 |
| |
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
Alexander's Horse i agree with you completely
firaxis has said that there will be ICBMs in civ3, and the most recent screenshots confirms that there will be three missile units in civ3, most likely a conventional cruise missile discovered with rocketry, and then there are two missiles dicovered with space flight most likely they are a nuclear cruise missile that operates similarly to the nuke in civ2, and then a more powerful ICBM that can strike anywhere on the map and do massive damage to a city if not wipe it out entirely
SDI on the other hand is either a mini-wonder, or it is a national facility that operates like orbital defense pods in SMAC...the most likely candidate for SDI is integrated defense because of it's name and the fact that it is one of the last techs in the tech tree and the fact that it's icon and the facility it allows you to build both resemble a satellite based weapon
since it is the last tech, and since ICBMs that can strike anywhere on the map are both available long before SDI then that means Imran is wrong when he says
quote:
What is important is what can be used to counter the effects of massive nuclear strikes in Civ. SDI is the only thing that seems reasonable. |
SDI comes to late so it seems highly unreasonable as something to protect against a massive nuclear strike...M.A.D. on the other hand could be implemented simply so that it is not a game within a game and it would provide a great inncentive for all sides to refrain from starting a nuclear war...upgrading nukes (more damage infinite range) without M.A.D. and having really late SDI is a recipe for bad gameplay
also other defenses against a massive nuclear strike could be severe diplomatic penalties, like if you start an unprovoked nuclear war, against a civ that doesn't even have nuclear weapons then all the other civs should turn against you
additionally nuclear weapons should be fairly expensive and cost quite a bit to support...
then hopefully SDI won't be 100% except maybe against a single nuke...otherwise SDI will start nuclear wars...whoever gets SDI first can launch a massive nuclear strike with fear of retaliation, this is bad for game balance i hope that SDI functions like orbital defense pods, except that you can't sacrifice them and that the cost is a little more balanced (for 120 minerals you have a 100% chance of stopping a 240 iirc mineral nuke)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pagan
|
|
Various
Nov 1999
time: 05:15
|
|
My, my, aren’t there a lot of naysayers and doomsayers on this tread.
I am an economist by training and one of my heroes is an economist called Julian Simon. A recent article described Julian as follows:
You see, Julian Simon was the most ideologically consistent, intellectually rigorous and emotionally unrestrained optimist of the 20th century. For example, in the 1996 book he edited, "The State of Humanity," Simon made two predictions for the next century.
The first was: "Humanity's condition will improve in just about every material way." And when he said "every material way," he meant it. Everything from life expectancy and the amount of food in the world to the square footage of the average home and the number of telephones in equatorial Africa.
And in case that didn't put enough vinegar in the pessimists' cornflakes, his second prediction certainly did. He declared, "Humans will continue to sit around complaining about everything getting worse."
Simon's philosophy was simple as it was accurate. Human beings are very, very smart, and they fix their problems before the problems get out of hand. When humans couldn't gather enough food from the ground, they learned to grow it. When humans ran out of wild animals to hunt, they domesticated them.
Like Simon, I am an optimist and believe that humans can solve any problems they are dedicated to solving. One question then becomes is the problem (threat) of enough consequence to consider building a defense against attack? The answer is yes. Is the system worth the cost? Yes, if it is ever needed and is employed successful. No, if the answer is otherwise. The value of this benefit is unknown and must therefore be considered on a personal basis.
Tniem, the shield does not have to be 100% effective to be of value. If Iraq launched 12 nuclear missiles at 12 cities and 8 were stopped, you would feel that the system was valuable if you lived in one of the 8 cities that were saved.
UberKruX, for your information, I am an American currently living in Canada, and I vote via absentee ballot. I find your attitude regarding foreigners (such as my wife, a Canadian / UK citizen), disturbing. Do you need help?
Alexander's Horse, if you argument is that since the technology does not exist yet it should not be included, then may I presume that you are against including a cure for cancer in the game?
For those who care, I support the research for a cure for cancer, a cure for AIDS, clean burning and renewable fuel (cold fusion? / fuel cells?), and yes a nuclear missile shield. These are all noble goals that are worthy of at least some level of support from public tax dollars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
Pagan
as an economist you should also be aware of something called oppertunity cost...that everytime you spend your time, money, effort doing one thing then you lose an oppertunity to do something else...every dollar spent by the US government has an oppertunity cost associated with it...if you spend 100 billion on anything, no matter if it is NMD, or researching the cure for cancer, or protecting the environment then you lose an oppertunity to spend that money elsewhere
quote:
For those who care, I support the research for a cure for cancer, a cure for AIDS, clean burning and renewable fuel (cold fusion? / fuel cells?), and yes a nuclear missile shield. These are all noble goals that are worthy of at least some level of support from public tax dollars. |
i too support that, but if you spend more on renewable fuel, there will be less to spend on AIDs research...if you spend more on finding a cure for cancer there will be for a NMD
{joke mode on}it would probably be cheaper to invade all of the rogue nations and to replace their governments with democratic governments rather than to spend at least a 100 billion on NDM {end of joke mode}
Imran Siddiqui
can you please explain to me how 100% effective SDI won't upset balance in the game? by building a single wonder the player then has the oppertunity to blast all of their opponents off the map, this encourages nuclear war...either by the player who builds it and is invulnerable to nuclear attacks, or by the other player because as soon as SDI gets built he is nuked anyways
i don't mind if SDI is in the game...i just don't think it should be 100% effective...it should 50% effective in my opinion...so having SDI might save you in a nuclear war but it wouldn't be so unbalanced that it would guarantee you certain victory in a nuclear war
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
Smash
if the tech tree screen shots are correct, then neither the diplomat or the spy is in civ3 (dan mentioned spy missions)...and furthermore than that, even if spies are in civ3 they can't compete with a civ that has ICBMs that can strike anywhere on the map and 100% effective SDI, so i don't think it is exactly that simple
EDIT:
imran...you can manage production so that you can quickly build SDI to protect most of your civ, even if you are only a few turns ahead of your opponent in tech, if SDI stays at 100%, then with the increased power of nukes it unbalances the game
by increasing the power of nukes it unbalances them...so to rebalance them you need to add in things like M.A.D. which prevents one player from having too great an advantage...100% SDI bypasses M.A.D. and whoever discovers it first will be able to protect either their entire civ if it is a wonder, or will be able to rapidly protect their core cities, thereby allowing them to nuke with either zero fear of retribution or very little fear (because only non essential cities get nuked...while their opponent loses everything)
that doesn't sound very balanced to me
Last edited by korn469 on 18-08-2001 at 03:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
Plus if there is still rush buy or at least accelearated building by using gold, you can save up all game so that you can rush those SDI's at the end of the game. So even in smaller, less productive cities will be protected late in the game allowing you to nuke everyone in sight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alinestra Covelia
|
 |
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
I liked the satellite system from SMAC, because it meant that no faction was totally safe from nukes, although the more ODPs you built, the more virtually safe you were.
I still think we should have something similar for Civ, and I also believe the Civ2 SDIs were too efficient for the scenarios I made to be much fun.
Here are a few scattered (and sometims contradictory) ideas on possible models for anti-missile defences:
1. SDIs working with missiles? Perhaps once a city has built an SDI, then all missiles units in the area can run "interception" duties against nukes. The combat would probably be translated by something similar to SMAC's morale battles - the better trained the nuke was, the higher chance it defeats the missiles fired at it. Further taking the SMAC ball and running at ludicrous pace with it, you could give advanced nuke units a secondary function of "multihead diversion" powers, making it twice as likely to bypass any given counter missile. (A bit like probe teams with algorithmic enhancement.)
2. SDIs as terrain enhancements which can shoot out an overflying nuke some percentage of the time. The drawback of this is that sea cities would be at a disadvantage, unless sea enhancements are possibe a la SMAC.
3. SDIs as space launched systems to counter ICBMs. This could work in conjunction with 1 or 2.
4. SDIs coming in many different levels of city improvements (like the Barracks of Civ2) each to counter a certain level of nuclear weapon. The nukes themselves would also become redundant by an improved type as technology went on. Eventually you could get a type of nuke that was so powerful nobody would want to use it because the effects would injure everybody, but all its older versions are countered by SDI.
Either way, nuclear weapons have been responsible for the longest period of worldwide peace (as Civilopedia is eager to tell us) and that's primarily because nobody wants to be hit by one. Once a side loses that vulnerability, what's to stop them from building and launching nukes? It's a simulation, so we're that much more likely to not care about nuking computer opponents than George W Bush would about nuking real people.
...
At least, I hope so! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fiil
|
 |
of the cold north
Aug 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
can you please explain to me how 100% effective SDI won't upset balance in the game? by building a single wonder the player then has the oppertunity to blast all of their opponents off the map, this encourages nuclear war...either by the player who builds it and is invulnerable to nuclear attacks, or by the other player because as soon as SDI gets built he is nuked anyways |
Try replacing game with world and player with nation and then - I wonder why everyone thinks NMD is a bad idea!
Here is another one:
quote:
Originally posted by Pagan
Simon's philosophy was simple as it was accurate. Human beings are very, very smart, and they fix their problems before the problems get out of hand. When humans couldn't gather enough food from the ground, they learned to grow it. When humans ran out of wild animals to hunt, they domesticated them.
Like Simon, I am an optimist and believe that humans can solve any problems they are dedicated to solving. One question then becomes is the problem (threat) of enough consequence to consider building a defense against attack? The answer is yes. Is the system worth the cost? Yes, if it is ever needed and is employed successful. No, if the answer is otherwise. The value of this benefit is unknown and must therefore be considered on a personal basis. |
Hmm, apparently the americans are so smart that they 'solve' the nuclear missile problem by building 'anti-nuclear missiles'. Luckily all other humans aren't as smart and will not 'solve' that problem, because if they were/did the $100 mil. would only bee an entrance fee and you would have to upgrade the weapons every year. Until of cause another american devised som bigger even more expensive weapon! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Orlando
|
|
We are able to accept the science fiction of a space ship that can travel to Alpha Centauri with colonists that with enough work, has a 100% chance of reaching a planet light years away, in addition to the science fiction of Fusion Power and Solar Power Plants that generate enough power for huge metropolitan cites that completely eliminate pollution, but we are unable to accept the science fiction of a reliable, 100% defense against nuclear attack? 
It's bad enough that civilizations plateau their scientific development with "Future Technologies" such that everyone dumps then their science revenue into cash or luxuries, but if we allow no science fiction, then we might as well edit out all technologies more advanced then, say, the Laser. Or, if it sounds more palatable, rename SDI to EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) to make it more of an abstract science fiction concept and more acceptable somehow.
The real world should not completely dictate our potential games of Civilization, only guide them. After all, if our real world is a game of Civilzation, no one is going to win.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Possibility
|
|
Why not make an SDI unit.
It could be killed by conventional means (regular ground, air or cruise missles), but would stop (100% effective) any nuclear weapons used in the 2 or 3 square radius.
Or...
have it be like only 50% effective but have it be cumaltive with other SDI units in the same radius, so if a nuke was used and 2 SDI units were in range, the nuke would have a 75% (50+25)chance of being shot down, if 3 SDI units were in range, then it would have 87.5% (50+25+12.5)chance of being shot down, ect...
And if its a unit, you can move it around to protect your battle front, just like a real missle defense could be moved around.
Possibility
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:15
|
|
I've been thinking about whether SDI should be 100 per cent effective in Civ3. I think it should, not because of whether it will some day be technically possible in the real world, but rather because of the lesson that it teaches us.
Consider my approach to nukes and SDI, an approach that I assume is quite common. The minute someone develops nukes, I make an all out effort to get the Laser, or better yet, I develop the Laser before anyone creates the Manhattan Project.
If an AI civ has the ability to build the MP, or if it has been built, then I always avoid war. I will be nice and peaceful with anyone who has nukes.
However, once I build the SDI, everything changes. Then it is time to go to war. Why, because nukes are no longer a deterrent. It is time for war because I can fight a war without wiping myself out. And it will be a conventional war. Nukes create too much pollution to use on wide scale basis.
Now here is the jump to the real world. I would argue that the reason we have had peace between developed countries is that no one wants to risk a nuclear war. But if anyone develops SDI capability, then war becomes a likely outcome.
After all, most of us would agree that simply being the leader of a country does not make a person wise. Most of us would say that world’s leaders are all too human. History shows us that the urge to go to war is common. Government leaders are in this respect, not much different from Civ players.
Even if two countries develop SDI, a conventional war occurs, as it does in Civ. If one country develops SDI, war occurs as it does in Civ. And these wars will result in many people dying, real people, not some computer game piece.
I know it is politically incorrect to say the Americans would immediately go to war if they develop SDI. But imagine the Americans do create an effective SDI. How long would it take before another country steals the secrets of SDI? When that happens, then war becomes a likely outcome.
So, Civ shows us that the ABM treaty, a ban on SDI, is the best approach to world peace and that may be the most important lesson that any computer game has or ever will teach us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lupusmalus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
However, once I build the SDI, everything changes. Then it is time to go to war. Why, because nukes are no longer a deterrent. It is time for war because I can fight a war without wiping myself out. And it will be a conventional war. Nukes create too much pollution to use on wide scale basis. |
Why should I slowly grind down an opponent city by city if i can cripple him or her with one stroke? And pollution isn't that big a problem, either, by the time I get nukes I have a whole army of engineers terraforming the whole goddamn planet, so I just send them in to clean up the mess. Much too easy, actually, hope they fixed that in III.
quote:
So, Civ shows us that the ABM treaty, a ban on SDI, is the best approach to world peace and that may be the most important lesson that any computer game has or ever will teach us. |
Great, I'll get Dubya Civ III for Christmas!!! 
But if we really need a computer game to teach us this, then that's a sad statement about human intelligence. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-08-2001 09:41
Attachment: 
|
