couple of links.


http://forums.civfanatics.com/Forum7/HTML/000313.html

http://forums.civfanatics.com/Forum7/HTML/000450.html

[BlackFriar]

Re: About MAD

And nuclear missiles will be like what seen in civ2 but more powerfull farther distance lower accuracy... 50% chance

No offense but this has to be the worst and most historically inaccuarte idea i've heard. it's just... well... wrong.

Some info for you to ponder:

Accuracy is measured in a unit called Circular Error Probable, or CEP. CEP is the diameter size centering on the target within which there will be a 50% chance of hitting the target.

In 1959, the first ICBM went into service with the US, the Atlas and had a CEP of 3,300 meters...

In 1970, the US MinemanIII got this down to 400 meters.

In 1989, The Trident D5 (on the submarines)got the CEP down to 100 meters.

In 1986 the MX peackeeper got this down beyond 100 meters.

It doesn't take a brainsurgeon to realise that even the Atlas from 1959 could always destroy a city, considering the sheer power of the nuclear blast.

Infact, the MX and D5 are so accurate they can hit specific Nuclear Silo's.. the reason the CEP level was pushed so low in the first place.

Actually, the German A4 (V2) of the 1940's had a CEP of 3-6 Kilometers....

They just don't miss... period

[BlackFriar]

Re: About MAD

Father Beast,

Your idea is by far the best one I've seen so far. MAD is so dependant apon the quick discovery and reaction of incoming ICBM's. The DEW line in Alaska and later the BMEWS were build for this very purpose to give people in washington time to react when the flight time of an ICBM from Russia is ~25min and from a submarine is <10min.

Having to wait and hold back your only retaliatory responce untill the next turn (in which time tanks and infanty have moved (must have hauled some serious ass) kills the idea.

Or perhaps you could build an impovment/tile thing thats a early warning radar station or a wonder (BMEWS or the KH-12/Lacrosse sailite system) which coveres your whole nation. If an ICBM flies threw it (and is thus detected) you get the following... When the missles are detected, during the opponensts turn, you get an emergency meeting with your Advisors and can descide the fate of your nation, just as the real world president would before the blasts hit.
And of course there would have to be a 'Red button' :-)

Vince

PS. I think the idea of (targeting/firing to) move the ICBM is way better than having it veer course in mid-flight (yeah, right) and use it's range to unblock the black section. It should be a 1-time, 1-course, weapon... IMHO of course :-)

[korn469]

Father Beast

i don't know if i have been hard hard to understand but the crux of MAD is that when one nuke launches every single nuke hits at the same time immeadiately, if that is how you feel then we agree 100%

so basically a player hit the red button and then the very next thing that happens is that every single nuke hits at the exact same time...this has always been my position on MAD in civ3

so if all players have nukes, and player 3 launches his nukes, then every single nuke in the game (that is targeted) would hit immeadiately on player 3's turn, before player 3 could do anything else, this includes both players 1 and 2 who have already had their turns, and player 4 through the last player who have yet to have their turn

that is how i think MAD should work,

so if you have MAD with nukes that completely destroyed a city then players would think twice about using nukes, especially if firaxis tones down the power of infiltrating datalinks in civ3, so you wouldn't actually know if the enemy was building nukes, or how many were pointed at you, or exactly where they were pointed, and i think this represents the realities of nuclear war better than civ2's system did

even a large 25 city human civ would think twice before using nuclear weapons against a small 5 city civ if it had five nukes, because the human player, eventhough the hp would completely obliterate the cp in the nuclear exchange, the hp would lose five of his best cities and maybe a number of wonders...overall weaking his position in the game, and possibly making it much harder to win the game...also players would built supercities would really have to think twice before they put every single wonder in a single city

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by korn469
Father Beast

i don't know if i have been hard hard to understand but the crux of MAD is that when one nuke launches every single nuke hits at the same time immeadiately, if that is how you feel then we agree 100%

so basically a player hit the red button and then the very next thing that happens is that every single nuke hits at the exact same time...this has always been my position on MAD in civ3

so if all players have nukes, and player 3 launches his nukes, then every single nuke in the game (that is targeted) would hit immeadiately on player 3's turn, before player 3 could do anything else, this includes both players 1 and 2 who have already had their turns, and player 4 through the last player who have yet to have their turn

that is how i think MAD should work,

so if you have MAD with nukes that completely destroyed a city then players would think twice about using nukes, especially if firaxis tones down the power of infiltrating datalinks in civ3, so you wouldn't actually know if the enemy was building nukes, or how many were pointed at you, or exactly where they were pointed, and i think this represents the realities of nuclear war better than civ2's system did

even a large 25 city human civ would think twice before using nuclear weapons against a small 5 city civ if it had five nukes, because the human player, eventhough the hp would completely obliterate the cp in the nuclear exchange, the hp would lose five of his best cities and maybe a number of wonders...overall weaking his position in the game, and possibly making it much harder to win the game...also players would built supercities would really have to think twice before they put every single wonder in a single city

In full agreement Korn

[akula]

Nuclear war should def not be as frequently used as in civII. I liked the model in smac!

[The Mad Viking]

I agree Korn.

Just look at nuclear history.

Strategic nukes, which is what we are talking about were only used in one situation. Two small primitive nukes were used. Each utterly obliterated their target city, and killed essentially every inhabitant.

Since then, there was a period of about 15 years where the US as the only nuclear power could essentially push there enemies around. They were forestalled to some degree by the concern that the Soviets vast ground armies could overrun Europe in a few hours, leaving the US with the choice of nuking allied but occupied land. The US also had no need to nuke. Not surprisingly, their fear turned to takeover by stealth from within.

Once the Soviets became a viable nuclear power, it was clear that both sides understood MAD.

I see no reason why nuclear war in CIV should not work the same way.

[ancient]

actually it was more like 7, and umm hasnt this been on the top long enough?

[JellyDonut]

You should have to aim your nukes at likely targets and it should take a turn to re-aim them.