The Case for Nukes

[Trifna]

The main problem is that consequences are too low for someone using nukes. In real life, a country doing such would:

1- have lots of country against him and diplomatical consequences for a lonnnng time, plus embargos. Hope you're able to go without lot of trading...
2- other countries may make an exception to the "no atomic law" just for him, so he's one against many others to play that game
3- his own population wont like it alot... espescially knowing that it will have dramatic consequences for them. Expect revolts, maybe people not going to work for many reasons (less shields), a nice generalized psychosis with effect on morale and whattever else,etc.
4- intern consequences such as commerce that may go down, etc.

So, compared to Civ III, it's much much more. Doesn't seem impossible to put in to me tough...

[Fidel]

Originally posted by 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?

i do not have autosave
IMHO, spaceship is really cheap

[Wrong_shui]

If america nuked afghanistan, ppl would ***** and moan but who would have the balls to do anything?.

So my point if your the only superpower in the game everyone sould suck up to you, even if u use nukes.

[Grumbold]

At the cost of getting excessively topical, recent events have shown exactly what sort of comeback you get with that sort of cavalier attitude. A terrorist network slaughter thousands of innocent civilians and the US still can't persuade the world that they are acting for the good of everyone in trying to hunt the perpetrators down. Suspicion and hatred is so deep seated it cannot be completely overcome (although the co-operation from some surprising places has been very welcome and reassuring). If they were so foolish as to use weapons of mass destruction we really would have a world war this time.

[korn469]

well the great library and the colossus put together cost the same as a single ICBM, gaining both of those wonders in a game could win the game for a player, whereas building a single ICBM and using it 99% of the won't win the game for the player...ICBMS cost at least 100 shields too many, or they should do at least 75% damage to a city

[redstar1]

If America nuked Afghanistan it would suddenly find itself without any freinds, removed swiftly from the UN security council if not the UN itself and would probably find itself in a perilous position with Russia and China. Not to mention India and Pakistan.

Dave

[MisterMuppet]

Grumbold, you have to bring reality into it.

Anyway shouldn't Kabul have defected to the Americans as they admire their culture. Must be a bug.

[redstar1]

Yeah. Not sure what the Taliban are worried about anyway. Its not as if the bombing is going to destroy any of their Units....

[HugoHillbilly]

Re: The Case for Nukes

Originally posted by korn469
Nuclear strategy will always either lose or make things unnecessarily hard on themselves.

duh

Nukes arent designed as common place weapons meant for actual use on the battle field. Its the threat of nuclear attack not actual nuclear attack that makes them effective.

Ok maybe they ruined the 'fun factor' of using a nuke, but at least your not wanting to go build one for each of your opponents cities then wipe them all out in 1 turn.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by redstar1
Yeah. Not sure what the Taliban are worried about anyway. Its not as if the bombing is going to destroy any of their Units....

sarcasm is miscplaced. i can bet you that the bombing destroyed none of their units.

[Adm.Naismith]

Re: The Case for Nukes

Originally posted by korn469
All of this is a direct result of the lack of a true implentation of M.A.D. in civ3

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

Back to the topic, of course M.A.D. (and Main Nuclear Ally retaliation, i.e. USA or former USSR menacing to use Nuclear Weapon in case minor nuclear power as Israel or Pakistan abuse of their tactical nuke weapons) is the way to go.

It doesn't seem so complex to me: let the player to assign to every ICBM mission order, as with fighters air superiority (I know, assumed it's not bugged ).

You can set a retaliate order like:
1- if this city attacked from nation A, fire back to city xy
2- if nation attacked from nation A, fire back to city xy
3- if ally attacked from nation A, fire back to city xy

The difference from order 1 to order 2 is meant to let you diversificate your response.
An example: you have 5 ICBM in different cities of your Civ.
You set 3 ICMB to fire if host city attacked and 2 ICBM to fire if anyone of your city (nation) is attacked.
This way, if you suffer a limited attack you will surely automatically launch the 2 ICBM on "nation level", while the others will act only if directly involved.
On a massive attack, surely every your main city will be targetted, so everyone of your ICBM will launch back.

The problem is you can't manage 15 others possible civ easily with a "mouse right click menu": you need to activate a matrix of MAD targets, with as many column as Civs still available on the game (max 15) and as many rows as your available and alerted ICBM.
At every cell you can set a target city, according to rules above.

That if you want the freedom to set multiple Civ as potential target (more flexible for response, without the need for frequents order change - warning, only a target will be addressed at the missile launch, depending on attacking nation).

You can accept to limit every missile to a single nation menace, risking to have ICBM left unused if not targetted to the attacking enemy.

AFAIK that was a problem with real 80's ICBM too, because you needed some time to change the programmed target, so it can be an acceptable limit in game, assuming the cost of nuke fall so low to let you have many of them, enough for a superpower to match every main target with a dedicated nuke.

This solution let Firaxis with a simple solution for a pop up to set target mission (only one for missile).
AI can be programmed to chose target according to city power (pop., available wonder, culture produced, etc.).

Is this a model do you like, korn469?

Is it something can be added, at least at the CIV III Xpack, Firaxis?

[MrBlud]

Nukes are underpowered in Civ3. When I launch a ICBM I want the city down to at least 1 and the terrain changed to desert with pollution around a 2x2 square radius surrounding the former city, D@mn the consequences!

[Brutus66]

The idea of having the MAD deterrent involved in diplomacy sounds very interesting. It would be really neat to be able to assign a taget to a nuke upon completion of production, and maybe a little red button on the bottom of the screen to launch them all...
The MAD deterrent would become obsolete upon the completion of a missile shield.
I think it would be really exciting to recreate the cold war situation in the Modern age, but you would need to develop the espionage angle some more and introduce spy planes, sattelites, etc.
Alas, another cool idea we will never see...

[Aendolin]

Here's what I'd like to see:

1. reduced cost (but not too much..)

2. Metropolises lose half their population.
Cities lose 75% of their population.
Towns are obliterated.

3. All units in radius destroyed.

4. Drastic measures from the other civs.

5. And, of course, a MAD system.

[jgflg]

I think nukes work well as they are, but you need to use them right. The benefit that they provide over spending the resources elsewhere is that you can simultaneously take out massive amounts of resources in one swipe. Reducing a city population by half and polluting the two square radius around it means that that city won't be building much of anything anytime soon. Assuming you can nuke 10-15 major cities at once, you can pretty much grind weapons production to a halt for another civ. You can also use nukes to quickly take out resource squares that are located deep within an empire. You can't do any of that with tanks.

The strategy I generally follow is to wait until I have enough nukes accumulated to strike most major cities of my opponent, usually around 10-15. I then use espionage to uncover his military locations and plan my strikes accordingly. Even with a 50% survival chance, odds are pretty good that you should be able to chop his strength down substantially. If you take out resource squares as well, then your opponent will be easy pickings when your armor rolls in.

Once I start taking over nuked cities, I raze them and use the labor I capture to start cleaning up the pollution.