The Case for Nukes

[korn469]

Ladies and Gentlemen of Apolyton, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that based on the evidence that Nuclear Weapons in Civ3 have been abused repeatedly by firaxis. I will clearly show that Nuclear Weapons are not effective for the role which they fill, both because of ommissions to the game and because of their ridiculous cost compared to their limited destructive power. On that note I will begin the prosecution.

Exhibit A

Fighter
*80 shields (4)
*oil
*flight (39)
*4(2).2.1 4[1]
*50% chance to intercept

Bomber
*100 shields (5)
*oil
*flight (39)
*0(8).2.1 6[3]
*50% chance to intercept

Jet Fighter
*100 shields (5)
*oil, aluminum
*rocketry (49)
*8(2).4.1 6[1]
*50% chance to intercept

Stealth Fighter
*120 shields (6)
*oil, aluminum
*stealth (53)
*0(4).0.1 6[2]
*5% chance to intercept

Stealth Bomber
*240 shields (12)
*oil, aluminum
*stealth (53)
*0(8).0.1 8[3]
*5% chance to intercept

Tactical Nuke
*300 shields (15)
*oil, uranium
*space flight (51)
*operational range of 6
*kills half of a city's population
*triggers global warming and could cause other civs to declare war

ICBM
*600 shields (30)
*oil, uranium
*satellites (52)
*unlimited operational range
*kills half of a city's population
*triggers global warming and could cause other civs to declare war

Tank
*100 shields (5)
*oil, rubber
*motorized transport (46)
*16.8.2
*can raze a city

Transport
*100 shields (5)
*oil
*combustion (38)
*1.4.5
*transports 8 units

Carrier
*180 shields (9)
*oil
*mass production (41)
*1.8.4
*transports 4 air units

Nuclear Submarine
*120 shields (6)
*uranium
*fission (49)
*6.4.3
*transports one tactical nuke

Manhatten Project
*800 shields (40)
*uranium
*fission (49)
*all civs can build nuclear weapons

My basic assumption is that if both sides have an equal amount of resources and use those resources in an optimal way on the battlefield, that the player who pursues a Nuclear strategy will always either lose or make things unnecessarily hard on themselves.

Here are the following assumptions for this:
*Both sides only have a single city
*That city is size 12
*Both city's have a fixed production of 20 shields per turn reguardless of city size
*Techs come at one tech every three turn reguardless of city size
*15 water spaces exist between the cities
*Only offensive units can be built, and the each city is always considered to start each turn with one full strength fighter unit and four full strength infantry units (6.10.1) garrisoning it
*The objective is to reduce the enemy's city to size three, it does not have to be captured

Under the rules of the scenario the player only has a certain number of strategies they can pursue in this situation.

1) They can get the jump on the other player and build carriers, fighters, and bombers then pound the city to rubble.
2) They can wait until stealth and then build carriers and stealth bombers and pound the city to rubble.
3) They can wait until motorized transport and build a task force of tanks to take the city
4) They can pursue a tactical nuclear weapons based strategy

The first strategy will start with the discovery of the 41 tech, and it will have a 36 turn head start. They will pursue the following build order, carrier, four bombers, attack. Considering the discovery of 41 techs the first turn, they will start airstrikes on turn 32.

The second strategy will start with the discovery of the 53 tech, and it will not have any head start. They will pursue the following build order, carrier, four stealth bombers, attack. Considering the discovery of 41 techs the first turn, they will start airstrikes on turn 95.

The Third strategy will start with the discovery of the 46 tech, and it will have a 21 turn head start. They will pursue the following build order, transport, six tanks, attack. Considering the discovery of 41 techs the first turn, they will attack on turn 49.

The fourth strategy will start with the discovery of the 51 tech, and it will have a 6 turn head start. They will pursue the following build order, Manhatten Project, then two tactical nukes, attack. Considering the discovery of 41 techs the first turn, they will launch a nuclear attack on turn 109.

Imagine the same scenario, except with one change that 90 spaces of both water and road exist between the two cities. Following the same basic strategy except for switching ICBMs for tactical nukes, and getting rid of the transport for the tanks and having them travel along the road, the attacks would be carried out on the following turns

turn 50 (21 turns travel)
turn 113 (20 turns travel)
turn 56 (16 turns travel) [turn 40 if a railroad link exists]
turn 130 (0 turns travel)

Pursuing a nuclear strategy will always fail, because the time it takes to implement it is outrageous, and even then nuclear weapons have fatal flaws.

*Nuclear weapons can never destroy a city, ie no matter how many ICBMs a player uses on a size 1 city, that city won't die
*Nuclear weapons cause global warming which is just as likely to hurt the player launching the attack as it is the player being attacked
*Nuclear weapons no longer destroy all units in the square they strike, in fact many units might survive the attack unharmed
*Nuclear weapons can destroy 50% of a city at most, so it would take four nuclear weapons to reduce a size 16 city to size 1
*Each time a nuclear weapons is used, all other civs have a chance of declaring war on the civ using nuclear weapons
*Nuclear weapons require an expensive gateway wonder before they can be built, unlike conventional weapons in Civ3
*Once a player builds the SDI wonder, then nuclear weapons only have a 25% chance of actually striking their targets
*Compared to using nuclear weapons, obliteratinga city inflicts less political damage with other civs (except for possibly the civ being attacked) and any ground unit can destroy a city, plus once a city gets destroyed, up to half of its population can become captured workers...plus all wonders in the city are permanently destroyed

All of this is a direct result of the lack of a true implentation of M.A.D. in civ3

here is the proof

Exhibit B
[gamadictG] You can't destroy enemy cities with nukes...
[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] Nukes do not destroy enemy cities... it used to work that way but it was deemed too powerful.

without fear of retribution because a working M.A.D. system wasn't implemented they decided that the first strike ability was too powerful...go back and read, i made this point long ago...then instead of following through with my line of logic (ie: implementing a working M.A.D. system) firaxis instead just powered down nukes without decreasing their cost, and now nukes are a complete waste of money...any object that a player can achieve with a nuke, they could achieve in a more efficient manner by using conventional (especially ground) units

this will be a continuing a case, however since it is 6:18am i am going to cut it short for now

[Fidel]

korn, are you economist by vocation? i say this because you construct a model to prove a theory.

let me counter it with a practical experience. it's endgame. i am entering a war with aztecs, romans and iroquise join me, french join aztecs. french and iroquise are already at war for some turns at another continent so they cannot interfere in our little threesome. yet, i get two french ICBMs on my head immediatelly, reducing my top two cities to a shadow of their former glory. nukes as they are now are not your first war option, but they certainly are a good strategic kaboom to tilt the war being waged on another side of the planet.

were they any cheaper i would use them indiscriminately. they are expensive yet have their limited use.

[Earthling7]

I think the Planetbuster was perfect. Powerful beyond anything, but using it was an attrocity.

Using nukes should be effective. Let's face it, the Cold War would have been very different without the possibility of mutual annihilation. And that's what nukes are good at, annhiliation. Nukes are bad, and using them is bad, so make them bad. But if someone decides to nuke another, everyone else would declare war (a la SMAC).

[korn469]

LaRusso

i'm studying economics and marketing in college

it's endgame. i am entering a war with aztecs, romans and iroquise join me, french join aztecs. french and iroquise are already at war for some turns at another continent so they cannot interfere in our little threesome. yet, i get two french ICBMs on my head immediatelly, reducing my top two cities to a shadow of their former glory. nukes as they are now are not your first war option, but they certainly are a good strategic kaboom to tilt the war being waged on another side of the planet.

ok you left out a few important things

*how big is the map?
*who built The Manhatten Project?
*how many civs total are there in the game?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by korn469
LaRusso

i'm studying economics and marketing in college



ok you left out a few important things

*how big is the map?
*who built The Manhatten Project?
*how many civs total are there in the game?

normal
french
5 still out of 8

[korn469]

LaRusso

one more question
how big were your two largest cities?

[Fidel]

27 and 25

stacked with cool units ready to strike...and they evaporated, leaving me with a measly one crippled mechinfantry per city

[korn469]

well you are unlucky, because i have a save game where i lost three of eight or nine units after a nuke strike

but the french spent 2,000 shields to kill 25 of your population, a few units, and make the city location worth less

the french could have built 16 modern armor units for 1,920 shields and taken out one of the other AIs or attacked you with those units...killing way more than 25 of your population

[Fidel]

Originally posted by korn469
well you are unlucky, because i have a save game where i lost three of eight or nine units after a nuke strike

but the french spent 2,000 shields to kill 25 of your population, a few units, and make the city location worth less

the french could have built 16 modern armor units for 1,920 shields and taken out one of the other AIs or attacked you with those units...killing way more than 25 of your population

okay
count in:
1cost of transporting those over water
2) likelihood of being sunk by my glorious navy
3) maintenance costs per turn of those 16 modern armor units
4) the possibility that i could muster some modern armor too in defense of my cities

[MisterMuppet]

No answers just more questions.

You make some good points as always Korn, even if I have trouble following your arguement.

I agree with Earthling7, Nukes should be expensive, hard to build, require a gateway wonder, and be very destructive. However if they are used, all the other Cvis should gang up on you.
On the other hand, if you saw an AI Civ Nuke an opponent would you go to war against a civilisation that had a very powerful, unlimited range Nuke in the tube ready to fly.
MAD only works if both side have Nukes. I don't want to be held to ranson by a country that does have them if I am behind technologically.

[korn469]

LaRusso

for one thing they could have spent those shields to build a force to beat the iroquise who are on their continant

for the price of building those two ICBMs they could have built a glorious navy of their own, they could have built six battle ships, four modern armor, two mech infantry, and a transport

the maintenance cost of 16 modern armor units might not hurt them, hell they could be running communism for all i know, and still have 20 extra units under their cap

and you are mustering modern armor in your cities, not nuclear weapons, my point is that nuclear weapons will lose you a tight game, because they are less cost effective than conventional weapons and this just backs it up

[Fidel]

Originally posted by korn469
LaRusso

for one thing they could have spent those shields to build a force to beat the iroquise who are on their continant

for the price of building those two ICBMs they could have built a glorious navy of their own, they could have built six battle ships, four modern armor, two mech infantry, and a transport

the maintenance cost of 16 modern armor units might not hurt them, hell they could be running communism for all i know, and still have 20 extra units under their cap

and you are mustering modern armor in your cities, not nuclear weapons, my point is that nuclear weapons will lose you a tight game, because they are less cost effective than conventional weapons and this just backs it up

korn, i will not nuke a continent i want to take over. i would use it against a distant ally who i want to hurt a lot in the endgame. they could not build tanks because they have no rubber. they can build nukes because they have uranium. go figure
anyway, i am saying that nukes ARE expensive but that making them cheap would turn the endgame into a desert.

[korn469]

LaRusso

you wouldn't happen to have an autosave of that game? possibly a before and after the nuke strike, so we could add up the losses

anyway, i am saying that nukes ARE expensive but that making them cheap would turn the endgame into a desert

just by making nukes cheaper, there is nothing that says the AI would be any more likely to use them, i'm not saying that nukes should be used very much, i am saying that nukes when they are used should be very powerful, and i truly believe in diplomatic penalties, M.A.D. and a not very trigger happy AI to keep nukes in balance

as it is now, nukes should not be in the game because they are so over priced as to be completely useless...i'm sure in the game that the nuclear strike happened that the french could have most likly traded for rubber, though it does kind of suck that every industrial and modern era ground unit except for the rifleman requires rubber...if you are unlucky enough to not get oil or rubber in your borders then you will probably lose, since the only unit you can build besides hopelessly out of date units like warriors, would be riflemen

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by LaRusso
making them cheap would turn the endgame into a desert.

They can be expensive, but they should be as powerful. as IRL.

[korn469]

think about it like this

four ICBMs and the manhatten project cost as much as building all of the space ship components, and four ICBMs would take your size 27 city down to size 2...that seems fairly expensive doesn't it?