Revised Nuclear Warfare for Civ3

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Well...I wrote my column, and 80% of the feedback I got was, "Some of your idea was ok, and good, but most of it sucked and was really quite in accurate". I do admit, I did go a bit too far with some of the points, but I think most it was good, I started this new thread to revise it, and perhaps make it more realistic, and funner.

1. The first point is that my old idea was that the actual blast wall/shield was would spread quite far, heres my new idea:

When the missile hits ground zero (hopefully a city), the blast wall/shield will destroy everything in that city, completely lay it to waste...everything, population, improvements, and wonders. And then the blast shield would completely scorch the squares that immediately surround the city, these tiles would become charred squares/tiles, and would not be usable for the rest of the game, the tile that the targeted city was on would also turn charred, then the rest of the city radius would be turned to a contaminated zone, and also a fallout or radiation zone. Everything within the city radius would be destroyed...including rails, roads, and agriculture, and any resources would also be destroyed. The fallout/radiation zone would also be contaminated, but only for the next 20 turns, but after that, would return back to normal. The fallout or radiation though would remain in those zones for the next 10 turns, and each unit that either passes through it, or stays there during those 10 turns would lose 25% of its current health while it remains in the zone, and would die once its health runs out.

2. Also another point, alot of you guys talk about ICBM's, but I don't think many of you know what they really are. ICBM means, Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. when something says, ballistic, it usually means nuclear, and nuclear means that it uses a nucleus chain reaction to cause the affect that it does. So a Ballistic Missile, means that that missile has a devastating affect on its target. Most ICBM's are launched from a submarine, do to their lack of range, NOT silos. The modern U.S. ICBM's' warheads usually carry 1 megaton of Nuclear explosives, or TNT, and they can travel up to about 5 thousand miles. Most ICBM's carry anywhere from 5 - 8 warheads, each with 1 megaton of explosives. Before the missiles reaches its target, it releases its multiple warheads like a shotgun, which causes the huge blast radius.

There are also 2 other types of nukes, the LRBM's, and SRBM's, the LRBM's are Long Rang Ballistic Missiles, and can travel anywhere from 8 - 15 thousand miles...NOT all the way around the earth. They are the ones that are launched from silos, usually hidden underground ones. They usually carry only 1 warhead, but that warhead generally carries 5 - 10 megatons of explosives.

The SRBM's are probably what you already guessed, Short Range Ballistic Missiles, which are like ICBM's, but not as powerful, and don't travel as far, usually no more then 2,000 miles, and carry from 100,000 - 500,000 tons of explosives.

Anyway, alot of you guys compared my "idea" with the bombing at hiroshima and nagasaki, but you can't, 'cause the modern missiles are ALOT more powerful then those atom bombs that we used on the japanese. The bomb at Hiroshima carried approximately 60,000 tons of TNT, and the one at Nagasaki carried about 52,000 tons. The one at Hiroshima devestated the city within a 5 mile radius, a modern missile could wipe out New York or London, and all of their many suburbs. And in case you didn't know, those two cities are huge.

3. My third point is that you guys also compared my idea with H-Bombs, but actually, Hydrogen bombs are not as powerfull as nuclear missiles...in fact, nukes are about 100 times more powerful.

And now about SDI's, I think they should be a future tech, but that you can have a on/off at the beginning to future techs. If they are implemented, they should be no stronger then 50%, so if a nuke hit a city with one, the damage would be reduced by 25 - 50%. Also, they should cost A TON, and should require a curtain amount of money to maintain them each turn.

Well, I think thats about it. I don't think I have to ask for feedback, I think I am about to get flamed for giving my own entitled oppinion.Since most of you are not used to that, you say us Americans can't do that either.Sorry for that rude coment, just sort of came out.

[korn469]

before i type anything, I just wanna say that Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction rules!!!!

ok about your idea...

first, you left out any mention of MAD in your article, any significant improvement of the nuclear war model in civ3 comes from implementing MAD, without MAD the model will be inherently flawed

even if nukes in civ3 had the exact same destructive power as in civ2, but civ3 had MAD, then the nuke model would be significantly better, all resources firaxis spends on improving the nuke model in civ3 should be spent on implementing MAD first, then after that is done, any additional time or resources should be spent on adding in the other cool extras

as for radioactive squares, and just fallout in general...i personally think that this would be a nice touch, but i don't know how receptive firaxis would be to adding fallout to civ3 because it would add in extra programing, art, and QA time without adding that much to the game...i don't think it is essential to the nuclear war model since civ is so abstract, but if firaxis could add it i would love it...

about blast radius i still think it should only be the square the nuke was targeted to hit and all of the surrounding squares...any more than that and nukes might be too powerful for the game (with ten nukes you could wipe out the world)

as for SDI i personally do not think it should have more than a 50% chance of intercepting a nuke and that an SDI system should have a range of two squares outside of the city, so the enemy can't target a nuke beside of your city and wipe it out without SDI having a chance to intercept it...also SDI should be expensive, but in balance with the cost of a nuke

The bomb at Hiroshima carried approximately 60,000 tons of TNT, and the one at Nagasaki carried about 52,000 tons. The one at Hiroshima devestated the city within a 5 mile radius, a modern missile could wipe out New York or London, and all of their many suburbs. And in case you didn't know, those two cities are huge.

3. My third point is that you guys also compared my idea with H-Bombs, but actually, Hydrogen bombs are not as powerfull as nuclear missiles...in fact, nukes are about 100 times more powerful.

where did you get those facts at?
as far as i know the fission bombs used against japan weighed about a ton each and had a yield of like 20kt (i'm approximating but it was somewhere in the 20-28kt range)

also as far as i know, most strategic nuclear warheads are some sort of fission/fusion hybrid and basically the same thing as an H-Bomb...so when you say nuclear missiles are 100 times more powerful than an h-bomb what exactly are you talking about?

[Adagio]

Re: Revised Nuclear Warfare for Civ3

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
When the missile hits ground zero (hopefully a city), the blast wall/shield will destroy everything in that city, completely lay it to waste...

I think it's a bad idea to completely destroy the city, maybe it's more real, but it will make it a lot easier to win the game when you are the leader of the richest empire in the world (and knowing the enemies don't have any protection against it). Build a few of these missiles and kill half of the enemies cities (or even a few civilizations).

[TechWins]

I think your nuclear model just includes the cool little extras. Not neccesarily the important aspects such as MAD.

Well, I think thats about it. I don't think I have to ask for feedback, I think I am about to get flamed for giving my own entitled oppinion.Since most of you are not used to that, you say us Americans can't do that either.Sorry for that rude coment, just sort of came out.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. I'm American and people seem to listen to my opinions. Maybe you're just one of the few Americans here that nobody cares about because almost all Americans here get listened to.

[korn469]

ADG

I think it's a bad idea to completely destroy the city

actually i had been thinking the same thing this morning because in almost all of threads about nuclear warfare people say they do not want a nuclear war to end the game...

so how about this, implement mad, and have nukes kill either 80% of the city's pop or 90%...if they go with 80% then it should automatically destroy a size 4 city, and if they go with 90% then the nuke should automatically destroy a size 5 city

[Dauphin]

when something says, ballistic, it usually means nuclear

Since when? Something ballistic is if it travels through the air, usually only under the force of gravity after an original impulse. Things like arrows, catapults and firearms are covered in ballistics.

A ballistic missile is merely a missile that is allowed to fall to ground rather than be powered all the way to its target.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by korn469
ADG



actually i had been thinking the same thing this morning because in almost all of threads about nuclear warfare people say they do not want a nuclear war to end the game...

so how about this, implement mad, and have nukes kill either 80% of the city's pop or 90%...if they go with 80% then it should automatically destroy a size 4 city, and if they go with 90% then the nuke should automatically destroy a size 5 city

I like the idea about killing 80-90% of the population (and small cities with 100%), though then it would be great that all other nations, who doesn't use nuclear missiles, will turn against the shooter, this means: Some countries "only" looses their respect for that player (some countries more than others), while some countries even go to war (against the player) because of that!?!

Just a quick idea, haven't thought that much about it, so there can be a few things I didn't think about (Which could hurt the game somehow )...Maybe Firaxis already have implented that, haven't read everything about the game yet

[Ralf]

I like the idea of of point-and-click targeted ICBM:s provided that...

A/ You cannot exploit the limitations of turn-based games, by completely destroy a similar ICBM-equipped empire, before it is his turn to counterstrike. Point-and-click ICBM:s must be connected with the simultaneous attacks MAD-feature - that is: all ICBM attacks only gets executed after the attacked empire also have had a change of launching a similar point-and-click sequence (IF he has ICBM:s, that is) In short: MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction.

B/ the SDI-defence is still there for nuclear-attack immunity. The more nucs you have though, the less effective these SDI-defences becomes. For complete SDI-safety you cannot build & own any nucs at all. I realize that some civers gets pissed off by this weighted trade-off. But, I lend my arguments from the man himself:

"Those who make use of the sword, shall die by the sword" (Jesus Christ).

In other words: You cannot launch huge amounts of ICBM:s, and then except to sit tight & safe behind 100% effective SDI-defenced cities. Its also about game-balance and better game-challenge.

C/ they dont try to "make a game within a game" of this. Keep it simple - just implement the quintessential idea, without too many distractive details.

[korn469]

Ralf

i am in full agreement with point c, just look at my recent posts on nukes, and i think we are saying the exact same thing about MAD, you launch your nukes, and before anything else happens all nukes in the game launches and hit their targets

however i still completely disagree with your idea about SDI,

for one thing SDI is going to be later in the tech tree than nukes, so it will be possible for your civ to be nuked off the map before SDI is even discovered, whereas MAD and diplomatic repercussions exist from day one with nukes

also during the cold war, part of the reason for nukes was for the US to deter the Soviet conventional forces, and i think that nukes in civ3 should be a deterrance from being able to conquer the world with a conventional army...your idea just blows that out of the water

also in every single civ game buildings have had the same effect for every single civ, this would be at odds with that principle...really why should the same investment in SDI leave one civ completely immune from nukes while another civ who also invested in nukes gets punished?

all SDI should work the same, civs should not be rewarded for building a nuclear arsenal...really if japan built a national missle defense shield would it be any more effective than a similar US built system just because the US has nukes?

since nukes wouldn't destroy a large city, thereby meaning that a nuclear war wouldn't end the game i don't see where your argument holds any water...in almost all instances it would probably be impossible for one civ to build enough nukes to destroy every civ on the map...most of the time smaller civs who pose little threat to the larger civs wouldn't even have nukes pointed at them

why is your idea even needed?

your idea unbalances the game, instead of better balancing it...nukes should serve a purpose in civ3

that purpose should be

1. acts as a tool of blackmail, where a civ with nukes can bully civs without nukes
2.acts as a weapon which would rapidly either completely destroy a enemy or render him unable of continuing a war
3. acts as a counterbalance to a civ who has built up a huge conventional army
4. acts as a counterbalance to a civ who has built up a huge nuclear arsenal

though i do think we have pretty much came up with a nuclear model that would work for civ3

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
for one thing SDI is going to be later in the tech tree than nukes, so it will be possible for your civ to be nuked off the map before SDI is even discovered, whereas MAD and diplomatic repercussions exist from day one with nukes.

Yes, but these techs are not that far apart - and I can always try to counteract this by choosing mostly SDI-prerequisite techs within the modern era, so that I get my SDI-defences faster. The prerequisites for SDI:s should (as much as realistically possible) be different from the pre-techs leading to nuclear weapons. The player should be forced to make a road-split priority-choice here, even if the road to Nucs admittedly is shorter. Also, one can always build some just-in-case nucs early on, and then get rid of them then most cities gets SDI-defences. 100% effective SDI-improvement only works however, if you never used any nucs, and also scrapped the ones you currently own.

also during the cold war, part of the reason for nukes was for the US to deter the Soviet conventional forces, and i think that nukes in civ3 should be a deterrance from being able to conquer the world with a conventional army...your idea just blows that out of the water

Real life is real life and civ-game is civ-game. In a Civ-games most warlike civers make it their specific goal to "have fun with their nucs" or "conquer the world, the easy way". And I dont think any severe "diplomatic repercussions" gonna stop them. Looking at those mushroom-clouds becomes a goal in itself - but without any real life unpleasant repercussions.
The latter is the reason why its so irrelevant to make real world deterrence-comparisons. Civ-3 is, after all - only a game, with locked-within-the-computer gameplay repercussions.

I also get the feeling that you trying to cram a cold-war scenario into the main game, and I thinks thats fundamentally wrong. The main game should only borrow "properties" or "props" from history and modern times. You want to recreate the USA vs Soviet cold-war as realistic as possible, in Civ-3 - fine; but do so in a tailor-cut cold-war scenario instead, there you can block-out SDI:s altogether, setup everything exactly as you want it, and also add powerful events with script-language.

and i think that nukes in civ3 should be a deterrence from being able to conquer the world with a conventional army...your idea just blows that out of the water

1. acts as a tool of blackmail, where a civ with nukes can bully civs without nukes
2.acts as a weapon which would rapidly either completely destroy a enemy or render him unable of continuing a war
3. acts as a counterbalance to a civ who has built up a huge conventional army
4. acts as a counterbalance to a civ who has built up a huge nuclear arsenal.

The problem with above arguments, is that those civers who strive to build huge conventional conquest-armies, almost always are the exact same ones who also strive after huge ICBM-arsenals, as well. And the other way around: Those civers who instincively dislike the idea of being forced to build ICBM:s as the only "safe peacekeeper", is likely to at least down-prioritize them - just to find themselves being attacked regardless; simply because the more warlike AI/MP-civs also have nucs - and often more of them. So much for "counter-balancing" different playing-styles.

Now, one can argue that a huge warlike empire can deliberately concentrate fully on building a huge world-conquest armies, while ignoring nucs - but remember: Just "ignoring nucs" in itself doesnt protect you from anything. And in order to build these SDI-defences, you must have access to that late-game SDI-tech, and the time & resources to build all these city-improvements.
Also, enormous conventional conquest-preperations is no longer possible to achieve in the same easy way as it was in Civ-2. Combat-units now costs money and needs special recources. Both things that can be thwarted more easily in Civ-3, with help of foreign Civ-embargos.

Anyway, REAL counter-balancing comes from understanding that Civ-gamers have very different needs - they want to play the game very differently. Not all wants to be force-feed with the idea of MAD-setups, as "the only safe peace-keeper" (let me remind you, Korn469, that history isnt over yet - perhaps MAD doesnt help against a future WW-3. after all).

Therefore its very important that Firaxis also adds a similar SDI-defence escape-alternative in Civ-3, as well (and if I remember it correctly, I think I have seen the SDI-tech confirmed somewhere).
Also, maybe there are other "heavenly factors" (no - im not religious in the traditional sense - I just think we should take this into account) that decides who gets nuked, and who gets saved - other the presence of huge pile-ups of ICBM:s. The 100% effective SDI-defence symbolizes the alternative "sheep" escape-route for more peace-loving players.

You may not realize this, but what Im trying to do is to "soften up" the otherwise over-powerful Civ-2 style 100% effective SDI-defences. In Civ-3 these SDI:s should become much less effective if you also build and/or use Nucs, and only 100% effective if you DONT own and/or use any nuclear weapons at all. In return - once their backs is covered from nuce-attacks - the more peaceful players, uninterested in world-conquests, can concentrate fully on building mostly defencive units and defence-related city-improvements. A counter-balancing improvement, compared with SDI:s in Civ-2.

also in every single civ game buildings have had the same effect for every single civ, this would be at odds with that principle...

So what? The SDI-defence is an exception. Why should this be a problem?

[quote] really why should the same investment in SDI leave one civ completely immune from nukes while another civ who also invested in nukes gets punished?/quote]

all SDI should work the same, civs should not be rewarded for building a nuclear arsenal...really if japan built a national missle defense shield would it be any more effective than a similar US built system just because the US has nukes?

Dont always look at things so materialistically and close-to-the-ground. As I hinted previously, there are maybe other divine factors; for example reinkarnation- and karma-related factors (= "those who make use of the sword...") that decides that "the sheeps" have a change of getting almost 100% nuclear-protected, while "the goats" are more likely to get slaughted - even if they believe that they are equally (or even better) protected. As I said previously: almost 100% effective (but only under certain conditions) SDI-defences symbolizes that alternative peace-loving nuclear attack immune-alternative.

since nukes wouldn't destroy a large city, thereby meaning that a nuclear war wouldn't end the game i don't see where your argument holds any water...in almost all instances it would probably be impossible for one civ to build enough nukes to destroy every civ on the map...most of the time smaller civs who pose little threat to the larger civs wouldn't even have nukes pointed at them

The point is that Nucs obliterates all kind of unit-defences, for easy (too easy) key-city overtakings.

Now, it just so happens that Firaxis have announced that they gonna implement some kind of anti-BAB (bigger-always-better) measures - meaning that cities belonging to small (but otherwise advanced and well-managed) mini-empires (perhaps around 6-12 cities) in return gets some benefits that similar cities belonging to much bigger empires dont get. I dont know if these counter-acting BAB-benefits are city growth-related or economy-related, or what. One of these counter-acting BAB-benefits should be that these cities can in return be almost 100% protected against nuclear attacks (provided that they dont stockpile and/or use any nucs).

why is your idea even needed?

Because, not all civers want to play the game like you do. Not all wants to achieve nuclear-attack safety, in the exact same way you want. The idea of MAD as "the only safe peace-alternative" is a rather controversial one, and I dont want that viewpoint being shoved down my throat, if I can help it. Now, then it comes too MAD, Im a reasonable man. Even though Im not personally interested in using this feature, I nevertheless thinks its a good idea, for game-balance reasons. I just dont want it as the ONLY nuclear peace-alternative.

your idea unbalances the game, instead of better balancing it...

Its really the other way around.

By not allowing any "safe from nuclear-attacks" alternatives, besides the MAD one, you actually enforce a certain way of dealing with nuclear-attack safety - a way that benefits mostly those players that choose to invest both in huge conquest-armies and in huge ICBM/nuce-arsenals.

nukes should serve a purpose in civ3.

Yes, and they still do with my SDI-tweak implemented.

First of all, the SDI-tech lay further away in the tech-tree then the nuclear weapon-tech. Secondly; most civs have at least some ICBM:s so their cities is never 100% protected. And, even though some empires have cities with 100% SDI-defences, maybe other havent (you can easily check this out thanks to the ICBM-style point-and-click attacks). Finally, even if some empires are immune against city-tile-attacks, you can STILL always attack units and key RR:s and colonies, in order to quickly hamper their industrial production.

[korn469]

Ralf

i hate any thoughts of SDI being 100% effective, especially when one civ gets 100% effective SDI and other civ gets 50% effective SDI even when everything else is the same except civ A doesn't have nukes and civ B does

Anyway, REAL counter-balancing comes from understanding that Civ-gamers have very different needs

for all of the people playing civcity out there it comes down to this...you can adopt any playing style you like against the AI, because the AI on a good day makes the game competitive for a good player, and on a bad day it makes it way way too easy, even on the ardest settings...the one city challenge is a syptom of this...if the AI was better there would never be a successful OOC...look at all of the different challenges that civ2 and SMAC have, all of these are possible because of lousy AI

but when it comes to multiplayer you are going to have to adopt the best play style if you wanna be successful, and more than likely that play style is going to be agressive

so your idea for SDI would be like saying that as long as a civ hasn't built any military unit its cities be couldn't conquered, because there are players out there who just wanna be peaceful builders...that is the exact spirit of your idea

players should realize "hey eventually i am going to need to build an army to protect all i have built" if they don't realize this then they deserve to get conquered, plus it adds to the satisfaction of building an empire when you protect it from agressors

now i am all for making it harder to conquer the world, and making war have real consequences, which is the real problem here, but you wanna ignore that problem and make unrealistic play balance choices

I also get the feeling that you trying to cram a cold-war scenario into the main game, and I thinks thats fundamentally wrong.

i am doing nothing of the sort...nuclear weapons are one of the most important discoveries of the modern era, and they are the most significant weapons man have ever discovered...the main aspect about nuclear weapons is that they are fundamentally different from conventional arms

a nuclear war is unlike any kind of conventional war...in a matter of minutes a huge chunk of the entire planet could be a radioactive wasteland...in less than an hour entire nations on seperate continants could cease to exist, conventional war can never have that impact

so this means that nuclear weapons in civ should act differently from conventional weapons...also civ should try to simulate that a full scale nuclear war between two side would not have a positive outcome...that has little to do with creating a cold war scenario, i think that MAD is like playing chicken...the only way to win is to eventually back down, otherwise you are going to get hurt really badly

MAD is needed to balance nuclear weapons and make either side unlikely to use them...it's not some sinister scheme to turn civ3 into a cold war simulator...and plus the end game of civ is hardly ever a nailbiter, adding in more powerful nukes with MAD would certainly spice up civ3

Those civers who instincively dislike the idea of being forced to build ICBM:s as the only "safe peacekeeper", is likely to at least down-prioritize them - just to find themselves being attacked regardless

well for peaceful civs i think that diplomacy should be the best way to deter a warlike civ from building nukes...someone has to build the manhattan project and it should definantly require the special resource uranium, so a peaceful civ could maybe arrange an embargo to prevent that civ from completing the manhatten project

secondly in SMAC when a civ used nukes on other civs the rest of the AI automatically declared war on that civ, and the civ that got nuked would never make peace with that civ again...so using nukes ensured a fight to the death with your enemy and with the rest of the other civs too

so what i'm proposing is that in civ3 if you launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against a peaceful civ without nukes the other civs should reguard you as a threat to all mankind and should unite against you...that is why it was so easy to form the original coallition against iraq...basically most of the world considered saddam a threat to stability because he was trying to build nukes and corner the world's oil supply

anytime you launch a nuclear attack against a civ with nukes or a longtime enemy your at war with all of the civs not at war with the civ you nuked should downgrade their relations on you and possibly even declare war

this could be a very large deterant in civ3, because usally one civ (unless it's controlled by a human) won't be able to take on the rest of the world, and from what we have been told civ3 will have actual war penalties, loss of culture just being one of those

also Ralf you have forgotten than MAD protects the innocent civs as well as the guilty

for a civ to nuke another it means that every single nuke on the map gets launched, so even if you don't have nukes as a peaceful civ if another civ has nukes that are pointed at the one attacking you they will still be deterred by MAD and wouldn't risk nuking you

the only time this doen't work is when there is a nuclear bully...the first civ to get nukes will have an advantage, and there should be an option in the diplomacy menu to threaten to obliterate a civ with your nukes if they don't comply to your wishes...however you will know who is building the manhatten project and you will have time to form an alliance against this civ for the good of humanity...and if they do manage to build it, unless you a threat to them they probably wouldn't risk turning the entire world against them by nuking you...but building a nuke or two couldn't hurt

let me remind you, Korn469, that history isnt over yet - perhaps MAD doesnt help against a future WW-3. after all

well if we actually do have a full scale nuclear war then history probably will be over...almost all wars are about security, so why in the world would you go to war if you know you will be destroyed?

and remember nuclear weapons allows smaller states to deter larger ones...the gulf war would have never happed if iraq had of had a couple of soviet built ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads...the US would have wrote off quwait as not being worth the risk to US security...the same exact thing can happen in civ if nukes are made a little more effective, and this would be a good thing, plus it's realistic...widespread nuclear proliferation pretty much ends the era of gunboat diplomacy by superpowers

The point is that Nucs obliterates all kind of unit-defences, for easy (too easy) key-city overtakings.

well if implemented correctly, MAD in civ3 would certainly end the nuke and paradrop syndrome that civ2 had...for one thing if nukes killed 80% of a city then there wouldn't be much left to conquer...then add in civ3 nationality system and i'm sure you'll have a city full of people unhappy about being nuked (no more we love days for you pyscho boy)

so with a couple of tweaks the nuclear model could get a major overhaul that would be realistic and that would add to play balance and game excitment...plus i also think that they should make the AI a little trigger shy with nukes just to be on the safe side and not ruin most people's game

that is why i cannot support 100% effective SDI for a civ without nukes (or for any civ for that matter )

[Ralf]

Well, we simply have too different viewpoints on the subject, and I shall not try to convince you. This is my last reply under this topic.

Originally posted by korn469
i hate any thoughts of SDI being 100% effective, especially when one civ gets 100% effective SDI and other civ gets 50% effective SDI even when everything else is the same except civ A doesn't have nukes and civ B does

Firstly: We know for a fact that the Manhattan-wonder and nuclear weapons is already implemented in Civ-3. It is VERY likely that they added SDI-defences as well (perhaps as a minor wonder + city-improvements). The question is only IF and HOW they have changed it this time around.

Secondly: Civ city-improvements have always produces different outputs depending on city-size. A library in a 5-pop city doesnt produce as much lightbulbs as the same type of library does in a forreign 10-pop city. So it really isnt that farfetched that an SDI-defence can "produce" different nuclear defence-value, depending on the possesion & usage of nucs.

...if the AI was better there would never be a successful OOC...look at all of the different challenges that civ2 and SMAC have, all of these are possible because of lousy AI.

Well, I obviously didnt mean that a lousy AI should be the password for allowing different playingstyles, of course. It doesnt have to be one way or the other.

so your idea for SDI would be like saying that as long as a civ hasn't built any military unit its cities be couldn't conquered, because there are players out there who just wanna be peaceful builders...that is the exact spirit of your idea.

players should realize "hey eventually i am going to need to build an army to protect all i have built" if they don't realize this then they deserve to get conquered, plus it adds to the satisfaction of building an empire when you protect it from agressors

Are you deliberately trying to misinterpret what Im saying? Im saying nothing of the kind. Even a small peaceful empires MUST invest in military protection (hence: "the more peaceful players, uninterested in world-conquests, can concentrate fully on building mostly defensive units and defence-related city-improvements").
Civs, regardless if they are peaceful or warlike, are always going to be "military conquerable" in Civ-3. What Im saying is that MAD-setups shoudnt be the only way avoiding get involved in nuclear wars. Im talking about the relationship between Nucs and SDI:s first and foremost, because this is what this topic is all about.

now i am all for making it harder to conquer the world, and making war have real consequences, which is the real problem here, but you wanna ignore that problem and make unrealistic play balance choices

Believing that there are anti nuc-attack protective forces, other then collecting pile-ups of MAD-setup nuclears, is by all means not "unrealistic". And SDI-defences - if tweaked correctly - actually enhance the play-balance. Thats why the Civ-2 team inplemented those in the original game, in the first place.

so this means that nuclear weapons in civ should act differently from conventional weapons...also civ should try to simulate that a full scale nuclear war between two side would not have a positive outcome...

MAD is needed to balance nuclear weapons and make either side unlikely to use them...

someone has to build the manhattan project and it should definantly require the special resource uranium, so a peaceful civ could maybe arrange an embargo to prevent that civ from completing the manhatten project

secondly in SMAC when a civ used nukes on other civs the rest of the AI automatically declared war on that civ, and the civ that got nuked would never make peace with that civ again...so using nukes ensured a fight to the death with your enemy and with the rest of the other civs too

so what i'm proposing is that in civ3 if you launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against a peaceful civ without nukes the other civs should reguard you as a threat to all mankind and should unite against you...

Well, above is all good and well. But why should the idea of MAD-setups be the ONLY deterrence counter-measure? Especially for player who simply doesnt believe in the basic MAD-setup philosophy? Firaxis should, if they implement MAD (which I hope) nevertheless also give players the SDI-defence alternative. One thing doesnt necessarily exclude the other.

also Ralf you have forgotten than MAD protects the innocent civs as well as the guilty

What MAD protect and doesnt protect, we simply dont know - because history isnt over yet.

for a civ to nuke another it means that every single nuke on the map gets launched, so even if you don't have nukes as a peaceful civ if another civ has nukes that are pointed at the one attacking you they will still be deterred by MAD and wouldn't risk nuking you

Well, thats a nice twist. But, I still fail to see why SDI-defences shouldnt be allowed on the game. I want my SDI-defences - it is as simple as that.

well if we actually do have a full scale nuclear war then history probably will be over...almost all wars are about security, so why in the world would you go to war if you know you will be destroyed?

Common sense-reasons have often played minor roles in war-politics. Also, as the outbreak of WW-1 have taught us: Politicians and generals isnt always capable of overviewing the consequences of their initial actions. Theres so much national prestige at stake, that blurres "common sense. Just look at the Cuba-crises. We where VERY close to having a new world-war in our laps. Infact, if you have watched the recent movie with Kevin Costner ("13 days", or something like that), you should realize how weak MAD really can be as a deterrence-factor. All it takes is that the wrong people is set to make the final decision - pushing the button.

Also, dont automatically assume that everything stands and falls with mankind. There can very well be other spiritual and devine forces and laws, that controls what happening on earth, as well. Forces who decides then a erratic (or more stable) person gets power, and then its time to replace him. Everything in order to teach mankind the consequences of their believes and historic & present day actions. You (and I) just dont KNOW, do we?

plus i also think that they should make the AI a little trigger shy with nukes just to be on the safe side and not ruin most people's game

Agree.

[Grumbold]

We have pretty good evidence the MAD "defence" works because there has not been a single nuclear weapon activated except for testing purposes in over 50 years despite numerous wars. On the other hand no anti-missile mechanism has yet been developed which can stop the overwhelming number of missiles, bombs and shells sitting in arsenals around the world.

It seems they are making the tech tree leaner so I would no be entirely surprised if futuristic mechanisms like SDI and clean fusion power have been trimmed out. Were they to include them I'm on the side of them having a fixed effectiveness or actually exist as units so that they are expended on use. i.e. If I nuke Washington five times then four anti-missiles will protect it from everything except the final shot. That gives the feeling of the arms race since if your enemy continues to build nukes you have to build more defences to keep pace.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Grumbold
We have pretty good evidence the MAD "defence" works because there has not been a single nuclear weapon activated except for testing purposes in over 50 years despite numerous wars.

What is 50 years? Next to nothing, seen from a somewhat extended historical time-scale. Also, our world can change very rapidly, in unforseen ways; just look at the sudden Soviet collapse. CIA sure didnt expect that. And there can be other, much bigger events in our near future, that can suddenly plunge mankind into unforeseen pathways.

On the other hand no anti-missile mechanism has yet been developed which can stop the overwhelming number of missiles, bombs and shells sitting in arsenals around the world.

As I explained; the SDI-defences symbolizes for me, something much more secure than those rather unreliable and costly Star-Wars defence-projects.

It seems they are making the tech tree leaner so I would no be entirely surprised if futuristic mechanisms like SDI and clean fusion power have been trimmed out.

Well, I know as much as you do. We just have to wait and see, I guess. Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) makes a nice wonder though, and considering the extended number of wonders in Civ-3, (12 major wonders + no less the 24 minor wonders) I think its rather unlikely that they havent implemented SDI as one of them.

[korn469]

Ralf

i do think that they should add SDI to civ3, but i don't think it should be 100% effective...to me it shouldn't be more than 50% effective and it shouldn't come cheap either

one single building or wonder should not render an entire arsenal obsolete

As I explained; the SDI-defences symbolizes for me, something much more secure than those rather unreliable and costly Star-Wars defence-projects.

What is 50 years? Next to nothing, seen from a somewhat extended historical time-scale.

ok so MAD even though it has a very long track record can easily get written off, but SDI which the US government has spent billions and billions on, and have all but admitted that it would be unable to counteract a large scale nuclear launch and they can't even really conduct a successful test of shooting down a single dummy warhead should be in the game as a 100% successful entity?

MADs 50 year track record might be next to nothing, but SDI is still science fiction for the moment and it's track record is nothing at all! it seems that if i am trying to tack on a cold war scenario that you are trying to add on a fantasy sci fi scenario

A library in a 5-pop city doesnt produce as much lightbulbs as the same type of library does in a forreign 10-pop city

those libraries might produce different outcomes but they still have the same rule, it adds 50% to science if i remember correctly...just because civ A doesn't have stealth bombers shouldn't mean that their libraries add 75% to science while civ b with stealth bombers onlys gets 50%

so SDI should work the same for all

But why should the idea of MAD-setups be the ONLY deterrence counter-measure? Especially for player who simply doesnt believe in the basic MAD-setup philosophy?

the diplomatic repercussions of starting a nuclear war should be enormous and should be enough to prevent almost all nuclear wars...then you add in MAD and nuclear wars should be few and far between...but highly destructive when they occur

that to me is the best play balance

and in civ2 nuclear wars just happened way too often, but they were never even close to being as destructive as the real thing