DESIGN: Abstracting nuclear arms

[MrBaggins]

Nuclear weapons are one of the most significant strategic developments of the modern world. They have shifted the balance, insofar as even a small nation can become very powerful by having them.

In CtP2 they seem to be a bit of a non-factor. One of the reasons behind this is a technological one; they are a modern invention, and the AI is usually woefully behind by the modern era. Another huge reason is their regular unit status.

They need to be moved and marshalled like other units. I never thought this befitted their status.

In my mind, they should be abstracted, and get their own screen, just like trade does.

My concept is this... you still build units. Their location is abstracted. No "unit" is generated. They still have a location, but cannot travel to locations other than a city, sub or perhaps a new "silo" improvement.

At the beginning, they have a limited range, of, say, 5 MP. This simulates an short range air delivered device. Certain advances give additional range for new devices, until the range for a device covers the entire map.

The interface could allow for pre targetting devices. It minimized micromanagement, improves the AI, and I think, the game experience.

[Solver]

I agree partially with the points, but CtP2 nukes are pretty OK, compared to Civ 3. For instance, they really are strong - and the Dead Tiles can be quite some an effect, especially if no technology exists to replace them.

However, if Nukes are abstracted the way you suggest, then the concept of loading them unto Bombers will be lost, while I quite like the concept. OTOH, the idea of having them move between cities, and silos in the open land is good. Then, though, how do you destroy a Nuke?

As it is, Nukes also have a limited range, being units that can run out of fuel. Although again, the idea of giving them actual range value from their city/silo seems good.

[MrBaggins]

Technology enabling long range bombers could extend the nukes range... perhaps?

If the city or silo is captured, then so is the nuke (with a chance for destruction.) If a sub is destroyed, so is the nuke.

As for range, within 20 years, nukes had been deployable on intercontinental ballistic missiles. Range for nukes is far too much of a factor in civ games. And walls of flesh can divert/stop them.

[Solver]

OK, but if an enemy city has nukes in it, and I nuke it, can the enemy nukes be destroyed that way? Also, should the enemy have a way of knowing where my nukes are positioned?

[The Big Mc]

if we get the space section could it be possible for after a certain advance rocketry that the nukes get the chance to go in to space then flatten the enemy city.

[Solver]

Well, that is pretty much similar to how ICBMs work. I think that the most powerful real-world nukes can get sent into space before hitting the enemy city.

I'd rather say, that we want to implement a SDI system for intercepting nukes, but with a rather small chance of that happening. However, nukes travelling via space can not be intercepted.

[MrBaggins]

Yes. But then I'd hope that we implemented MAD, so that nukes are pretargetted, and (possibly dependent on AI factors) launched on an offensive launch of a nuke against them.

As for the AI having foreknowledge, I'd like to playtest. I don't think its so significant, though. Nukes (and perhaps war) as suggested would be more of a diplomatic issue, than a tactical one.

Of course, nukes in CtP2 have a theoretical shelf life, until nanite defusers, and widespread SDI.

[Solver]

Well, CtP2 already implements MAD via targeting nukes at cities. That could, IMO, be left almost the way it is. Via interface, you design several targets for your nukes - if you get nuked, all the designated targets get nuked in return, immediately.

[Ekmek]

I think a nukes, like WMD (we should included bio/chem weapons with a reduced dead tile to one and a diplomatic effect) these units should be a "proliferation problem" once someone discovers the tech. So as a downside for being the first there should be a way where the tech could get to less developed countries, either randomly, or as a new spy mission and program (some) AI to really want to get it at all cost regardless of reputation.

[Solver]

Random leak of nuclear techs would be a bad idea - while a specific Spy mession to steal nuclear techs seems good.

That isn't a complete solution, though. Much of the time, the AI is, by this time, too behind industrially to have a chance at buildings nukes. I hope that some of Apolytoners will be able to improve the overall AI performance.

[MrBaggins]

Spy missions meaning moving units on the ground= probably not viable for the AI.

I like the idea of slightly elastic tech spread. ALL techs will to some degree proliferate. The more countries that have a certain tech, the more it spreads.

[Solver]

Random spread is, well, random, which is often bad. We could simply give some changes to the research cost formula - if many other nations have a tech, then researching it is cheaper.

[MrBaggins]

Right.

Brian Reynolds posted a piece umongst which tech spread was said to be a cornerstone of game balance.

You don't want to fall into the trap (of civ3,) and make tech RESEARCH obsolete though.

[Solver]

Right, which is one fundamental Civ 3 flaws. In Civ 3, it's much more efficient for you to buy techs from other civs, keeping research at minimum. We want research to still be the main method of gaining techs, though.

[MrBaggins]

Yes. The problem is, that you don't want to allow the lazy tech developers to get something for nothing.

Heres a solution... Restrict the elastic bonus gained to the percentage of GDP that is dedicated to science. Thus, if a human or AI is behind in science, and is ignoring science development, he gains nothing. If he is concentrating on it, but behind, he gains a full bonus.