EC3 Fix #18 - IMPROVED NUKES

[raingoon]

by War4ever

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Nukes..... ie permanent damage radiation squares.... that cannot be fixed by the engineer....same as nuke reactor disaster... some land should be polluted permanently so that it discourages nukes
A nuke still causes 6-8 pollution squares but at least two at random should be permanent
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

[ChrisShaffer]

No. Civ does not need more/better/different nuclear weapons. A reduction in the reliance on weapons of mass destruction as military tools in the endgame would be a plus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think a standoff because of mutually assured destruction should occur. And after the first nuke, the people would know the effects and dropping another one would worsen relations.

[raingoon]

In the real world, having nukes is like holding the proverbial wolf by the ears. Your glad you got him under control, but you don't dare let go, either.

In Civ 3 nukes should be just like that; let the wolf go and there's no protecting anyone from it -- ESPECIALLY you.

[korn469]

first can you define what the problem is? is it a significant problem? how does your ideas fix that problem specifically? does your fix effect any other areas of the game? if it does effect another area does it upset game balance in those other areas? is there a simpler way to fix the problem? does your idea hurt gameplay? why out of all of the ideas does your fix belong on this list?

[SnowFire]

I posted this before back in summer, but oh well.

Have three levels of nukes and two types of radiated squares, weak and strong radiation. Weak gets fixed by engineers. Strong only gets fixed by lots and lots of time, and then it is only downgraded to weak.

"Standard" nukes and fission reactor meltdowns will halve any city's populaiton within the blast radius, do extensive (possibly deadly) damage to all units not protected, and randomly cause weak radiation in the surrounding squares.

"Improved" nukes will utterly annihilate the square it is targeted at and create strong radiation in that square. The ajoining squares will randomly recieve either strong or weak radiation, but none will be unaffected. If a city is in an ajoining square its population is halved.

"Planetbuster" style nukes will cause a one square lake at ground zero. Strong radiation goes in all ajoining spots, and randomly strong and weak radiation is tossed out 2 squares away and some weak radiation is tossed out even 3 squares away. Cities at range 3 have their population halved, all others are blown to pieces (along with military units of course).

[Napoleon I]

SnowFire: I think that you came up with a great idea. I think that the idea of being able to have an engineer go in and clean up pollution damage from a nuclear blast in a few turns is ridiculous.

------------------
Napoleon I

[korn469]

ok here is my editied nuclear bomb idea

types: first there are three classes of nukes

atomic bombs
hydrogen bombs
MIRV hydrogen bombs

they are all single use weapons

the atomic bomb must be loaded in a bomber
the hydrogen bomb is an ICBM with unlimited range

targeting: when a nuclear weapon is built it must be set up to fire...this means setting up the weapon...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 hydrogen bombs can be loaded into one of the following
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 hydrogen bombs can strike anywhere they can be given any target

MIRV hydrogen bombs have the same power as a normal hydrogn bomb but for a little higher cost they get to select two targets and they can be improved with technology so they can select up to three targets

before a unit is loaded it is considered in transport mode, and has the same movement as a freight truck from civ2

Blast: nuclear weapons do the following damage

an atomic bomb kills 10 population in a direct hit, and automatically destroys two facilities, it then has a 50% chance of destroying each of the remaining facilities (40% to destroy a wonder), all units in the square it hits are automatically destroyed, it destroys all tile improvements in the square it hits. If an atomic bomb hits in an adjacent square it kills 6 population and it automatically destroys one facility and has a 40% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (30% chance to destroy a wonder), and it destroys all Tile improvements, all units not in bunkers(forts) are automatically destroyed, and all units in bunkers take 90% damage

a hydrogen bomb kills 25 population in a direct hit and automatically destroys five facilities and has a 75% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (65% chance to destroy a wonder), if a tile improvement exists it is destroyed, and all units are automatically destroyed. if a hydrogen bomb hits in an adjacent square the city loes 15 population, and it automatically destroys thre facilities with a 65% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (55% to destroy a wonder), all tile improvements are destroyed and all units are automatically destroyed. if a hydrogen bomb hits two squares away a city loses 10 population and two facilities are automatically destroyed with a 50% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (40% chance to destroy a wonder). all tile improvements are destroyed and all units not in bunkers are destroyed. units in bunkers take 90% damage.

MIRV hydrogen bombs have the exact same effect as a normal hydrogen bomb, except they can have multiple targets, so a MIRV could attack 2-3 targets with those effects

radiation: nuclear bombs create radiation when used

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. 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.

hydrogen bomes 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. if a hydrogen bomb 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.

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 nuke is targeted 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. this ensures Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)

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.

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.

that is my nuclear weapon model

korn469
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]</font>

[Glostakarov]

The most important change that needs to be made with nukes is the ability to launch a counterstrike before the first nukes go off. The Mutual Assured Destruction mentioned by Korn. That ability alone would help balance nukes of increased power, since if more than one side had them you might hesitate to use them.

[Omsat]

When you use nukes everyone should get pissed off at you, even minor nations. they don't all have to declare war on you just get mad. And there should be a starburst type unit that could go on alert mode and go after any nuke that passes it. It would be like the SDI defense in Civ 2, except it's a unit.

[korn469]

Omsat:

at this moment there are tens of thousand of nuclear weapons throughout the world..the USA, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India(just a few), Pakistan(just a few), and North Korea(porbably one) all have nuclear weapons and i have read that South Africa used to have nuclear weapons but gave them up. During the coming years more nations will build nuclear weapons

however, not a single nation has even a prototype SDI system...the USA Star Wars Program of the 80's turned out to be more bluff and wishful thinking than anything else

if a single nuclear missle was launched right now, there is nothing that could stop it. In the Persian Gulf war, the Patriot missles mostly hit the Scud's Fuel tanks and not the warhead...making them useless against chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads. In the US Air Force's latest test on it's scaled down THAAD(is that how they spell it?) anti-missle system which is the successor to SDI failed, and the only success they had was on the USAF's own admission pure luck. After billions of dollars spent over an almost two decade long period no Anti Ballistic missle defense exists. We are no safer now than what we were fourty years ago from ICBM's.

Basically i think SDI is science fiction as of right now and even a small ABM system won't exist for at least 5 years maybe as many as 10...so in summary if SDI is put into Civ3 it should be one of the very last techs before future techs...it should be very expensive to build a SDI system and it should not be completely effective. and it should definantly not be a unit.

between MAD, radiation, nuclear winter, and other civs considering using nuclear weapons a major atrocity, the wide spread use of nukes should not be a problem...and in civ3 surviving the age of nuclear weapons without triggering a full-scale nuclear war should be a major accomplishment

korn469

[Napoleon I]

Korn: I can agree with the idea that despite fifty years of living under the prospect of a full-scale nuclear war we still have not developed any kind of efficient anti-missile system, but as you pointed out it is just a matter of time and resources. If you make an SDI complex very, very expensive I don't see a problem with civs having it. Futhermore I don't think that it's a bad idea to have it implemented as a unit, because that way civs can trade it. This could nicely emulate the defensive missile systems that the Soviets gave to the Egyptians before the Egypt-Israely war of 1973. For this reason I think that SAM Battery should also be implemented as a unit in some way.

Omsat: I really like the idea. A system like this could finally rule out a massive nuclear first strike that I used often to win in Civ2.

------------------
Napoleon I

[korn469]

Napoleon I

well i am always willing to compromise,

as long as SDI systems are expensive, not completely effective, and come after nuclear weapons then i am for it being in the game...

if you were going to have an SDI unit, then maybe you could give it a 2 square intercept range, so that it protects a specific target, orbital defense pods in SMAC were good, except that they were a little too cheap and a little too effective...a large enough nuclear strike should be able to overwhelm almost any SDI system

some rules would be, a SDI unit could only intercept once per turn...it would be about 25% effective and cost like one third the cost of a hydrogen bomb

son once you get three war head MIRV type hydrogen bombs having a great SDI system to stop it would be a very costly proposition

so just some starter numbers

atomic bomb: cost 80 minerals, must be loaded in a bomber, and the bomber can be shot down by SAM units or enemy fighters

Hydrogen bomb: cost 200 shields, can strike anywhere can only be intercepted by SDI units

MIRV Hydrogen bomb: cost 300 shields, can strike anywhere, can only be intercepted by SDI units, has two warheads (strike two targets) and some advanced tech would automatically upgrade them to three warheads

*these weapons would be banned by the Salt II treaty a U.N. security council proposition (diplomacy option like repeal/reinstate U.N. charter in SMAC) if you started building one of these weapons after the Salt II treaty passed, people would impose sanctions on you

SDI unit: cost 65 shields, can intercept a Hydrogen bomb in a 2 square radius, can only intercept once per turn and has a 25% chance of a successful intercept...obviously the intercept occurs before the nuclear weapons hit

**these weapons would be banned by the ABM treaty a U.N. security council proposition (diplomacy option like repeal/reinstate U.N. charter in SMAC) if you started building one of these weapons after the ABM treaty passed, people would impose sanctions on you

korn469
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]</font>

[Napoleon I]

Korn469: I think that you are really on to something. The 25% sounds a bit too low but after all you are right, such weapons are very unpredictable and complex. Overall, I think that your proposition is very good. The SDI unit would have a very low movement ratio to simulate the difficulty of moving such systems around. It should also not be able to be airlifted. This would prevent somebody from building an SDI unit in their capital and getting it on another continent the next turn. Thanks for the meaningful reply.

------------------
Napoleon I

[don Don]

I tried to find that old thread on nukes. Mark'n'Dan have axed everything before August, so if it was prior to that it's gone.


Warhead types
The two dropped on Hir/Nag were what we now consider tactical or "theater" nukes. Perhaps that is what you mean by your first "type" of bomb? They yield far less than 50kt (typically 10-20kt, like Fat Man and Little Boy).

Most nukes are still fission only; there are probably fewer than 50 fusion bombs in the US arsenal. The old Soviet arsenal had a larger proportion of H-bombs but still probably less than 500 out ~10,000 warheads. Strategic fission warheads have yields between 250kt and 1Mt.

Multiple Independently-targettable Reentry Vehicle Warheads
Mirv technology is primarily for fission warheads. Fusion warheads are big and extremely difficult to mirv (two or three warheads on the largest liquid-fueled missiles). By contrast, the relatively small missile [dang, forgot name] developed to replace Minuteman carries several (maybe 5?) fission warheads, and the sub-launched Trident missile carries 10 ~750kt warheads (the kind the Chinese stole data on).

Strategic use of nukes is never going to be single warhead strikes. What civ2 seems to be modeling is the barrage of warheads targetting the city proper and surrounding military units and industrial centers. Except when a unit is targetted instead of a city, then it seems to immitate a limited tactical strike. But then a spy could never smuggle in numerous warheads to gain the same affect as the nuclear barrage.

Civ3 needs to distinguish between theater and strategic nukes. A single theater warhead can destroy one or maybe two division-sized units. They are frightfully cheap compared to conventional weapons needed to destroy a comparable number of units. Only fear of escalation prevents their use.

Radioactive pollution
Radioactivity generally doesn't kill people. The polluted region of the Ukraine caused by Chernobyl could be repopulated. Those people who moved in would suffer dramatically higher rates of particular cancers, so radioactive pollution causes unhappiness rather than outright death. Even tile production penalties should be minimal, but removing workers from polluted tiles minimizes the unhappiness affects. The effects last a variable time, depending on what isotopes were produced.

Nuclear Winter
Nuclear blasts launch debris into the upper atmosphere theoretically capable of blocking a significant percentage of sunlight. How this would affect the complex interaction of oceanic and atmospheric thermal balance, etc, is unknown. It would likely lower global temeratures enough to affect harvests severely.

Only the detonation of thousands of warheads within a short time can produce a nuclear winter; with each strategic unit counting as 20-50 theater warheads. The effects on food production would be similar to pollution.