The Case for Nukes

[Echo]

Fix 'em

This is a more apropriate thread for this post.

I want to see the option for a Tac nuke, ICBM "standard" nuke, AND a hydrogen bomb.

Tac can work as it does in the game now. ICBM should be devastating like it was in Civ2, and an option to build a costly hydrogen bomb that wipes out everything within 2 squares of a city.

A Neutron bomb would be cool too, wipe out the population with no damage to city improvements.

The bombs are much to weak as is now.

(Give me realism over "game balance" any day.)

P.S.
There is no modern day combat formation capable of surviving a nuclear strike. Save a submarine or a unit in a silo/ hardened bunker. 50% chance of wasting each unit also means there is a 50% chance that NO unit will be eliminated.

[ken01]

I personally think the nuke system is fine, though unrealistic.

What I'd like to see (like alpha centauri, or was it Civ2) is other civs wimpering when I threaten them with nuclear attack in the diplomacy screen.

As it stands, recently I played my first game with nuclear arms. I built the wonder, built a tactical nuke. The realized they have a range. Loaded it onto a nuclear sub (was building nuclear subs since they were as cheap as regular subs in many of my cities). Sent it over to the Zulus. Opened up diplomacy and....

It was as if I didn't have nuclear arms at all. They laughed me off the diplomacy screen!

I'd get a better effect with my "land 4 mech inf on a mountain" strategy.

[korn469]

posted by HugoHillbilly
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

My point is that nukes aren't threatening
The largest size city you can have in civ3 is I think around size 42 (unless you have multiple food specials in your city's radius) so if you nuke that city yes it would lose 21 population, a few buildings, and some of the troops garrisoning the city and then pollution surrounds the 8 squares bordering the city, and those squares are turned to desert, but the city itself wouldn't be completely crippled, and when compared to the expense there isn't much of a threat at all, yes it is slightly different on deity level where the AIs get major production bonuses, but on regent if the AI is trying to threaten you it has instead set back its war effort by wasting tons of shields on nukes

posted by 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.

jgflg have you actually played the same Civ3 that I have? If so, what level are you playing on? It sounds like chieftain...so far I have only played civ3 on monarch and deity, and your strategy sounds highly suspect

If you are going to build 10-15 tactical nukes this is going to cost you somewhere between 3,000 and 4,500 shields with another 800 being spent on the Manhattan project...if you are going to build between 10-15 ICBMs that is going to cost between 6,000-9,000 shields with another 800 for the Manhattan project and then you are going to build a conventional army on top of that?

While this strategy may work, I assert that you can achieve your objectives much more efficiently just using conventional weapons

Think about it like this
For that amount of shields you could build five hospitals, battlefield medicine, a navy, and air force, and still have shields left over to construct a massive army, also your nuke strike would at best maybe cut their production down to about 40% of its current value, but it certainly wouldn't put a stop to AI production

One other thing you left out besides the fact that global warming will turn your empire to deserts is that every time you use a nuke there is a chance that the AI civs will declare war on you...so if there are five other civs left in the game and you shoot off 15 nukes then most likely they will all declare war on you

Also, I need to check to make sure, but I am almost positive that nukes only pollute the squares adjacent to your city, and that it doesn't actually pollute a 2x2 radius

Adm.Naismith

Your system is good, and if firaxis went that route with nukes I certainly wouldn't be disappointed however I think it would be equally as effective to be able to either give a nuke a certain location or to give it standing orders, the player could assign each nuke a target based on the major criteria already found in the sort feature, like you could assign nukes to hit the largest city by either population, or shields, or commerce, or food output, or total military strength, or science output etc.

So you could either manually set targets for each of your nukes, or you could assign all of your nukes a target based on a specific set of criteria, this could be done with a pull down menu which if it had three choices would be more than enough

So for example you could set a single choice, shield output lets say, and then your nukes would fire one at a time targeting the city with highest shield output, nukes that the player manually targeted would always fire first, and if the player selected more than one criteria then the game would give each city a composite score based on all of the factors and attack the city with the highest composite score

Also, if you are in a mutual protection pact, then your nukes should automatically retaliate against the player launching a nuclear attack on your ally

I don't want M.A.D. to be complicated; it should be simple, yet if it is well done then it adds another level to the game...

Aendolin

your list of wants is virtually identical to mine

posted by echo
I want to see the option for a Tac nuke, ICBM "standard" nuke, AND a hydrogen bomb.

Tac can work as it does in the game now. ICBM should be devastating like it was in Civ2, and an option to build a costly hydrogen bomb that wipes out everything within 2 squares of a city.

A Neutron bomb would be cool too, wipe out the population with no damage to city improvements.

hehe devastating like in civ2? ICBMs have more power (because of their longer range) than they did in civ2, but something on par with a fission planetbuster in SMAC would be nice

btw big hydrogen bombs (in the 5-25mt range) started being replaced in the 70's with smaller but more numerous warheads in the 100-450kt range, and neutron bombs are intended to kill armored formations, and aren't really designed to attack cities

and about building a costly hydrogen bomb, if nukes get any more costly in civ3 they will be virtually impossible to build

but i do agree with you that firaxis has grossly underestimated the power of nukes

ken01

yea it does suck that nukes have no effect on diplomatic positions at all

_______________________________

if you were listing to the news today you most likely heard that Bush and Putin agreed to slash nuclear stockpiles by about 2/3

if you think about it...the US alone has over 6,000 strategic warheads, so that is at least 600mt of destructive power...the united states has more strategic nuclear warheads than it does main battle tanks right now

each strategic nuclear warhead is at least 100kt and that is over five times as powerful as the bombs we dropped on Japan in ww2

civ3 certainly needs some rebalancing

[Roswell]

I have to side with korn. Last game I had nukes built and stacked up in a couple of cities by accident (city governer is in love with them). I knew the Greeks had them too, but I didn't really think about it when I swept into their territory with a large force of modern armor. I was quite surprised when on their next turn they dropped four ICBM's on my largest cities. I fired mine back, of course, but the main point is this: those cities were functioning again very quickly between a healthy economy and an army of workers. If LA, or NY got hit by an ICBM, I can pretty much guarantee you that ten or twenty years later it wouldn't be running at full speed, or even half (don't mean to give the impression that my buildings and pop just reappeared, but my cities were functioning usefully again). It's going to take years to rebuild the WTC, and it was the sole target of that attack. Hiroshima was devastated for decades. Chernobyl is still unlivable. Nukes need to be more powerful. I think the deterrence model is a really interesting idea too.

[MrBlud]

If they were going to have M.A.D and deterence they should also have an option for a SALT like treaty where each Civ agress to cut their nuclear stockpile to like around 1-2 ICBMS and maybe 10 or less Tactical nukes. If you agree to the treaty your world opinion raises and if you refuse it lowers your approval rating in all your cities and throughout the world.

[ProfessorPhobos]

Re: Re: The Case for Nukes

Originally posted by HugoHillbilly


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.

You mean other than tactical nuclear weapons?(I.E., Torpedoes, where you don't have to know *exactly* where that Submarine is. I.E., aircraft deployed AA missiles- for when you need to get rid of *everything* in a certain stretch of sky. I.E., nuclear artillery, when you want to disperse enemy force concentrations.....)

The only problem with Civ3's nukes is their expense. They should probably be a lot cheaper.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

(1) In reality, Nukes are very effecient weapons. You don't need to train people how to drive, fly, steer, or aim a nuke. All you have to do is build it, and have it serviced. Therefore, civ3 nukes are way too expensive

(2) In civ3, Nukes are efficent because during a war, they do not cause war weariness.

if you were listing to the news today you most likely heard that Bush and Putin agreed to slash nuclear stockpiles by about 2/3

if you think about it...the US alone has over 6,000 strategic warheads, so that is at least 600mt of destructive power...the united states has more strategic nuclear warheads than it does main battle tanks right now

each strategic nuclear warhead is at least 100kt and that is over five times as

Do you feel any safer? Has this really been something which will make Nuclear War winnable? The answer is no.

Each nation has about 7, 000 missiles. Loosing 2/3s means each country decommisions about 4600 missiles, of which are the oldest, least "effective" of the batch. There are still 6 000 missiles total, enough still to destroy the world 3 times over. Its symbolic, but doesn't really do anything, especially since all of the new missiles have multiple warheads. If they can get the count under 1000 apeice, that would start to make a nuclear war 'winnable'

[korn469]

Lawrence of Arabia

i really have to disagree with with you about war weariness...

think of it like this

universal sufferage costs 800 shields and a police station costs 100 shields, so for the price of the manhatten project and a single ICBM you could have built universal sufferage and six police stations, with universal sufferage and a police station in every city, war weariness didn't effect my democracy at all as i began a war in 1884 (a nuclear war no less) and it dragged on till i won the game in 1930...so 38 turns of war didn't cause a single problem

MrBlud

an anti nuclear weapons treaty would be a great addition for the U.N. wonder

[Enigma]

Nice analysis Korn, it is interesting that you, Velocyrix, and Adam_Smith are all economists- that just happens to be what I plan on majoring in in college!

I think that the entire "nukes are not worth the investment" arguement can be applied to virtually anything in Civ3 though, all of the units in civ3 are *individually* worthless, a "tank rush" is almost as worthless as a "nuke rush".

Every unit has extremely little strategic value, IE it is not as if you get the technology for an impact rover and all of a sudden your attack capabilities triple. The same is true with nukes. I will not go over this mathematically because it would be very complicated with all of the different units... but say for instance

You had 1000 minerals. You can buy 3 tactical nukes and a bomber, or 10 bombers, or something in between. For this example I will choose to buy 7 bombers and 1 tactical nuke.

For the long extrended duration conflicts that are not of important strategic value you use the bombers, they can be used over and over again, but are pretty weak.

But eventually your enemy fortifies a lot of enemies in one city that is at a chokepoint. He has routed your navy with a big fleet of his own, so you can't flank the chokepoint. You need to attack him because he is finishing the spaceship in 20 turns.

His continent is seperate from yours so you cannot transport conventional missles there (they can't be airlifted or go in a carrier or a regular transport)

At circumstances like the a nuke can be good. If you factor in the cost for the manhatten project that nukes are almost always worthless...

Use the nuke to reduce his population, the 50% extra bonus that size 12+ cities get is really murderous... you need to get rid of pop points fast.

This situation is rather contrived, perhaps overall nukes are worthless 60% of the time, but that extra 40% might make it worth having a tactical nuke.

They can also be used for as a surprise, or to make your enemy overfortify his bases. If you can make him *think* you have a nuke in an area and he sees that you have a nuke with his spy... you can use this as a diversion and take the other cities that those defensive units were moved for.

Nukes have no strategic value, it isn't like a bunch of nukes alone would win you the game. But the same could be said of any unit....

Combined arms wins Civ3, nukes are just another element of these combined arms forces, and is great for eliminating population.

I doubt that anyone will really find a big use for nukes, but it is best to keep your mind open and try to find ways of working them into your existing strategies rather than planning strategies around them.

*edit* it is not that I wouldn't like to see nukes be better... they are TOTALLY unrealistic in the current system, quite worthless.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Every time i send my units outside my borders in democracy, my people all start revlolting and destroying improvements etc.

[cassembler]

True Romance, Christian Slater:

It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

I feel the same about nukes... I mean, if you remove cost from the equation, the ability to strike anywhere on the map is pretty freakin' cool... I'm gonna take a stab though and state that the higher the difficulty level, the less likely nukes will be useful.

Yeah they could be made more powerful, but by the time I've got nukes I usually just want to start fresh on a new map anyways.

[GePap]

Weapons of Diplomacy

NUclear weapons are tools of diplomacy, not war- no one gets nukes to destroy armies, you do it to intimidate others, and if all goes to hell, to annahilate them. NUkes need to be very powerful-and expensive since only 8 nations really have them today out of 187- but be tools of diplomacy. Those that don't have nukes do as you threaten, but then move like mad to make them. Those with them deter you from carrying out wars to totally conquer them, unless you have a death wish. If fixaris really wants a peacefull game,then make nukes the weapons that are so horrible they end war, since diplomatic victory and the spaceship suddenly get much more attractive realizing nukes could wipe you out. Also, make Manhattan project a small wonder, since even if spies get you the tech (which really you could get off the net) the problem is creating the infrastructure to produce fission material- (it took years to get the U235 we needed, not to come up with the science or design) so that each nation must go throught its own nuclear program to build it (in any treaty, forbid players from making this small wonder).
As it stands, the best use of nukes is to blast resource squares and roads to them to cripple the enemies production economy- especially resources deep in their land you ccan't get to with tanks.

[korn469]

posted by enigma
But eventually your enemy fortifies a lot of enemies in one city that is at a chokepoint. He has routed your navy with a big fleet of his own, so you can't flank the chokepoint. You need to attack him because he is finishing the spaceship in 20 turns.

His continent is seperate from yours so you cannot transport conventional missles there (they can't be airlifted or go in a carrier or a regular transport)

At circumstances like the a nuke can be good. If you factor in the cost for the manhatten project that nukes are almost always worthless...

Use the nuke to reduce his population, the 50% extra bonus that size 12+ cities get is really murderous... you need to get rid of pop points fast

here is a save game that both illustrates the point you made above and it also disproves Lawrence of Arabia's complaint about excessive war weariness please download it

yes in this situation nukes do save the day...however i had disbanded a couple of ICBMs, a few tactical nukes, and maybe 20 jet fighters...instead of building nukes and jet fighters in the first place i should have been building ground forces...i was playing in a subpar way this game...i just began to lose focus instead of pressing an advantage

I think that the entire "nukes are not worth the investment" arguement can be applied to virtually anything in Civ3 though, all of the units in civ3 are *individually* worthless, a "tank rush" is almost as worthless as a "nuke rush"

this argument is false...if you purchase a factory for example every turn it generates additional shields and will in time depending on the industrial output of the city it will pay for itself

while any individual unit has the chance to either pay for itself or not, the overall cost of a nuke, especially an ICBM is so great that it does has an impact on the game...for one thing shields don't carry over so it ties one city down for a number of turns, and the player is forced to stick to that strategy until the ICBM actually gets built...an ICBM almost cost the same as a wonder...an ICBM cost 1.5 times as much as the great library, which can allow the player to rapidly gain three, four, or maybe even five techs, whereas an ICBM if used against a size 4 city will only kill 2 population

They can also be used for as a surprise, or to make your enemy overfortify his bases. If you can make him *think* you have a nuke in an area and he sees that you have a nuke with his spy... you can use this as a diversion and take the other cities that those defensive units were moved for

since nukes only have a 50% chance of killing units, there is no need to overfortify a city...overfortifying a city would actually make a nuke more effective, since it would give the player using the nuke a better chance to recoup the cost of the nuke

Combined arms wins Civ3, nukes are just another element of these combined arms forces, and is great for eliminating population

i agree about the combined arms part, except i disagree about nukes having an effective place in a combined arms task force...if you have 1000 shields to build a task force with, spending 600 on an ICBM would be a waste because it would limit the conventional part of the army, and still doesn't present much of a threat

If you factor in the cost for the manhatten project that nukes are almost always worthless

exactly, and you MUST factor in the cost of the MP, because it is required before building nukes

it is not that I wouldn't like to see nukes be better... they are TOTALLY unrealistic in the current system, quite worthless

well i'm glad you agree
my argument is this
When pursuing an optimal strategy against an opponent of equal power who is also pursuing an optimal strategy nuclear weapons don't have a place because of their high price and low performance.

Nukes are still fairly powerful, and a player can certainly base a strategy around them and win the game, however I think any strategy that involves nukes will be less than optimal, and will eventually only actually be used by players who don't want to have a great game.

cassembler

great quote from True Romance! i just wish that firaxis had spent more time on the late industrial and the modern era to actually make the late game in Civ3 the most enjoyable part of the game...powerful nukes and M.A.D. could be a start

GePap

i totally agree with your post except for this

As it stands, the best use of nukes is to blast resource squares and roads to them to cripple the enemies production economy- especially resources deep in their land you ccan't get to with tanks

600 minerals to cut off a special resource supply for ten turns at most seems like a monumental waste, especially since if the resource supply get cuts you can still finish production of the unit you are currently building

what would be cool to me is instead of the Manhatten project being a small wonder if it was a great wonder, however it would then allow each of the other players to build the Nuclear weapons program small wonder which cost like half of the manhatten project (the MP would of course allow the player who built it the ability to build nukes)

[jgflg]

KORN469 wrote:

"jgflg have you actually played the same Civ3 that I have? If so, what level are you playing on? It sounds like chieftain...so far I have only played civ3 on monarch and deity, and your strategy sounds highly suspect "

The game was on Regent, 8, Standard size, I was playing as the French and used the strategy on the Egyptians and Zulu to win through eliminating everyone else. Not quite monarch or deity, but hard enough where it would have been extremely time consuming for me to take them out conventionally. My conventional forces about equaled the Egyptians in numbers before I started nuking them. Afterwards, they had about a quarter of my strength. The real key was using espionage to locate military units because this allows you to really maximize your damage.

Obviously this strategy works best if you have more nukes than they do. I basically switched all my major cities to churning out nukes while the other civs kept producing regular units. You can call the strategy suspect if you want, but it worked for me, regardless of how many squares of pollution get created.

All in all though you may be right that nukes don't provide the same value as an equivalent amount of regular units do. I was merely providing an example of a situation where they can be very useful. The main benefit for me was avoiding having to drag 30 artillery and 50 tanks and 50 mech units all over the place every turn to bombard some new cities. I can't stand the microunit managing and this strategy allowed me to reduce it substantially. I don't know if there's a way you can factor that into an economic equation.

[korn469]

jgflg

if what you said is true then you built 10-15 ICBMs

that is more than double the cost of the space ship...so why didn't you just build the space ship and win the game?