nuclear threat

[tniem]

I don't understand how having preaimed nukes would cost money to change the target. The only change you have to make is tragectory and a slight move in one way or another (correct?). All nukes would be built with the option to move to a new target.

I read that the whole thing about Russian and American nukes not aimed at each other was just for show. Because if either nation wanted to fire it would only take a few minutes/hours before it would be ready to fire.

[korn469]

this was posted some time ago on the list forums and it relates to this discussion

My Nuclear Model Version 2.0

Types:

there are five classes of nuclear weapons.

1. Atomic bombs: these are the first type of nuclear weapons you can build. They are single use bombs that must be loaded into a bomber.
2. Thermonuclear missles: The second type of nuclear weapons you can build. These are single use missles that can hit anywhere on the map.
3. MIRV thermonuclear missles: They become available after thermonuclear missles. These are single use missles with multiple warheads. What this means is that they can have more than one target. These missles can strike anywhere on the map.
4. Neutron bombs: They become available with the same technology as MIRV weapons. These single use nuclear weapons have the same range as a cruise missle and are more of a tactical weapon than a strategic weapon.
5. Tactical nuclear weapons: This is a unit special ability. It becomes available with the the same technology as thermonuclear weapons. This option can be added to any ground, air, missle, or naval unit.

Diplomatic Repercussions:

The use of nuclear weapons is considered an atrocity and it carries harsh diplomatic penalties. Any use of strategic nuclear weapons is considered a major atrocity and will cause all but your staunchest allies to declare war on you. Your allies (the Pact Brother Concept from SMAC) will downgrade their relations with you and all civs will impose economic sanctions against your civ. The use of nuclear weapons is very likely to trigger a full scale nuclear war which could potentially wipe out human life on Earth, and all sides would seek to avoid it.

Using tactical nuclear weapons, while not as taboo as strategic nuclear weapons would still cause adverse diplomatic actions to be taken against your civ. The use of tactical nuclear weapons would downgrade relations with all civs by one diplomatic level and would cause civs to impose economic sanctions on your civ. The use of tactical nuclear weapons could trigger a nuclear war, and would be frowned upon by the international community.

Treaties:

There would be a number of diplomatic inititives that would seek to contain nuclear weapons.

1.The Non-Proliferation Treaty: Once multiple civs gained nuclear weapons the Non-Proliferation treaty could be ratified. This would cause that civ's reputation to go down and would impose economic sanctions on a civ if it didn't have nuclear weapons and started to build them. Economic sanctions would remain until that civ changed production, or if disbanded the weapon after it was completed. If a civ with nuclear weapons gave nuclear weapons to another civ, it would cause that civ's reputation to go down, and economic sanctions would be imposed against it.
The Salt II Treaty: This treaty would prevent civs from building additional nuclear weapons. If a civ did start building nuclear weapons, that civ's reputation would go down and economic sanctions would be imposed against that civ until it stopped production of it nuclear weapons or if it did not stop production, until the treaty was revoked.
The Start Treaty: This treaty once passed would automatically disband half of every civs nuclear arsenal. All civs with nuclear weapons would have to agree to this before it would go into effect. If this treaty passed, all civs that voted for it would gain a level of reputation.
The ABM Treaty: This treaty would prevent civs from building SDI units. This treaty would cause a civ's reputation to go down if it violated the treaty and would impose economic sanctions on a civ if it started building SDI units. Economic sanctions would remain until that civ changed production, or if disbanded the weapon after it was completed.

targeting:

when a strategic nuclear weapon is built it must be set up to fire...this means putting the weapon into an active mode (compared to a transport mode)...i would recommend hitting the T key (T as in Target)

atomic bombs: are loaded onto a bomber, the bomber's icon would then change and it might get a slight increase in range. after the bomber drops the atomic bomb it reverts to a normal bomber.

both types of thermonuclear weapons can be loaded into the following structures

A. a city with a missle silo facility
B. a ballistic missle submarine
C. a mobile launch vehicle
D. a missle silo tile improvement

when a unit is loaded it must be given a target within it's range, since both types of thermonuclear missles can strike anywhere they can be given a target anywhere on the map.

MIRV thermonuclear missles cost more than a normal thermonuclear missle but they can strike two targets. with a later tech one MIRV thermonuclear missle could strike up to three targets

before a strategic nuclear weapon is targeted it is considered in transport mode, and has the same movement as a freight truck from civ2

Blast:

nuclear weapons do the following damage

atomic bombs: kills 10 population in a direct hit to a city square, and automatically destroys two facilities. it then has a 50% chance of destroying each of the remaining facilities (40% to destroy a wonder) in that city. all units in the square it hits are automatically destroyed. an atomic bomb destroys all tile improvements in the square it hits.

If an atomic bomb hits in a square adjacent to a city it kills 6 population. it automatically destroys one facility in that city and has a 40% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (30% chance to destroy a wonder). the atomic bomb destroys all Tile improvements in adjacent squares. All units in adjacent squares that are not in bunkers(forts) are automatically destroyed, and all units in bunkers take 90% damage.

thermonuclear missles: kills 25 population in a direct hit to a city square, and automatically destroys 5 facilities. it then has a 75% chance of destroying each of the remaining facilities (65% to destroy a wonder) in that city. all units in the square it hits are automatically destroyed. an atomic bomb destroys all tile improvements in the square it hits.

If a thermonuclear missle hits in a square adjacent to a city it kills 15 population. it automatically destroys 3 facilities in that city and has a 65% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (55% chance to destroy a wonder). the theremonuclear missle destroys all Tile improvements in adjacent squares. All units in adjacent squares that are automatically destroyed.

If a thermonuclear missle hits in two squares away from a city it kills 10 population. it automatically destroys 2 facilities in that city and has a 50% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (40% chance to destroy a wonder). it destroys all Tile improvements in adjacent squares. All units in adjacent squares that are not in bunkers(forts) are automatically destroyed, and all units in bunkers take 90% damage.

MIRV thermonuclear missles:have the exact same effect as a normal theremonuclear missle. the only difference is they can strike at multiple targets.

neutron bombs: have a very low blast effect but a very high radiation effect. nuetron bombs would automatically destroy all units in the square they hit. they would automatically destroy all infantry units in the squares adjacent to the blast and would inflict 50% damage on all mechanized units in the square adjacent to it. If a neutron bomb hit a city it would kill 10 population, but would not destroy any facilities. If a neutron bom hit adjacent to the city it would kill 5 population. Neutron bombs would not destroy tile improvements.

tactical nuclear weapons: doubles a units attack strength. it also cause the collateral damage to be twice it's normal value. if used against a city, tactical nuclear weapons kill 5 population and destroy one facility. tactical nuclear weapons also destroy 1 tile improvement per attack.

radiation:

nuclear weapons create radiation when used this is why they are so vile.

atomic bombs when used will always create a radioactive square in the square they hit. there is a 75% per square chance that an adjacent square will become radioactive. there is also a 75% chance that up to three other random squares outside of its blast radius could become radioactive from fallout. if an atomic bomb hits a city then for the next five turns there is a 75% chance per turn that the city will lose 1 population per turn to radiation.
thermonuclear missles: when used will always create a radioactive square in the square they hit. there is a 50% chance per square that a square within a two square radius will become radioactive. there is also a 50% chance that up to 5 squares outside of a thermonuclear weapons blast radius will become radioactive from fallout. if a thermonuclear missle hits a city then for the next five turns there is a 50% chance per turn that the city will lose 1 population per turn to radiation.
MIRV thermonuclear missles: have the same effect as thermonuclear missles except they have multiple targets they strike.
Neutron bombs: cause temporary radiation in the square they hit and every adjacent square this radiation will dissappear in 8 turns. it can be cleaned in 3 turns. hits a city then for the next five turns there is a 50% chance per turn that the city will lose 1 population per turn to radiation.
Tactical nuclear weapons: have a 50% chance of turning the square they were used on into a radioactive square.

radioactive squares cannot be used. radioactive squares remain radioactive for 100 turns. it takes 12 turns for an engineer to clean up a radioactive square. units moving through a radioactive square will take 10% damage per radioactive square they move through. units ending their turn in a radioactive square will take 20% damage. a unit can never heal in a radioactive square.

Mutual Assured Destruction: when a strategic nuclear weapon is given a target it can be put on one of two modes, either on Alert mode or on Counterstrike mode.

when on Alert mode, if a nuclear weapon is launched then ALL nukes on alert launch and all of them hit simultaneously. when a neutron bomb or tactical nuclear weapon is against a civ with strategic nuclear weapons on Alert mode there will be a box that ask if that civ want to launch its nuclear weapons. this ensures Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) and makes one think twice before using nuclear weapons.

when on Counterstrike mode, the nuclear weapon doesn't lauch when the first launch is detected. instead it doesn't fire until ordered to do so.

SDI:

SDI units could be built to intercept nuclear weapons. these units would have a 25% chance of intercepting a strategic nuclear weapon and would have a two square radius in which they provided cover against strategic nuclear weapons. an SDI unit could only attempt an intercept once per turn. SDI units would come after thermonuclear missles and would cost 1/3 the cost of a thermonuclear missle.

nuclear winter: if during any period 15% of the total squares on the map become radioactive then a nuclear winter will occur. it will last for ten turns. when a nuclear winter first occurs, every city on the map loses two population. also for all ten turns every single square on the map produces one less of everything. additionally during this time radioactive squares will randomly appear anywhere on the map. radioactive squares by themselves do not destroy tile improvements but they make them unuseable. after the 10 turn nuclear winter is over, then it would take a new 15% of the map turning radioactive before another nuclear winter would occur.

i think those changes add in a new element to civ. it would definantly increase late game tensions and would make a relatively boring late game into an exciting and dangerous phase if someone built the manhattan project.

please feel free to point out all of it's major flaws, but please tell me why it wouldn't work like that

korn469

[tniem]

The only potenetial problem that I see is that if there are all of these advances for nukes what about other weaponry. Will there need to be more ground units with guns? After all there is more than just musketeers, riflemen, marines, and alpine troops that have used guns in history. What about bow and arrows? But I like those ideas.

[OrangeSfwr]

Although I admire all the work you put into your system, I am leaning toward Tniem's comments. With so much emphasis on nuke's we are taking away from the other aspects of the game. However, your model is very well thought out and seems to have no errors that I can see. Hopefully Civ 3 will follow your model with Nuke's. I wouldn't name the treaties "SALT" and "START" and so forth because then you aren't recreating history, you're simply rewriting it and Civ is more about recreating world history, especially when using different Civs and different maps. Who's to say the Zulus and Indians would have made a treaty similar to SALT if they were the two world powers? The option should always be there though. Good ideas!

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[korn469]

well i think that nuclear weapons have had a much greater impact on world politics since 1945 than any other weapon...also i would like for civ3 to actually have the possibility of total destruction for ALL civs in the later stages of the game because of nuclear weapons

i don't think that you could ever simulate a cold war without nuclear weapons (or some other form of weapons of mass destruction) without the threat of massive nuclear retailiation then any cold war will quickly turn into a hot war when you have two sides as ideologically opposed as what the USA and the USSR were...

my general idea is too have very powerful, very destructive nuclear weapons which would have severe ramifications if used (the earth is utterly destroyed, the world unites against you, the earth becomes a radioactive wasteland) i would like if in most games that nuclear weapons were a threat, but they were hardly ever used, and when used it would have massive effects that is what i would like to see

also i didn't mention any other weapon system or diplomatic interaction...i think they should also be much improved on, i think that nuclear weapons should always be in the background as a terrible threat but i do agree that other weapons and diplomatic interactions shouldn't be ignored, and should be much improved on

korn469

[general_charles]

I agree with Korn
I think you are right, there are many nuclear meapons available today, and people do not even know about them, it is highly unrealistic to have only one kind of atomic bomb, because the strict minimum brings us to 3:
- atomic bombs, such as the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the americans. They actually have a very limited range, despite what people think.
- thermonuclear weapons: These are used today by the nuclear powers, they are a combination of fission (used in the early bombs as a trigger, mainly using Uranium 235 or Plutonium 238) and fusion reaction (which is actually the real bomb, composed of Deuterium and Tritium which are hydrogen isotopes and create a power which is for conventional bombs, from 500 to 1000 times greater than the first bombs used, actually, the greatest ever built was by the USSR and it had 3000 times more power than the one at Nagasaki).
Those two create radioactive waste in a limited radius (which can spread with winds and rain) and the latter creates no radioactive waste beyond that radius even though it destroys much further. To give you and example, it can destroy everything in a 300 mile radius while producing waste for a 2 mile radius.
- neutron bombs: they are highly classified weapons, I do not know much about them, but they seem to destroy every living organism in a certain radius while leaving the infrastructure intact).

[m_m_x]

maybe we should have an option to determine the destructive power of the nuclear weapons...(from destructive as hell like in real life...to destructive as barbie doll like in c&c's nuclear weapons )

[The Joker]

Replies to Korns model:

Overall I like it a lot. It describes the massive destructive capability of nukes. There is, however, some things about it I do not like:

I don't think that using a nuke should be such a major atrocity as you described. After all, the US used them against the defenceless Japanese with very few or no diplomatic effects. Maybe it could work so that the more nukes that are in the world, the more diplomatic effects come from using them.

I really like the treaties, although I agree with Orange that they should be nameable by you.

On targeting I still think that every time a nuke was used anywhere in the world, even if it wasn't on you, you would get the option of using one, some or all of your nukes, and decide what to hit. This way you wouldn't necessarily risk total destruction just because an enemy uses a nuke on one of your smaller, peripherial cities, and at the same time you could choose to throw nukes at a civ if it had attacked one of your allies or protectorates.

The blast effects are great. They are realistic and useable at the same time.

The radiation model is not very good, however. The amount of radiation is fine, but as ratiation takes like 100,000 years or more to stop, I think that radiation should excist untill removed by enginners (this would be a very slow procedure). The radiation should therefor stay in a square forever, untill removed. I also think that in stead of a nuke giving 50/75% chance to kill a pop unit each turn for 5 turns, that these percentages should be lowered to something like 15/25%, but then excist for the rest of the game, untill the radiation in the city has been removed. This should be done with a settler like when it removes radiation from a normal square, but would propably take longer, as it is more dificult to remove radiation in a city with people in it than on some field.

I think that the Manhattan project should be a national project, so that each civ would have to build one to make nukes (there could be more of these national projects). I also think that nukes should be far cheaper than in Civ2/SMAC. Both the US and Russia has 1000s of nukes. They have enough to litterally bomb every inch of land in both countries! I don't think we need 1000s of nukes in Civ3, but it should be possible to build lots of them. I think that a medium size city with a factory should be able to build a nuke every other turn.

Nuclear winters: Again I think that a nuclear winter should remane forever, untill settlers has removed enough radiation to get below the 15% limit. A nuclear winter should therefor not create radioactive squares around the world. In stead you could, if the nuclear war was large enough, face permanent nuclear winter, where the lack of ressources should make almost every economic system but the basic one (self sufficiancy) impossible, the lack of money should make ressearch almost non existant, and as city improvements were being sold, as you didn't have enough money to maintain them, you would loose advances. On top of this, you would be forced to cut down the amount of your income used on bureaucracy points, which would make your civ fall apart. We could end up with loads of 1-5 city civs, all just trying to survive. The few civs that actually tryed to clean up the world would be easily conquored by the more warlike ones. Civ could finally have a true nuclear apocalypse!

[Az]

Joker : you know , I really liked your Idea!
I just try to imagine it ... a post-apocalyptic world . after-war civs that have LOST parts of their culture! just like in the Fallout RPG series ! .sounds good to me , but , again AI shouldn't be so trigger-happy . I remember , back at civ 2 I've been sufferin' from repeating , almost costant hits of nukes ! luckily I had SDI deployed ... ...

about the thing WarVoid said above :

In communism the military IS NOT in power ! the thing in power is a sole political party . the communist party . and the communist policy considering nukes was actually SOFTER then the western allies ... the soviet policy actually said that under NO sircumstances the soviets will be the first side to launch nukes . the western strategical doctrines said that if a conventional full scale world war is opened , The Button will be Pushhed ... so please... don't even try to argue with me . I know it . I lived there ...

[Az]

Joker : you know , I really liked your Idea!
I just try to imagine it ... a post-apocalyptic world . after-war civs that have LOST parts of their culture! just like in the Fallout RPG series ! .sounds good to me , but , again AI shouldn't be so trigger-happy . I remember , back at civ 2 I've been sufferin' from repeating , almost costant hits of nukes ! luckily I had SDI deployed ... ...

about the thing WarVoid said above :

In communism the military IS NOT in power ! the thing in power is a sole political party . the communist party . and the communist policy considering nukes was actually SOFTER then the western allies ... the soviet policy actually said that under NO sircumstances the soviets will be the first side to launch nukes . the western strategical doctrines said that if a conventional full scale world war is opened , The Button will be Pushed ... so please... don't even try to argue with me . I know it . I lived there ...

[CapTVK]

Taking a look at the nuclear model 2.0 I would say: keep it simple. We're simulating a civilization, not a nuclear war. A special launch screen for strategic strikes, convential or nuclear would be a good idea though.

My suggestion is giving nukes a strategic and tactical role. You can use a nuke in the normal 'tactical' mode, in which case it would work the same way as in Civ2. Or you could choose 'strategic' mode in which case you can use nukes and target cities with a far more dramatic effect: city improvements destroyed, large population drop etc..

Maybe this launch screen also is a way to give bombers a new role. The fact that bombers couldn't be used for destroying city improvements always bugged me.
[This message has been edited by CapTVK (edited April 30, 2000).]

[Hawkman142]

I think this is a great idea. Different types of nukes and different ranges is a good idea too.

[korn469]

ok if civ3 is a turned based game you cannot have full control over your nukes during the other players turn...if there are three players in a game and player one has many nukes, player two has a few nukes and player three has the most nukes and these weapons have unlimited range then without an alert mode it is impossible to prevent a first strike scenario. for game play you need to have some of your nukes ready to go...maybe with improved technology you could gain improved detection so you could know exactly who launched a nuke, with this technology you could specify an alert mode and a counterstrike mode for each civ or something to that effect

lets that player one launches a nuclear attack...

player two is player one's ally and his nukes are on counterstrike when player one launches...however they are on alert mode when player three launches

player three nuke's on all on alert mode

so player one launches on his turn...

player two is on counterstrike in relation to player one and doesn't launch...

player three has his nukes on alert and his nukes automatically retaliate...

player two's nukes are on alert in relation to player three and so then player two's nukes automatically launch

so in a matter of seconds ON PLAYER ONE'S TURN a nuclear war occured, 90% of the population was lost and the game continues with radiation covering the land

some nukes have to be on automatic in a TBS game unless it has simultaneous turns, (which have asynchronous play problems that a normal TBS game doesn't have) but if it doesn't have simultaneous turns, then there are only three options you have in reacting to a nuclear attack

option 1: player one gets to nuke player three and there is nothing player three can do about it...so this isn't an option

option 2: player one's turn isn't over but the game pauses after he launches the nukes...he has to save and send it to player two, who doesn't join in...player two sends it to player three, who attacks...then it goes back to player one and the turn unpauses and executes...this could get to be very very very time consuming...if you had six players and as each new player decided to launch people before them would then have to be asked if they wanted to launch now...this could take like maybe as many as five or six turns of deciding to launch

option 3: alert and counterstrike modes...with the modification that you can put your nukes on alert and counter strike mode towards each civ...so you could have you nukes on counterstrike with your allies, and you could have it on alert mode with your enemies

the joker

i love your proposal about national projects...you know what would be really awsome? if you took the idea of a national project and the alien victory condition in SMACX and then get a national projects that has prerequisits

for those of you who don't know in SMACX the alien victory is where you build you have to build 6 resonance generators in fairly large cities (size 10 if i remember correctly)

now this idea just came to me so its not perfect...but as for the national manhatten project...lets say that for each university you have the MP would be 25 mineral (shields) cheaper...so if you had lots of scientist you could build the MP project far cheaper than if you didn't, requirements effecting either the cost in minerals or the completion conditions for a national prject would be infinately more interesting than just building a national project in one city...these national projects should take a national effort to build...this could help take away the super city strategy for in civ3 and if the power of ICS was curbed too then you could have a perfect game

also i can agree on you that radiation should be long lasting...if the game is 500 turns long and radiation lasts 100 turns it would be rare for the radiation to go away by itself most of the time...but 100 turns may not be long enough so how does 150 turns sound? and for nuclear winter it last a random amount of turns but it always last 10 turns, then after 10 turns depending on the number of radioactive squares you would have a certain precentage of the nuclear winter ending...the more radiation the long it would last...so it could last between 10 and 150 turns...maybe after 100 turns then the radiation would have a chance of going away which would increase each turn...so at turn 101 it has a 1% chance of going away and at turn 150 it had a 50% chance of going away and at turn 199 it had a 99% chance of going away...how does that sound?

and i also agree that that civs should be able to lose technology

korn469

[SilverDragon]

Actually, 50 turns for the radiation would be fine, because by the time theres been a nuclear war, the game has probably only 50 turns left.

[korn469]

i think the best way to go in how long radiation lasts is this...

base time (doesn't matter too much but somewhere between 25-150 years) and then after the base time there is a percentage so after the base time is over then it goes like this, for each turn there is one percentage point greater that the radiation will go away

so for the first year we only have a 1% chance that the radiation will disappear...then after 25 years we have a 25% chance...then after 50 years we have a 50% chance...however the chance cannot go above 99% (but how many turns would it really not go away if the percentage was 99%)

this would have the positive game play effect of radiation disappearing at different time

almost the same thing for a nuclear winter...base time, then after the base time it would be +1% chance each year that the radiation would go away minus the percent of the squares covered in radiation so the more radioactive the planet is the longer a nuclear year would last

korn469