13-03-2005 02:59									#1
	New Nukes Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I am unhappy with the current state of affairs in regards to nuclear weapons in Civ3.

I have thought about this for some months and here is what I am thinking.

1. There should be two types of nuclear weapons, as in Civ3 (and the real world), but they should not have bombard capability. They need to be loaded onto something else in order to be delivered. Therefore there should be two types of "warheads" that you can produce.

A. Tactical nukes. These warheads are weaker than the current Civ3 nukes. They would only do one tile damage, i.e. destroy improvements and units and produce pollution on the tile on which they explode.

B. Thermonuclear warheads. These warheads would be the same strength as Civ3 nukes, i.e. doing damage to and pollution 9 squares (or 7 hexes, whichever map type is chosen in Civ4). These would be more expensive to produce and require more advanced techs.

Type A nukes could be produced immediately after the Manhattan project. Since they cannot bombard, they must be loaded onto one of the following types of delivery mechanisms:

X. Bomber. Loading a tactical nuke onto a bomber will cause the bomber to drop the nuke on its target on the next bombing missing the bomber undertakes. The Bomber still risks being shot down and the warhead destroyed.

Y. Cruise (short range) missile. When loaded onto this type of missile, the nuke can be delivered up to 4-6 tiles from the launch site (current cruise missiles are just 2, which I think is too low). A cruise missile without a tactical nuke attached would act as a regular cruise missile and have range 4-6 tiles.

Z. ICBM. An ICBM is just the delivery mechanism for a nuclear warhead. I.e. it must be "loaded" with a warhead of either tactical or thermonuclear type.

Type B nukes could only be manufactured after some appropriate tech. They could only be loaded onto either Bombers or ICBMs (i.e. not cruise missiles).

In addition to being weaker, tactical nukes would be cheaper to produce and maintain; they would carry less of a reputation hit when used, especially when used against military targets (as opposed to cities). The idea is to make modern warfare more deadly, but more fun by making nukes that are much more likely to be used on the battlefield.

Additionally, I think cruise missiles need to be more useful by making them cheaper and go more places. Cruise Missiles (with or without attached tactical nukes) could be loaded onto nuclear submarines (3-4 missiles each sub) or Carriers (1-2 missiles). But only cruise missiles without nuclear warheads could be loaded onto Destroyers (1-2 missiles), Battleships (1-2 missiles), and AEGIS cruisers (1-2 missiles). Cruise missiles should be able to be airlifted, loaded onto transports (but not fired from transports), etc.


I am continually frustrated by the nature of nuclear warfare in Civ3. I think it needs a change. Especially modern warfare, where the monotony of hundreds of MA and MI rolling around, coupled with gobs of Bombers is just too....boring?

What do you think?

Last edited by diablovision on 13-03-2005 at 03:04

	13-03-2005 06:08									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

I agree with you that nukes need to get changed. But for one, pollution is gone in Civ3, so the result for type B must be changed. Besides, I think nukes in Civ3 is a joke, we need a new approach.

	13-03-2005 21:00									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think the biggest problem is that no one really knows what would happen if modern nuclear weapons were actually used (let alone biochemical). I don't mean technically, we've all seen the pictures of mushroom clouds in the pacific, but socio-economically and politically. Nonconventional weapons theories generally assume the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

Essentially, the only defense against a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is that if one were used it would result in immediate and equal destruction of the user. MAD works simply because no state wants to be destroyed and the theory makes such a condition to the use of WMDs.

Recently, this theory's been in trouble because 1) the two states between which the theory had been developed (US & USSR) are no longer rivals and 2) it is possible for an actor to use a WMD for whom MAD is inconsequential (i.e. religiously extreme terrorists).

Ultimately, this is a difficult system to simulate in a TBS board game. But I don't think it would be impossible. Whatever it is, it should probably not involve "units" like it has in the past, but a separate element entirely. Again, this could be tricky but not impossible. Espionage experienced a similar change in Civ3.

I would support a Global Tactics screen, similar to that Espionage screen, where one's nukes are pre-targeted (which was a common theme in post-Cold War reconciliation; "Was your town marked for destruction? That story and more, tonight at 11:00."). Similar to SuperPower's system, all participants should have the opportunity to "push the button" should nukes be launched.

The details are: How is it known that a nuke's been launched? How is it determined who launched first or can that be determined? How is the currect threat from non-state actors simulated? The biggest detail is, of course: What happens?

I think it ought to be an Endgame scenario, a sort of "Wow, you guys screwed up royally!" final video. Although it's dark, Civ has never really faced up to the Apocalypse prospects of human civilization. It would be a nice threat to hold over all those war mongers out there.

All the more so if an online Hall of Fame is developed that will keep track of habitual "nuclear holocaust civvers"

	14-03-2005 01:09									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You idea about nukes would be too complicated for civ. Remember, this is a civ game, not Nuke Tycoon.

	14-03-2005 03:15									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Mini-nukes! Mini-nukes! Mini-nukes!

- I think that instead of having that many types, we can put this simple: there are nukes and ICBM, and you can put them on transport/submarine/whatnot from which to launch it.
- You want different strengths of nukes: well this is true for ALL units which can be "upgraded" and this is why some proposed having techs upgrades such as "swordman tech-upgrade 1 / 2 / 3", "bomber tech-upgrade 1 / 2 / 3"... or "nuke tech-upgrade 1 / 2 / 3". ICBM could be 3 since we're at it.

Simple and easy, no need of 5 nuke types.

And there are mini-nukes

	16-03-2005 01:11									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm for 2 types of nukes, as long as a tactical strike has the same military and diplomatic implactions as a strike from a strategic nuke. Don't include "bunker buster" nukes, I think if there were hundreds of "paralell earths", most would stop them as Congress has.

	16-03-2005 16:51									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think that nukes are WAY to weak in civ3. Even the nukes that where used againsts japan did gigantic damage and modern nukes are much much more powerfull. Modern nukes should completely destroy everything(including cities) in there radius with the exception of ICBN.

	16-03-2005 22:24									#8
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dida You idea about nukes would be too complicated for civ. Remember, this is a civ game, not Nuke Tycoon.

What does "this is a civ game" even mean when you say it?

The representation of nukes has improved over the series. Civ3 is the best (unlimited range and all fro ICBMs) so far. But the representation of nukes has over all been pretty lame. Yeah, this is a civ game - you know, a game about building a civilization and fighting other civs. Nukes are a necessary part of the late game because civilizations in the real world actually build them. Yes, this is a civ game which means it should reasonably model civilization in broad strokes.

	19-03-2005 04:43									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I agree, Kolpo,if they're going to be units in a game, they should be useful in some situations.

	19-03-2005 13:21									#10
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

can we say dirty nukes

just like the lawyer unit it ctp, but a yellow breif case?

	24-03-2005 04:17									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Maybe a terrain improvment called "missile base", like airports; so you can choose: load the missile on an submarine,plane or ship or launch them by an missile base. Bases on mountains should have bigger range,too. And maybe we should have non-nuclear missiles, that should have smaller chances of destroyng units, cause no pollution and lower pop damage.

	24-03-2005 05:42									#12
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Templar What does "this is a civ game" even mean when you say it?

New PC jargon in use around here, i.e. to get the meaning substitute "hey now, I am one of the morons that Firaxis is now marketing to, and that makes my head hurt..you don't expect me to actually think about a stupid computer game do you that would spoil the point"

	24-03-2005 06:50									#13
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I actually like the idea of a missile base, but one problem is that, if they are visible on the map, and this being a turn-based game, the AI could launch a preemptive attack (without your chance for retaliation) and destroy all of your missiles.

One possible remedy is that each missile base could be "auto-targetted" so that when attacked on someone else's turn, it would automatically launch--thus a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario....

	24-03-2005 06:59									#14
	Support Apolyton

...I skipped over all the posts so this may be unrelated.


I'd almost as much prefer nukes not to be apart of the game than seeing them used frequently. A nuclear weapon in a game should almost never be used in a game and under only rare occurrences should it occurr (see: real world history). The biggest effect* nuclear weapons has had on the world was the collapse of the Soviet Union due to a collapsed economy, which in some part came from the overexpenditure of funds in weapons - notably nuclear weapons.

How does that releate into Civ terms? The use of nuclear weapons should have irreputable effects on the nation who uses nuclear weapons by Civs refusing to trade with them for X amount of years, their own citizens shunning them, and other disparaging factors. Nuclear weapons should be expensive to build and an expensive upkeep, so like the Soviet Union, if you build too many of them your economy (or government) may collapse. The counterpoint method to having nuclear weapons would be to use them in case they were used on you, in which case the "bad" effects wouldn't be as noticable or present.



* = yes, the use of the nuclear bomb in WWII is the most gruesome and horrific, but i don't believe that constitues it for being the biggest effect on world history. WWII was likely going to come to a conclusion with the same results one way or another, except the use of a nuke changed the variables of when and of how many more lives would it take?

	29-03-2005 13:09									#15
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

come on

nukes has been part of CIV

Long Live Nukes !!

just bring back the wave file from Civ2

	30-03-2005 04:45									#16
	Put an end to popups!

Hell yeah.. gotta have nukes.

But they also definately need to be improved....

The fear of nukes should return... at least until the other nations gets nukes.

MAD is a must... but make it like a declaration that you make to the world (how that would be done, i dont know) but do something like call all the leaders together and tell them you will immediatly annhilate them if they use WMDs on you. (hopefully this could create times of tensions like the cold-war)

Something i think that would be cool... once you build the Mankattan Project, you automatically get 2 A-bombs. The A-bomb would be a unit you CANNOT build, but you get one free every 5 turns like the Staue of Zues and Knights Templar in Conquests. The A-bomb has to be loaded into a bomber and dropped on a city.

The development of ICBMs stops the Manhattan project from building A-bombs.

Nukes (not A-bombs) should LEVEL cities.. not just reduce their population.

	30-03-2005 20:22									#17
	Got spare money?

Historically the effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were totally different. There was (I think) more damage to Hiroshima than Nagasaki. Wind was a factor as was the different target sites.

Also the A Bomb was replaced by the H Bomb which was replaced by something else replaced by something else. The difference was better triggers and more power in the blast. Then you get Polaris and Trident - The latter which was billed as the Rolls Royce of nuclear weapons.

What would be nice would be a neutron bomb. Very costly to build but neutrons decay quicker so background radiation returns to normalish quicker. After all you cannot stay near most atomic test sites for long before glowing in the dark.

Also some indication of long term health effects of living in a nuked city would be nice - higher cancer rates etc - possibly reduced growth in that city

JATF

	31-03-2005 02:09									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

yes hiroshima had more damage than nagasaki.. about 20,000-30,000 more dead. and true the H-bomb followed the A-bomb... and so on... but who cares? i dont think the people playing the game.. me included.. really want to research 20+ diferent types of nuclear weapons.

and your idea about post-blast effects is a really good idea... like slowly over time they die of radiation and cancer... very good idea

	31-03-2005 03:56									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Not to mention that Civ IV is a GAME, so MAD wouldn't work at all within it.

Worst that can happen is I lose the game.

quote: Originally posted by Dida You idea about nukes would be too complicated for civ. Remember, this is a civ game, not Nuke Tycoon.

	31-03-2005 04:10									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Historically, the two bombs against Japan did less damage than the mass satration of napalm dropped upon one German city.

Also, the idea between dropping the second nuke on Japan when that was the last one in stock was that is is better to actually run out of ammo than to look like your about to run out of ammo.

And it also turned out to be quite important a few nights later that a bombing north of Tokyo (with convential weapons) flight path took it close to the Emperor's palace. (See "The Longest Day") The air alert caused major disruptions to a plan by military leaders in Japan to foil the emperor's plan to surrender. (Unknown to our forces at the time)

A conventional invasion of Japan would probably have cost even more Japense civilian casulaties than the two bombs did. (No smart bombing technics existed at all in WW II, the only way to guartine destruction of a specific building would also result in half the buildings within a few square miles receiving major damage.)

	31-03-2005 05:43									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by joncnunn A conventional invasion of Japan would probably have cost even more Japense civilian casulaties than the two bombs did. (No smart bombing technics existed at all in WW II, the only way to guartine destruction of a specific building would also result in half the buildings within a few square miles receiving major damage.)

Well, there is speculation that the fire bombings the US were using were more effective the the two A-Bombs and the continuing of such tactics might have ended the war all the same, but the US may have wanted to flex its muscle by the use of A-Boms. I'm not claiming it to be fact, just merely speculation.

	31-03-2005 07:31									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yes some of the fire bombing raids on Japan did do much more damage than the atomic bombs (one firebombing run killed more than 100,000 civilians) however... no one can doubt that the a-bomb probptly ended the war, becasue one bomb almost leveled a city. and the Japanese had no idea how many bombs we had. so their only choice was surrender. but anyway... i still think the manhattan project giving you an a-bomb every 5 turns would be cool...

	31-03-2005 13:24									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by kolpo I think that nukes are WAY to weak in civ3. Even the nukes that where used againsts japan did gigantic damage and modern nukes are much much more powerfull. Modern nukes should completely destroy everything(including cities) in there radius with the exception of ICBN.

The thing with making nukes strong(er) is that it would become a case of whomever get's to nukes first, wins.
In the real world there is no "winning" and thus no need (yeah simplyfying here, bite me ) to use nukes, in a game however...

	01-04-2005 00:04									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by rob006 Yes some of the fire bombing raids on Japan did do much more damage than the atomic bombs (one firebombing run killed more than 100,000 civilians) however... no one can doubt that the a-bomb probptly ended the war, becasue one bomb almost leveled a city. and the Japanese had no idea how many bombs we had. so their only choice was surrender. but anyway... i still think the manhattan project giving you an a-bomb every 5 turns would be cool...

http://www.psywarrior.com/B52leaflets.html

One interesting thing about the bombing campaigns in WW2 over Japan was the psychological aspect of it. The US dropped leaflets warning of impending bombing runs and that civilians should evacuate the city to spare their own lives. They also urged citizens to demand their military surrender. They were very effective in weakening public support for the war, and in the end saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Somehow, I don't expect our current enemies to be so kind.

I like the idea of the Manhattan project producing A-bombs every 5 turns or so.

	02-04-2005 04:06									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Make nukes cause a lot of war weariness! And how will another player see a missile base in your territory with no units there? on true if there are enemy units near them, the enemy will attack it- it's the reality. And the pollution make cities grow slowly and citizens dye due to starvation.

	08-04-2005 11:02									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by kolpo I think that nukes are WAY to weak in civ3. Even the nukes that where used againsts japan did gigantic damage and modern nukes are much much more powerfull. Modern nukes should completely destroy everything(including cities) in there radius with the exception of ICBN.

hahaa i love this guy! realism all the way ppl!!
i think there should be 3 different nukes
1. a tactical nukecapable of being fired off submarines, battleships carriers, nuke cannons (sorta like scuds) and dropped off bombers. however also can be launched of a city or an airfield, causes a dead center tile and 10% pollution or so per surrounding tiles. kills everything in center tile, and half a citys pop and buildings or so.

2. an ICBM, modern nuke. about 20 megatons tnt, deadens the center tile and tiles around it, kills absolutely everything in the center tile. leaves literally a blank spot. surrounding tiles will have all units killed and half a citys pop and buildings taken.

3. a 70 Megaton hydrogen bomb. has to be launched off a city as an ICBM type missile. has total destruction of the 9 center tiles and kills stuff on surrounding tiles, damaging cities and causing pollution

NOTE TO SID: GRAPHICS ARE IMPORTANT, I DO NOT WANA SEE CIV3 NUKE GRAPHICS!!!!

oh btw: i think dead tiles in CTP were awesome, much better representation of wasteland. however they should grow into desert tiles over time, which u can then terraform.
pollution tiles will just be able to get cleaned up.

i also think there should be future game play enabled in next civ... i know i know, u cant predict how stuff is gona look like, but i think itll be fun to play civ until year 3000 and possibly colonise mars or something. maybe say build space transport which will take 10 turns to travel to mars with a couple of mars-purpose built units. and have them set up on mars to terraform it and such.
oh well getting sidetracked now :S dont get me started!

go nukes!!! plz make them stronger! and better looking

	08-04-2005 11:08									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by alva The thing with making nukes strong(er) is that it would become a case of whomever get's to nukes first, wins. In the real world there is no "winning" and thus no need (yeah simplyfying here, bite me ) to use nukes, in a game however...

yeah but the very first nukes will not be strong enough, and whoever does get the strongest nukes before anyone else gets any kind of nukes really does deserve to win the game! :P but not by nuking everyone so much as threatening to

	08-04-2005 11:13									#28
	Tired of ads?

Plus i could imagine even the smaller nukes costing a large amount of shields and youd have to have uranium and such. its really not that bad. so far in civ 3 i have not had a nuclear holocaust. as a matter of fact even when i was the nuclear superpower i could not be safe enough to fire them.

oh and by the way: the sam sites and anti nuke things that make nukes almost impossible to use against the city should be banned!! it totally loses the point of cold wars. i think such defences should only reduce the effect of the nuke and at that only a small chance

eg destroy nuke while still in the iar causing radiation on the city but non actual destruction