Culture points vs The use of Nukes

[wervdon]

You'd still have tactical nukes for immediate surprise attacks

Also, I think we'd have some notice if Russia did launch ICBMs at us IRL. Probally not more than a hour though, I really dont know what the flight time of a missile is Id guess anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour.....

Perhaps though the popup shouldn't even say which city the ICBM is going towards (heck we dont even always target at a city now.....they can target any square I think.....) Maybe the popup should just flash a cross hair on the map where the ICBM currently is. (just make it 1/2 way between its launch point and destination point, and up to the player to try to guess where its going) Just imagine a flashing + sign on the mini-map until you close the popup saying a nuke was launched, that says where the ICBM is now and not where its actually going. That would lead to interesting situations where you don't even know if its actually heading for you or not The germans could of been going to nuke the french, but you'd have no way to know where that active ICBM is going to come down :P

[Mike4879]

If you use nukes unfairly, there should be something like a golden age but in reverse, maybe a "dark age". "Your civilization has entered its Dark Age" if you use them tyranically... the effects of a nuclear attack in civ3 are too underpowered

I also think the game cuts off way too quickly in modern times... too many things to deal with. The game should not really end at 2050.. they should expand on it more.

Civ4 could be awesome... they could use full motion video and sounds for the advisors and diplomacy screens like they were getting close to doing in Civ2. I would like to see atleast a few more government types and options. Espionage is really lacking and is a crucial component that is missing from the modern age.

There needs to be alot of code optimization and cleanup to allow bigger maps and more civilizations. The memory requirements for a 16 civ game on a huge map are too great. The game could use more realism. Tinkering should be done to make the movement of sea-units better.

Just imagine a game of civ on a true-to-earth ratio with 100 other AI civs, I would drool over a game like that. This game has tremendous potential.

[GePap]

ICBM's on subs, and airfields.

The two simplest ways of instituing a MAD like scenerio, are, letting subs carry ICBM's or bringing back airfields (or call the silo's if you want) and giving them a 75%chance of surviving a nuclear strike. Thus, with any cities or settlers left, your civ still alive, and on your trun, you get to launch a retaliatory strike.

The 'two turn' option makes more sense if we instituted a sort of nuclear bomber- without the infinite range of ICBMs but capable of hitting a long range- these planes could be recalled in time. Once you launch an ICBM, its done, no recall, nor even abort.

As for the effects of nukes, I think two changes would make them devastating and realitics- one, the amount of damage is based on city size, so that a town is wiped out (with a worker left, as refugges), city is cut by 75% and metropolis by 50%. Sercond, nuclear pollution should work differently than industrial polution. It behaves like jungle in that units in this long-term may loose hitpoints and casues disease in any city nearby- it can only be cleaned after some advanced tech- otherwise it is there permanently, and it covers a larger area, not just the squares around the city. This way, any city that survived the attack would soon starve down and die. I don't think it is necessary that it kill every unit in the square, sicne battlefield units would survive the attack better than a inmobile population center.

[jabroni154]

I really like the idea of a two-turn ICBM launch with the opportunity for diplomacy. I would think also with Satellites you could see any nuclear missile launches from across the globe.

(Speaking of which, perhaps it would be neat to have a spy satellite system such that you could see all of the world or select parts. A military unit or building to build that you could use to see deep inside enemy territory, perhaps even the equivalent of an established spy for a high maintenance cost per turn?)

For the short term, I would prefer even just having some sort of MAD capability in the diplomacy panel. For example, in my last game, 3/4 of the world had nuclear weapons (I had them first, muhahahaha). When negotiating, it would be cool if the AI could say, we have X nuclear weapons and Y ICBMs pointing at you, make your time, all your base belong to to us Depending upon the AI, they could also fake the number as well (add in an extra 2 or 3 just to add extra weight to the negotiations).

In that last game, it added quite a bit of urgency to establishing a spy to try to find out what the enemy had. Besides everybody declaring war on everyone (alliances meant absolutely nothing in the game), with other folks having nukes, negotiations for war and peace took on a whole new light. Hmmm, if I don't have enough subs patrolling, does Egypt have enough nuclear submarines to launch an attack on my continent. Or, do they have ICBMs and I need to strike first or just cool it.

[Fidel]

many excellent ideas
i like the culture reducing one very much.
2 turn ICBM is also cool, but i am not sure if AI would be able to handle it
also, what kind of routine would AI need to weigh pros and cons of nukes vs. culture. how is it going to decide when it becomes 'worth it'? if it is made to work, though, it would be awesome

[Barchan]

FWIW:

The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. The decision was strongly, if not overwhelmingly, supported by the US population. While support for this was considerably lower in Japan, within decades it was a strong ally of the US.

There have been over 2,000 nuclear devices detonated since 1945, with more than 500 being atmospheric detonations. No global catastrophes have been observed; no nuclear winter, no melting icecaps, no widespread pollution. Arguably, the earth is at greater risk of global catastrophe from the increasing use of personal automobiles than from nuclear weapons.

Just some observations....

[korn469]

Barchan

While support for this was considerably lower in Japan, within decades it was a strong ally of the US.

the firebombing of tokyo was probably just as horrific as dropping the atomic bombs when you consider number of people lost etc.

the thing about it was we had been at war for over three years, a war in which the japanese started by a sneak attack, and plus it was the first use of those weapons, when germany first used chemical weapons in WWI that didn't raise too much protest from neutral nations, it wasn't like the US entered WWI because of chemical weapons, now after having time to reflect on the use of those weapons the world decided that they are unacceptable, if any nation did use chemical weapons then the entire world would condemn them

There have been over 2,000 nuclear devices detonated since 1945, with more than 500 being atmospheric detonations.

if there was a full scale nuclear war there could easily be 10,000+ atmospheric detonations in a matter of days

No global catastrophes have been observed; no nuclear winter, no melting icecaps, no widespread pollution

the "nuclear winter" (probably more like a nuclear autumn) if it happened would come from burning cities, industries especially oil and gas storage facilities, and the like, look at all of the smoke and dust from the world trade center and the health effects it appears to have caused then multiply that amount by thousands, if there was a nuclear winter that would be why

the earth is at greater risk of global catastrophe from the increasing use of personal automobiles

no arguments on that one! it has been the warmest winter here in my part of virginia in recorded history so far (it has only snowed twice) so i think you're right about that

[Barchan]

Originally posted by korn469

the firebombing of tokyo was probably just as horrific as dropping the atomic bombs when you consider number of people lost etc.

the thing about it was we had been at war for over three years, a war in which the japanese started by a sneak attack, and plus it was the first use of those weapons, when germany first used chemical weapons in WWI that didn't raise too much protest from neutral nations, it wasn't like the US entered WWI because of chemical weapons, now after having time to reflect on the use of those weapons the world decided that they are unacceptable, if any nation did use chemical weapons then the entire world would condemn them

True. I don't think the US could use nuclear weapons (which are legal weapons under the various Laws of Armed Conflict) without international censure. But still, if it did, I'm not convinced that everyone would impose an immediate trade embargo and declare war unless the US attack was totally unprovoked and unwarranted.

Originally posted by korn469
if there was a full scale nuclear war there could easily be 10,000+ atmospheric detonations in a matter of days

the "nuclear winter" (probably more like a nuclear autumn) if it happened would come from burning cities, industries especially oil and gas storage facilities, and the like, look at all of the smoke and dust from the world trade center and the health effects it appears to have caused then multiply that amount by thousands, if there was a nuclear winter that would be why

Again, true. But that's for full-scale nuclear war between superpowers. A few nukes, even 5-10mt strategic nukes, here and there would not cloak the planet in a Dr. Strangelove-style "Doomsday Shroud." Tactical nukes, which are much smaller, would hardly even muss up the regional environment. That's why I'm not sure the game should impose draconian penalties for the initial use of nuclear weapons, particularly tac nukes. A better approach would be to have the effects expand exponentially for subsequent nuclear strikes.

Originally posted by korn469
no arguments on that one! it has been the warmest winter here in my part of virginia in recorded history so far (it has only snowed twice) so i think you're right about that

Indeed. Thank you president Eisenhower for the Federal Interstate Highway system. Speaking of which, BTW, did you know that Hawaii has an interstate highway? Yep. Boy, Senator Inoue sure knows how to bring home the bacon (pork) to his constituents, eh?