 |
| |
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Not "adding" anything. But expanding nuclear weapons.
Tactical nukes
The first three tactical nukes that are used fall under a "grace period" where the other AIs don't hate you for using them (UNLESS you're using them in a first strike, and not defensively or continuing in war.) This is a pretty good simulation of the fact that no one utterly hates the USA because we  nuked Japan, and that back then IIRC the full horrors of nukes hadn't been thought out.
Tactical nukes reduce a city's population by half, destroy 3/4 of its improvements, and put pollution in + kill all improvements in all tiles surrounding the city. Units in the tactical nuke's target tile have 1 1/10 chance of surviving, and those in the surrounding tiles have a 1/2 chance.
Nukes also, incidentally, cut forests and jungles. However, no shields are returned to the nearest city, and the pollution and tile improvement destruction still happens.
In the event of a nuclear strike on a city with a nuclear power plant, you get pollution in a two-tile-out area, not just one.
ICBMs
There is no "grace period" for the first ICBMs. Use one, and all the other Civs of the world will automatically embargo you. Start a nuclear war with them, and the world allies against you.
ICBMs raze a city to the ground, with no surviving citizens or units. Improvements on every tile in a 2-tile radius are obliterated, and polluted. All units in the target are destroyed, all within the 2-tiles have a 1/10 chance of survival.
Again, ICBMs will cut a forest or jungle for you, but the pollution and tile improvements loss might want you to think of another way to get rid of those pesky jungles. 
The existence of a nuclear power plant will have no effect on an ICBM's total extermination spree.
Global Warming/Nuclear Winter
When "x" number of nukes have been launched (depending upon map size) AND "x" number of tiles are polluted (also depending), your game enters "nuclear winter", a friendly reminder that using nukes means you're ****ed. Anything that happens here will be detrimental to cities, but for a start, the tundra advances closer to the Equator, Plains becomes Desert, Grassland becomes Plains, and Forests and Jungles that haven't yet been harvested go bye-bye. When a tile changes, its resource supply dies (unless it can exist in the new tile as well). Also, once in "x" turns, ANY TILE has a very small chance of becoming "radioactive", meaning it will not be workable or passable again. Until "x" turns after the last nuke has been detonated, or all the pollution has been cleared, this state of things will continue, and cities will have "x" chance of losing population (this chance is reduced by having Hospitals).
PREVENTION
SDI Defense will reduce the chance of a nuclear weapon hitting its target to 1/4. If a city has the "Preparedness" improvement (I dunno), it will lose less citizens during a nuclear strike or the following nuclear winter.
Any Civ that uses tactical nukes after the 3-nuke grace period will have the **** beat out of it by an alliance of all the other nations.
So, basically, I want nukes to be more powerful, and I want the effects of using them in mass numbers to be strong enough to provide a huge deterrent that keeps away all but simply suicidal players.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
Having not read the above posts very closely (at work), there is one thing I would really like to add:
No forced diplomacy when nukes are used!
It's silly to nuke a mutual enemy, only to have your ally declare war on you. Making nuclear weapons have a diplomatic penalty should be done via a United Nations.
Barring that though, it is downright stupid for anything in the game to have an all or nothing effect. If nuking my neighbor makes the rest of the world so furious at me they declare war, fine. If they have no choice but to delcare war, bullhonkey.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Well, ok, the all-alliance deal was a little far-fetched. But (although maybe I'm just not so sure about how crazy people are now a days) even a nation's ALLIES would look down upon an agressive (not defencive) nuclear strike.
How's about:
-Tactical:
Allies are dropped by one level, say, from Gracious to Friendly, but they launch in unison with you if they have any.
Your enemies (especially the guy you nuked) drop to a kind of Perma-Furious state.
"Neutral" Civs (I'm wondering how that would be put in the game) are dropped by one level as well. Perhaps they sign an embargo against you too, horrified at your outrageous arrogance in use of the Bomb.
(Remember, the first three has no effect at all.)
-ICBM:
Allies are dropped by two levels, but they launch in unison anyways.
All of your enemies are dropped to the perma-furious state.
Neutral civs ally with your enemy.
HOWEVER, all of this just applies to a first strike. Return fire of nukes should have a much less destructive effect on your reputation.
In addition, if the round of nuclear warfare you started degenerates into a Nuclear Winter, then drop everyone's views of you by another full level.
I don't think chem or bio warfare should be included, it's just not "major" enough in history. There are a lot of other things that are cut too because they're just not damn important enough to make it in the game...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrmitchell
Well, ok, the all-alliance deal was a little far-fetched. But (although maybe I'm just not so sure about how crazy people are now a days) even a nation's ALLIES would look down upon an agressive (not defencive) nuclear strike.
How's about :
-Tactical:
Allies are dropped by one level, say, from Gracious to Friendly, but they launch in unison with you if they have any.
Your enemies (especially the guy you nuked) drop to a kind of Perma-Furious state.
"Neutral" Civs (I'm wondering how that would be put in the game) are dropped by one level as well. Perhaps they sign an embargo against you too, horrified at your outrageous arrogance in use of the Bomb.
(Remember, the first three has no effect at all.)
-ICBM:
Allies are dropped by two levels, but they launch in unison anyways.
All of your enemies are dropped to the perma-furious state.
Neutral civs ally with your enemy.
HOWEVER, all of this just applies to a first strike. Return fire of nukes should have a much less destructive effect on your reputation.
In addition, if the round of nuclear warfare you started degenerates into a Nuclear Winter, then drop everyone's views of you by another full level. |
I think the neutral civs should just randomly pick targets (though based on who they like and don't like). The idea being, if nuclear war is starting, I might as well get in a shot before I'm wiped out.
quote:
I don't think chem or bio warfare should be included, it's just not "major" enough in history. There are a lot of other things that are cut too because they're just not damn important enough to make it in the game... |
Biowar *could* be important in the near future, and it allows for some assymetrical warfare. And chem weapons were used pretty extensively during WWI IIRC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
First, add fallout as a different type of pollution_ twice as long to clean up, acts like jungle or floodplain in that it spawns disease. A large amoun of fallout, as opposed t industrial polution cause nucear winter.
I agree nukes should some in sizes-2 levels. The first level are fission bombs, followed by fussion bombs.
We could add MIRV technology, making it harder for any SDI to end the enemy nuclear threat- the way it wuld work is that an ICBM, instea of having one sngle big warhead would be given 3 smaller ones. NOw the SDI as to be sure to shoot down 3 wareads, not just one.
As for damage- for a small level one-5-10 population killed- and has chance to wipe out cities of this size (so a level 4 city is gone if nuked), destroys all larg city improvments (anything you would pay more than 1 gold to upkeep), all military units on the tile get hit by a bombardment value, meaning some might be destoryed, most damaged. 3 tile of fallout created, which spread out randomly around the city or tile attacked. Roads into the city cut, though no damage to irrigation or mines. Cty square ceases production until cleaned up. If it fall on forest or jungle, clears terrain.
For Large nuke- 10-30 population damage- chance to wipe out any city smaller than this (size 10 cities or bellow, gone). All city imporvements destroyed. 12 tiles of fallout created, randomly spread around tile. All military units 50 chane of destruction, all other end with 1 hp. Damage to all units in surrounding tiles. All city improvements in radius of city destroyed. Forests and jungles cleared by this.
NOw, any nuke placed by terrorists will always be level 1.
I agree with adding biological wepaon, as an extension of a system that includes plagues as a possible natural disaster. There is less need for Chemical weapons realy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
I think there should be a special screen for nuclear wars. If you launch a nuke, all the nations get together on the red phones and try to avert disaster. You can make deals with other nations "I'll call it off if you give me...", and third party nations can sit down and go "Are you gonna get me involved?".
But when it finaly happens it should be simultaneous. Instead of individual unit movement, nukes just target a city, and when everyone has targeted theirs they all go at once. That prevents 3rd parties from being pulled into nuclear conflagrations they're not really a part of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
 |
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
I think there should be a special screen for nuclear wars. If you launch a nuke, all the nations get together on the red phones and try to avert disaster. You can make deals with other nations "I'll call it off if you give me...", and third party nations can sit down and go "Are you gonna get me involved?".
|
Very good idea- but maybe it should only be possible when there is such thing as a United Nations... that way the nations would be more coordinated.
if there was no UN, then the nations responsible and the bordering ones and the hostile ones should probably do as you suggest, but the neutral ones (unless they were eco-friendly) shouldn't really care or want to get involved/dragged into a possible nuclear holocaust
--
quote:
But when it finaly happens it should be simultaneous. Instead of individual unit movement, nukes just target a city, and when everyone has targeted theirs they all go at once. |
I don't really think that this is a good idea for civ. Nukes have to travel different distances- and if the game stops for nukes- why not have it stop for other things, like chemical warheads- or any air unit- if you're basing this game stoppage on speed?
I would argue that unless the nuclear missiles are abstracted, and instead of being conventional units, they are represented instead as 'points' inside silos somewhere within your empire, that they nuclear missiles should be subject to the 'first mover advantage'
however, if they ARE abstracted and they aren't really 'units per se' then I would posit that although the city they are held within might be destoryed in 1/2 of a turn, that the player can still launch the nukes in his half of the turn- even though all the units inside of his city will be dead- the nukes will remain for one turn, until they expire (IE they would not have been fired during that turn)
actually, now that I think of it- I like this idea- making nukes and chems and biowarheads as a sort of 'interim unit' that can be launched but cannot be 'flown' like they were in civ II... but also can be transported by some sort of unit between cities...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
POTUS
|
 |
How could I possibly not have a Mozambican flag, I mean, what other country has an AK-47 on their flag?
Jul 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
For the hotline type of thing, once you research some tech, i.e. International Communications, you can upgrade your embassies to add hotlines which decrease the chance of war, and surprise attacks, i.e. they will demand something from you first, instead of just attacking you.
And, biological weapons have been very important. In the middle ages, seiges were often decided by who got the plague first, the attackers or the defenders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
I don't really think that this is a good idea for civ. Nukes have to travel different distances- and if the game stops for nukes- why not have it stop for other things, like chemical warheads- or any air unit- if you're basing this game stoppage on speed?
I would argue that unless the nuclear missiles are abstracted, and instead of being conventional units, they are represented instead as 'points' inside silos somewhere within your empire, that they nuclear missiles should be subject to the 'first mover advantage'
however, if they ARE abstracted and they aren't really 'units per se' then I would posit that although the city they are held within might be destoryed in 1/2 of a turn, that the player can still launch the nukes in his half of the turn- even though all the units inside of his city will be dead- the nukes will remain for one turn, until they expire (IE they would not have been fired during that turn)
actually, now that I think of it- I like this idea- making nukes and chems and biowarheads as a sort of 'interim unit' that can be launched but cannot be 'flown' like they were in civ II... but also can be transported by some sort of unit between cities... |
The reason I think they should be simultaneous is the 3rd party issue, and time realism. If I launch an ICBM, it's detected within a few minutes and my enemy makes the decision to retaliate or not. I call my allies and they launch (or don't), and all of this happens within (at most) the couple of hours it takes the original ICBM to make its journey.
In civ terms, since each turn is a year, this should happen instantaneously. If you go with the 1/2 turn idea, you run into the problem of turn order. If the agressor comes after his target in turn order, a year passes before the retaliation. If there is a third party that is waiting to see the nature of the retaliation before deciding whether to engage, and is even earlier in the turn order, then it takes 2 years for that country to enter the fray. If you have 4th or 5th parties waiting to see how many countries will launch to decide what to do, you can have the last nuclear launch 4 or 5 years after the first.
Perhaps the biggest problem I have with this, is that you get to gauge the damage before committing which is really problematic.
I agree that making a special screen for ICBM nuclear war does beg the question - what about bombs dropped from planes, tac nukes, chemical, biological, etc. but I think that the mechanics of an ICBM exchange are unique enough to warrant their own special handling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrmitchell
Player A nukes Player B on Turn 1. Player B doesn't get nuked, but recieves a warning that thousands of ICBMs are screaming their way toward his capital. Then Player B has the option to return nuke fire. Then on Turn 2, the nukes reach Player B, and annihlate his civilization.
This balances the first-strike advantage...no longer can you just nuke first, hit all their nuclear cities, and get no return fire.
(In effect, nukes simply take 2 turns in transit across the world. Since a turn is a full year, it might seem unrealistic, but it's the easiest way to balance the situation.) |
This is the most elegant and brilliant suggestion for this yet!
You include MAD, don't add anything that isn't needed or cumbersome (extra screens, etc... which I was in favor of until a few seconds ago), and actually create a more exciting nuclear exchange.
Way to go, mrmitchell!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrmitchell
Player A nukes Player B on Turn 1. Player B doesn't get nuked, but recieves a warning that thousands of ICBMs are screaming their way toward his capital. Then Player B has the option to return nuke fire. Then on Turn 2, the nukes reach Player B, and annihlate his civilization.
This balances the first-strike advantage...no longer can you just nuke first, hit all their nuclear cities, and get no return fire.
(In effect, nukes simply take 2 turns in transit across the world. Since a turn is a full year, it might seem unrealistic, but it's the easiest way to balance the situation.) |
This has 2 problems:
1) It still doesn't solve the third party problem.
Turn 1 - Civ A launches at Civ B
Turn 2 - Civ B launches at Civ A
Turn 3 - Civ A's nukes hit. Civ B's are in the air, but Civ C, which was waiting to see the nature of the retaliation, only now launches.
Turn 4 - CivD which was waiting to see what Civ C would do...
Because the civ's decision making on whether to launch or not is dependant on the actions of other civs the time from the start of the nuclear war to the end of the nuclear war could be a lot of turns.
2)Other Unit's movement.
If it takes 2 turns for a nuke to arrive, you can have all of your units safely away from the blast zone before they hit.
I would much rather have some sort of simultaneous launch mechanism. I think the easiest thing would be to stop time when the first launch is declared. Then each civ picks its targets in some sort of order.
Round 1 - China targets Washington.
2 - US targets Beijing
3 - India passes
4 - Russia passes
5 - France passes
6 - China targets San Fransisco
7 - US Targets Shanghai
8 - India is pissed that US is targeting something near its border so India targets Los Angeles.
9 - Russia was content to leave it US vs. China, but since India is in the fray, Russia targets Bangalore.
etc. etc.
Once everyone has gone through their arsenal, you go to the trade screen, and can trade targets. "I'll deactivate the 3 nukes coming towards Beijing if you'll deactivate the 2 headed for Washington and give me 300 gold and spices...
Once everyone agrees that they have no trades left to make, any targets remaining outstanding are hit simultaneously, and we continue with normal turns.
To prevent the use of nukes to leverage deals, there should be a loss of reputation for initiating a nuclear conflict, even if no actual launches happen.
I don't really care if the mechanism for launching is done in it's own screen or on the world map, though I do think that nuclear war is important enought to warrant some special attention. And I disagree that having a special screen for it would imply that the game is "about nuclear war". I think it's just an admition that if you choose to engage in a nuclear war, you're doing something very different than any other action in the game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-01-2004 23:41
But that would be a good replacement for fallout--EXCEPT that it's just a "rush a lot of workers and clean it and go" thing. It minimizes the impact of nuclear holocaust.
|