Governments ...and....Nuclear Strikes ??

[Mister Pleasant]

Damn, Monkspider! You hiot the nail on the head there! CTP governments did almost entirely lack personality. I actually miss the difficulties waging war under democracy in Civ. Some of the CTP governments would import well into Civ though. Theocracy certainly would. So would Technocracy and Corporate Republic. No doubt I will have to do some modding if possible. And I hope its possible . . .

[Christantine The Great]

nuclear missiles wouldn't ever be able to hit an army then, because you could move your troops to safety...also you could sell buildings before it hit your city...it just wouldn't be fair

Read your own quotes. Firaxis said that there would be two types of missiles, ICBM (For citywide devastation) and tactical (Just like old CivII nukes). Remember that cities are actually worth something. All you might get away with is 200 gold and one or two mech. infantry while you lose tons of improvements and the city is bombed back into the stone age. You would have to use your gold to rebuild because waiting for a city that normally has 5 shields to build a factory is insane. I'm sure that the population loss would be much greater. Of course you might not get a message saying exactly what city the nuke is aimed for. For instance say you are the Americans and the British launch a ICBM at you. You might get a message like this:

British ICBM launched from London! Possible targets:
Washington DC (American)
New York (American)
Iroquois City (Iroquois)

Actually the ICBM is aimed at New York but you evacuate both of those cities and the Iroquois do the same. English paratroopers can now capture Washington DC and Iroquois City with ease, possibly destroing your country with the loss of your capital.

[korn469]

Christantine The Great

ICBMs taking two turns to hit is still a bad idea. With the ability to create a map this is six times larger than the one in civ2 then your civ might be well out of range of either a tactical nuclear missile or paratroopers...for all we know an ICBM could utterly destroy a city, in which case my argument would even be more relevant (unless in two turns you were going to get nuked off the map...you might have enough time to found a new city though and prevent your destruction

but if ICBMs don't destroy a city and I move all of my troops out of the citys that are going to get nuked except for one, in which i leave a token force...then i can retake my cities on my turn

turn one

*you launch your nukes
*i move my troops out, sell my most expensive structures that will get destroyed anyways, and launch my nukes

turn two

*your nukes hit and you paradrop into a large number of my cities, then you move your troops out of the way of my nukes
*my armies destroy your paratroops and retake my cities, my nukes hit

in civ3 you won't lose your troops when a city gets taken because your troops are supported by the civ and not the city
so unless you capture all of my cities i can save my military force from your nukes and recapture my cities from your paradrop

here is the other option

turn one

*you launch your nukes
*i leave my troops in their positions and launch my nukes

turn two

*your nukes hit and you paradrop into a large number of my cities, then you move your troops out of the way of my nukes
*my armies are destroyed and there is nothing i can do to harm you, my nukes hit

here is how i'd like it to work

your turn

*you launch your nukes
*M.A.D. interrupts your turn
*my nukes launch back and both players nukes hits simultaneously completely obliterating the cities
*your turn starts back again

[jdlessl]

2 turns for an ICBM attack? Ick! You don't have 24 months to prepare for nuclear annihilation, you've got a few hours at most.

Nuclear exchanges don't work well in the current Civ turn-based system.

--
Jared Lessl

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by jdlessl
2 turns for an ICBM attack? Ick! You don't have 24 months to prepare for nuclear annihilation, you've got a few hours at most.

Nuclear exchanges don't work well in the current Civ turn-based system.

--
Jared Lessl

stop complaining. this is the best they could do
i cnat think of any alternatives.... except maybe a mid-turn or end-of-turn MAD screen, but it would bemore complicated, and remember, Sid is not into comlication this time around.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by monkspider
Hey uffty, i can say with almost absolute certainity that you will be able to add new gov'ts to Civ 3, you were even able to in Civ 2, so i doubt that Firaxis would take away that ability.

Actually, in Civ2, all you REALLY got to do was rename the governments. I hope that we can do MUCH more than that.

[korn469]

posted by dainbramaged13
stop complaining. this is the best they could do
i cnat think of any alternatives.... except maybe a mid-turn or end-of-turn MAD screen, but it would bemore complicated, and remember, Sid is not into comlication this time around.

this is how rumors get started...

someone misread that there was two nukes and then about two post below the thread about two kinds of nukes they said that nukes took two turns to hit

until Dan, Jeff, or Soren say it takes two turns for nukes to hit then we really don't know

although we don't know how many turns it will take for nukes to hit if firaxis does decide to go with the two turn model, then it will not be good for game play

also an end of turn option wouldn't be good for gameplay either, because if you are the last player you could launch a nuclear attack and then when it updated at the end of the year, then you would destroy your oppents before they had a chance to respond, simply because you were lucky enough to go after them

the best way to implement nuclear weapons is with M.A.D. which centers on both sides taking massive damage, and the best way to ensure that is when one player launches their nukes then the turn gets interrupted (i'm guessing this is what you meant by mid-turn) and nothing else happens in the game till all of the nukes hits...it is a much better system than either the 2 turn nuke system or the end of turn nuke system

and as far as complexity goes...i think that Sid doesn't want a complicated game, but that doesn't rule out complicated programming...most of the time the easier something is to use (well at least M$ products) the more complicated the programming was...M.A.D. isn't a complicated system, one side launches and the other side responds so all sides involved in a nuclear war are at a disadvantage (ie Nukes are BAD!)...it shouldn't even be that hard to program in

so say yes to M.A.D.

[dearmad]

yeah but...

Even with the MAD scenario described above:

1: I decide to launch a "first strike"
2: I move all my troops out of my cities.
3: Sell off big improvements in each city I think you'll target.
4: LAUNCH- you LAUNCH back and nuke me.
5: Move my troops back in and take over your cities, I STILL win over you even with your MAD system.

Civ3 caveats I suspect will exist but have not been stated that will ENTIRELY CHANGE the landscape of nukes in civ:

1: There will NO selling of improvements. Debt (should you need the cash) will be handled differently this time around.

2: listen up- TRADE is IMPORTANT! nuking some other country into oblivion will no doubt be a world atrocity and you'll find yourself at the bad end of a world-wide trade emabargo and hurting BIG TIME! No allies, no outside supplies, no coins trickling in from all those trade agreements you had to export your extra resources and suddenly your budget don't balance no more, you in baaaad....

3: Cities are more important this time and closer to being irriplaceable- Howzat? I think the idea of founding a city past the 1800's or so will be a real struggle- your armies alone will not amount to much even if you have them after the two-turn scenario above. The "people" you "conquer" after a nuke-strike will NOT assimilate into your "civilization" and you will gain nothing but economic headaches from your ill-gotten gain.

Nukes on a large scale as described above will not be advantageous to even the victor beyond removing an opponent from the map at the expense of turning your own advancement clock back significantly.

So c'mon, think outside the Civ2 box folks and embrace the truth: Civ3 will be a WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME.

[isaac brock]

there is no way I'd believe an ICBM attack should take two turns. what kind of arbitrary think made you come up with that? You have an advantage if you discover nukes first because you have no fear of retaliation.

Anyway, unless you were already much more powerful than the other civ, you could not build enough missiles to get rid of them before they discovered missiles and built a retaliation force.

My poorly worded point is that nuclear war, in civ as in life, would not, could not and should not work as an effective means of waging war. While I'm sure it was terrifying when the Soviets got the bomb, it was necessary to keep the united states from flying the Enola Gay on a fun-filled joyride over moscow.

For every atrocity, there must be recourse (except with nerve-stapling, which isn't so wrong anyway).

"You can't hug your children with nuclear arms" - Family Guy

[jerkwaterbox]

Originally posted by isaac brock

"You can't hug your children with nuclear arms" - Family Guy

funny and true.

also 2 game turns would be unrealistic. That is like 2 years game time (depending on time period).

[Wittlich]

Dearmad has made a valid (and I think an overlooked) point:

2: listen up- TRADE is IMPORTANT! nuking some other country into oblivion will no doubt be a world atrocity and you'll find yourself at the bad end of a world-wide trade emabargo and hurting BIG TIME! No allies, no outside supplies, no coins trickling in from all those trade agreements you had to export your extra resources and suddenly your budget don't balance no more, you in baaaad....

I too believe the TRADE and DIPLOMACY engine of CIV3 will be MUCH more than what was experienced in CIVI and CIVII.

Just keep in mind the following statement from my favorite Advisor (Trade): ..."Remeber Excellency, everything has its cost"

[Lancer]

If they have ICBM survivability in the face of a nuc strike, then you have MAD. ICBM's could be assumed to have counter launched, and aren't wiped out in a strike. Alternatly, you could pre program your missiles to launch in the face of a hostile missile strike. The person who launched would then get the return strike >>>during the turn they attacked!<<< That is MAD. You launch, everyone dies, so nobody launches.

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by korn469
Christantine The Great

ICBMs taking two turns to hit is still a bad idea. With the ability to create a map this is six times larger than the one in civ2 then your civ might be well out of range of either a tactical nuclear missile or paratroopers...for all we know an ICBM could utterly destroy a city, in which case my argument would even be more relevant (unless in two turns you were going to get nuked off the map...you might have enough time to found a new city though and prevent your destruction

but if ICBMs don't destroy a city and I move all of my troops out of the citys that are going to get nuked except for one, in which i leave a token force...then i can retake my cities on my turn

turn one

*you launch your nukes
*i move my troops out, sell my most expensive structures that will get destroyed anyways, and launch my nukes

turn two

*your nukes hit and you paradrop into a large number of my cities, then you move your troops out of the way of my nukes
*my armies destroy your paratroops and retake my cities, my nukes hit

in civ3 you won't lose your troops when a city gets taken because your troops are supported by the civ and not the city
so unless you capture all of my cities i can save my military force from your nukes and recapture my cities from your paradrop

here is the other option

turn one

*you launch your nukes
*i leave my troops in their positions and launch my nukes

turn two

*your nukes hit and you paradrop into a large number of my cities, then you move your troops out of the way of my nukes
*my armies are destroyed and there is nothing i can do to harm you, my nukes hit

here is how i'd like it to work

your turn

*you launch your nukes
*M.A.D. interrupts your turn
*my nukes launch back and both players nukes hits simultaneously completely obliterating the cities
*your turn starts back again

ok, but how far can you move you units in two turns ? cos i don't think a nuke only does damage to one map tile, but to a whole area, and if ICBM is the "big" nuke, you can expect a big area to be destroyed.
And do you really want to capture a nuked city, if it survives. Most of the improvements will be destroyed, and the area around the city will be devastated.

[K.J.H.]

Re: Governments ...and....Nuclear Strikes ??

Originally posted by Uffty
I wonder what Government Types are in Civ3......hopefully more than our "known" ones!!

My list would be in order of timeline:

Direct Democracy (Greeks)
Socialism (stone age)
Despotism (was very very later)
Monarchy (too!)
Republic
Fundamentalism (for the real sick ones! )
Democracy
Royal Democracy (like UK)
Military Dictatorship (Fascism-like) (army-state)
Police-State (Good rates, but pressured "touch" and no freedom)
Parlamentary Democracy (as today)

Socialism, stone age? Where did you get that information?

[korn469]

posted by dearmad
1: There will NO selling of improvements. Debt (should you need the cash) will be handled differently this time around.

2: listen up- TRADE is IMPORTANT! nuking some other country into oblivion will no doubt be a world atrocity and you'll find yourself at the bad end of a world-wide trade emabargo and hurting BIG TIME! No allies, no outside supplies, no coins trickling in from all those trade agreements you had to export your extra resources and suddenly your budget don't balance no more, you in baaaad....

i haven't heard about the no selling of improvements before, could you please provide a link to which preview it came out of or a quote from firaxis

and to the atrocity aspect, we don't know if it will be in the game, atrocities and trade sanctions were in SMAC but i'm not sure if they will be in Civ3, i mean it looks like they cut out fanatics, crusaders, elephants, and partisans (plus the guerilla war that came with partisans) so it wouldn't suprise me if atrocities like in SMAC didn't make it to civ3...also it seems crazy civs you had a mutual alliance with would declare war on you if you nuked a hated enemy...it wasn't like the UK declared war on the US for nuking japan in WW2

and there is a solution to prevent players from getting a "move out of your city advantage" and that would be make launching a nuclear attack only be possible if you haven't sold any structure or moved any units that turn...couple that with a midturn M.A.D. responce and then nuclear war would be very scary indeed

for M.A.D. to be fair it either has to interupt the players turn (the mid-turn option) or nukes don't hit to all players carry out a normal turn (the 2 turn option) out of those two options i'd prefer to see the mid turn option

posted by Lemmy
ok, but how far can you move you units in two turns ? cos i don't think a nuke only does damage to one map tile, but to a whole area, and if ICBM is the "big" nuke, you can expect a big area to be destroyed.
And do you really want to capture a nuked city, if it survives. Most of the improvements will be destroyed, and the area around the city will be devastated.

lemmy you could move your infantry units at least three squares away on your road network...and we still don't know how railroads work but they could still let your units have ininite movement...so most likely you could move most if not all of your units to safety

and of course you want to capture your opponents cities if they got nuked...if you take the cities from them then they won't be able to use them

posted by dearmad
The "people" you "conquer" after a nuke-strike will NOT assimilate into your "civilization" and you will gain nothing but economic headaches from your ill-gotten gain.

dearmad if you have a high enough culture eventually the people will assimilate into your civ...but even if they don't, all of the new people will be of your nationality and at least half of the people in the captured cities would have been killed in the nuke attack...so if you captured a what was a size 10 city before a nuclear it would only be at the largest a size four city after the war...even if they don't let you obliterate bases, two settlers and it is gone

ok now this thread also has brought up an old point about trade

look at this screenshot

http://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/autoimage.cgi?/civ3images/diplo80901.jpg

from the looks of that screen shot, trading resources does not generate gold unless the other civ pays you out of their treasury, so if all of the other tile improvements work the same way (like in civ2)...plus you also have to pay for military units out of your treasury then trading doesn't look to be that valuable because there will be very little extra money to spend on buying resources

in civ2 i sent a caravan from my size 12 city to their size 8 city carrying dyes which that city demanded, i think i got around 300 gold from the delivery and then six gold a turn from the trade route

in civ3 it appears that if you establish a trade route that you won't get any extra gold neither when you first establish the trade route or per turn unless you can convince the other civ to pay you out of their treasury...so it looks like you'll have less revenue (no money from treade routes) and more expenses (you must now support military units with gold) in civ3, so will trade really be that valuable? am i completely missing something here?

here are some questiopns i'd like to have answered

*do trade routes generate gold, or do you only get gold from a trade route if the civ you are trading with decides to pay you?
*has the rush buy option been removed from civ3?
*is there no sellings of buildings?
*will civ3 have M.A.D.?

from this thread while we may argue over the small points I don't think anyone has made the argument that M.A.D. is a bad thing...does that mean we all agree M.A.D. should be in civ3?