26-02-2002 06:55									#1
	Idea for long term effect of Nukes and Chemical weapons Full PM-box? Change here!

I just thought about the Atombombs in the game and I think there should be a second effect next to the strike blast. By now about half of the citizens die when striked and they go on living in the town like nothing happend :P
I would guess it isnt really nice to live in a town where just a ICBM hit hehe
So there should be a 2. effect that kills ppl during the time. Say something like 1/2 chance that the city looses one pop point each turn, after about 20 turn that effect wors of.

2. I would like to see chemical weapons in the game, Similar to a tactical nuke u could build a chemical rocket for about 100 shields that have the same radius like the nukes and for 150 shields ones similar to ICBMs, the effect of these would be only killing ppl, no effect on troops (military always has some gas masks ready ). It would kill 1/3 of the pop. of a city and have a 1/3 chance to kill a pop point each turn for 20 turns.
U would get a bad reputation for using chemical weapons.

What u think about this?

	26-02-2002 07:21									#2
	Re: Idea for long term effect of Nukes and Chemical weapons Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Tom201 I just thought about the Atombombs in the game and I think there should be a second effect next to the strike blast. By now about half of the citizens die when striked and they go on living in the town like nothing happend :P I would guess it isnt really nice to live in a town where just a ICBM hit hehe So there should be a 2. effect that kills ppl during the time. Say something like 1/2 chance that the city looses one pop point each turn, after about 20 turn that effect wors of.

I kind of like this idea, and it would be very easy to implement. Just have it the same way as cities close to Flood Plains and Jungles. For a certain amount of time, there would be a chance of your citizens dying from disease, in this case cancer. If you have the Cure for Cancer wonder, your citizens won't die from the fallout.

	26-02-2002 07:56									#3
	Got spare money?

Good ideas. I would also like to see an "arms reduction treaty". Kinda like a cold war thing. You ask the AI to dispand X Nukes/ICBMs, while you dispand X as well. Once signed, X number of ICBM/Nukes are AUTOMATICLY dispand, and their shields added to what ever is already in production. Also, you will not be able to build ICBM/Nukes for 20 turns. Of course those units are an option to build, but you shouldn't, since that would suggest to the AI, and act of war, and vice versa. This would be great when dealing with an AI who HAS the Anti-ICBM wonder.

That would make modern age diplomacy a lot more fun.

	26-02-2002 08:29									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Tom201, et al.:

Interesting concept. What I would do is try to implement a chance that, for 20 to 25 turns after a nuclear or chemical weapons strike, there would be a 50/30 percent chance respectively of a citizen mutating. In such cases, any square that mutant would work would be only half as productive as those worked by normal citizens. Then I'd add on a 25 percent chance that the mutant would die off after being created in the first place. If the mutant doesn't die, well, you're stuck with him or her. Conscript it into the military, even though the resulting unit would only be half as effective as its peers.

CYBERAmazon

	26-02-2002 09:23									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Thrawn05 Good ideas. I would also like to see an "arms reduction treaty". Kinda like a cold war thing. You ask the AI to dispand X Nukes/ICBMs, while you dispand X as well. Once signed, X number of ICBM/Nukes are AUTOMATICLY dispand, and their shields added to what ever is already in production. Also, you will not be able to build ICBM/Nukes for 20 turns. Of course those units are an option to build, but you shouldn't, since that would suggest to the AI, and act of war, and vice versa. This would be great when dealing with an AI who HAS the Anti-ICBM wonder. That would make modern age diplomacy a lot more fun.

Yeah, I like it. It would add an interesting dimension. A good addition to that would be the abilty to have not just a MPP, but also a coalition agreement with several other civs, and you'd have to get their approval on the limits and rules as well.

	26-02-2002 19:07									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I love this idea, brings back good SMAC memories. Using the same thing as for jungle disease makes it realistic for chemical weapons. But this is only worth bringing in the game if there arte international restrictions on it. Like you CAN use chem weapons without nasty economic emborgoes until the UN is built, and then civ can impose sanctions on you for X turns (like in SMAC actually, God knows why FIRAXIS didn't bring that in). Remember, Britain and Germany used chems in WW1 without international effects, and only with the UN did people start banning them (they were too chicken to use them in WW2 anyway).

I definately would LOVE to see arms control treaties... realistic and effective. based on how many cities you and the AI has you could agree on number of nukes (like the ICBM treaties of the cold war) or battleships (like the washington treaty in the 30s) etc.

	27-02-2002 01:39									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Year some Planet Council -> UN would be great.

There should be an automate trade embargo against anyone using Nukes or Chemical weapons. Like this:
- Use of Nukes is 20 turns embargo (each)
- Use of Chemical Weapons 10 turns embargo (each)
If u were striked first and u throw yours as response no embargo. When u throw more than trown on u (but u didnt do the 1. strike) u get the embargo penalty for each one more u throw but only half turns penality.

Within the UN options schould be:
- Voting for UN governor with a system like in SMAC (u get votes depending on your population)
The governor is elected every 20 turns. The benefit to be the governor is to get a veto vote in the council. (just like smac)
Other option would be that the one who built the UN is automated Un governor (maybe just for the first 20 turns or forever)(so there is some reason to built the UN instead of waiting for someone else to built it).
- Replace the current Diplomatic Victory with the one from smac (ppl get votes depending on population, u get 75% of the votes u win. Civs that hates u can refuse to acknoledge your victory and all other civs declare war on that one.).
- Use of chemical and nuclear weapons allowed (u can throw around rockets like u want without embargo). This needs a 2/3 majority (this vote everyone gets 1 vote instead of pop. related) and the UN governor can place a veto.
- same other way round (Use of chemical and nuclear weapons disallowed again)

And here something new (rest is known from smac )
- When some Civ is at war or considered a thread for most other civs there is a option to form an alliance within the UN. Means with a 2/3 majority (this vote everyone gets 1 vote instead of pop. related, governor can place a veto, civ agains which the campaign is dont take part) u can set a world wide embargo against that civ.
When someone refuses to take part of that embargo, an embargo is automated placed on him till he gives up (ppl have to do what the majority of the UN demands - supporter of the "evil" person are considerd evil too ). (This person could than only trade with that civ against whom the 1. embargo is placed).
The embargo has to be renegotiated every 20 turns.
I think this is a good way to isolate civs that are not liked by most others like in rl
- Same as above for forming a world wide alliance to declare war on that civ. For reasons like: usage of chemical and nuclear weapons, razing or starving citys a lot, any other "cruel" actions (some free the world thingy, similar to the alliance against hitler in ww2 ).


So anyone else has some cool ideas we could add on that list?


Tom

	27-02-2002 01:45									#8
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

ups doublepost

	27-02-2002 01:46									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ah, just another option comes to mind.
- Peacekeeping thingy:
The embargo is placed cose u are at war with someone and everyone wants that war to be stoped (or a 2/3 majority ), The embargo last till peace is declared. If u gone on with the war destroying the civ u were at war with, Embargos or a war alliance like in the examples above are possible

Another thing could be that your citizens get unhappy when u ignore the votes of the UN


Tom

	27-02-2002 02:11									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

if you got the chance to get chemical waepons you could more or less kill them without even attacking their military.... it would be too easily to do it beacuase without cities for support theyr ****ed....

	27-02-2002 02:43									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Another option:

Some of the civs that ignore the UN get immediately grouped with the most hated civ and declared an "Axis of Evil" by the most powerful civ even though they have nothing to do with each other. After that all other civs grown and complain about the leader of the most powerful civ and the alliance falls apart...

sound familiar?

	27-02-2002 02:48									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

@ Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe
Well u could say the same about icbms to be too easy


@UN thingy

- another option could be the blue helmets. Voted like the embargo u can try to end the war with sending troops. That could work that way that a line of neutral defensive units is placed along the borders of the 2 fighting nations. They are not controlled by anyone, they just sit there fortified doing nothing.
In order to cross the border with troops the rivals have to atack such a neutral unit -> that means he declared war against the UN -> War against all nations is declared.
Of course there would be still ways to go on with the war like u can still artillery fire or bombings over the heads of the UN soldiers. Or sail around them with ships. War is still possible but made harder - like in rl
After 20 turns new negotiation of the troops thing.

Maybe there should be adtional some payment needed in order to place UN troops which is devided between the nations (no soldier fights gratis...).

	27-02-2002 02:52									#13
	Fallout- chem, bio Increase the size of your Attachments

Nukes already pollute- if the polution after nukes was made different from industril polution, this idea could esily be used. Make it much more difficult o clean, and have it behave as a hyperactive jungle suqare, which if we rememebr, increases the odds of 'disease'. Though this effect should only be transiatory, since a city that survives a nuclear attack (and nukes should be able to wipe out towns) can recover, with time.

On chemical weapons, they should be bombardment units, with the effect that if they succeed, the take a unit down to red, no matter what the previous unit health was. This would make them useful without making them overpowered. They should increase the hostility of other civs towards you, and when attacking cities, they should only do damage to population. Also, the technology to counter them should be available.

The one type of weapon we haven't mentioned in biological. This could be planted by spies, and have a chance of killing a certain % of population. More importantly, it will have a chance of spreading to all cities, no matter what their nationality, which are connected in trade to this city. This would make them incredibly powerful, but at the same time, if you are indirectly connected to the target city by trade routes, you might get hit- so that the only way to stop getting hit is to close all trade. Why use such a weapon? Because it will do great adamage to an enemy, and cut their production immensely.