 |
| |
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
Let's admit it, the nuclear weapons in Civ 2 did not command a much of a fear and deterrent as they do in real life. I have a suggestion to give nuclear weapons in Civ 3 more of a fear and cold war effect to them.
Well, Civ 2 did not really make use of ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missles). Instead Civ 2 mostly used tactical nukes or nukes you specifically tell what to do each turn, and there was also the ability to place a nuke using a spy. But the real fear comes from ICBMs.
I suggested adding an ICBM unit to civ 2.
Here's how it would work:
Assign it a target.
The ICBM would have a command allowing you to assign a specific tile for it to attack. It would then retain this tile in memory till your ready to use it.
Nuclear War
Somewhere in Civ 3 there should be a command to allow you to lauch your all your preset ICBM's. This is where the cold war idea comes in. All other Civs would have the option to launch their preset ICBMs in retaliation (even before your make another move). In a similar manner if someone else uses nuclear weapons you would immediately have the option to launch your preset ICBMs on them before they can make another move. Thus, things would take on a true nuclear war with all sides incurring casualties.
Give it 0 movement points
Since the ICBM is not a regular unit, it has no movement points. To load it into a submarine you would move the sub into the city and load it on (like you can in Civ 2). To move to another city, there should be a unit that can do the same thing -- as well as an aircraft that can transport them as well).
Attack Order
There should be an order where you can tell a single ICBM to attack a location on the map instead of having to launch all your preset ICBMs. The enemy would of course detect it and have the option to retalitate with all their forces of ICBMs before your turn is over.
Missle Silos
Using your worker units you should be able to build silos anywhere you want and thus transport ICBMs to them for keeping till you use them (if ever).
Other Nuke Options
1. There would still be the regular old nukes in Civ 3 like there was in Civ 2 -- nukes that have move points as well as using nukes via a spy.
2. Thes other nukes cannot be detected upon launch or anything because they're not big and noticeable like ICBMs. However, once you hit a civ with one of these alternative nukes, the enemy should have an option to strike you with their ICBM arsinal before the turn is over (and of course you can respond in the same as can other civs). Thus, this would deter you from even using other types of nukes.
3. When a spy hits a city with a nuke, there should be a chance that the other civ did not detect your spy and thus cannot tell who did it.
Neutron Bomb
The neutron bomb would be a nice third type of nuclear weapon (perhaps in regular form AND ICBM form). The neutron bomb just kills lifeforms, but doesn't touch structures.
Options
Any time the message pops up asking if you want to launch your ICBM arsenal, you should also have a list of check boxes for the countries you want to attack. For example if you have some ICBMs targeted at Russia and some targeted at China, you can just put a check beside Russia to have those targeted at Russia to fire.
So, as you can see, basically the idea is to have a true cold war kind of feel with nuclear weapons and the result of using them can have drastic consequences.
Here's a possible idea:
Russia has been detected lauching ICBMs.
Do you wish to launch your ICBM arsenal?
|
|
(embassy)
--> |
The first detected Russian missiles will arrive in 15 minutes.
But be warned, if you chose to contact them, there may be some undetect missiles that may hit sooner! |
|
(yes) |
V |
|
(Launch)
|
|
|
|
|
|
<--------- |
|
|
[This message has been edited by Kevin Ar18 (edited April 21, 2001).]
Last edited by Kevin Ar18 on 29-05-2001 at 02:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
html seemed to not take too well
Got it fixed....
[This message has been edited by Kevin Ar18 (edited April 21, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
Take a look at this long post by Korn469:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000323.html#24
There's a lot of suggestions in that one post.
However, the one thing I'd really like to see (and the reason for this thread) is that cold war kind of feel with nuclear missiles I outlined and as korn469 briefly mentioned.
The issues brought up in that other thread concerning the devastation a nuclear missile (ICBM) would do is also something else that should be of concern. It might be actually quite interesting to plunge the world into an apocolypse as a result of nuclear weapons (like you see in movies of what happened after a nuclear war). Thus, mass use of ICBMs would really be something to be wary of (like they should be).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
In addition to storing missiles in missile silos, you should also be able to place them in submarines. Then when you give the launch order they will launch, of course.
Again the ICBMs would have 0 move points because they only go somewhere where you give the launch order.
(You would have to transport them with vehicles to their missile silos or a naval city for loading in subs).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
manofthehour
|
|
I love it, the only problem is could you program the AI to understand that if it launches so will you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
manofthehour
|
|
One thing that everyone seems to agree on is that there should be an autolaunch feature. I hope this happens.
Also when it looks like realations between you and another civ are going south you could sign a pack of no using nuclear weapons. So that way you would be fighting a war without nukes and if someone voilated the treaty and used them anyway there would be all sorts of penitalies with other civs. Like trade sanastions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I love these ideas
but i have to go
i will talk later
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krypter
|
|
Toronto, Canada
May 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
The problem with civ2 was that it treated nukes just like any other weapon - except more powerful. Once the war started, there was no restraint, not even a chance at a truce amid the carnage. Well, okay, that's realistic, but not fun.
The trick is to make the AI understand what balance means. In the real world, nuclear weapons have only been used once partially because of the public opprobrium, the moral outrage against them (at least in the West, less so in the Soviet bloc). Moral qualms had a big part in avoiding armageddon, especially during the Cuban missile crisis.
Getting the AI to understand and practise moral restraint could be difficult.
A good idea would be to implement the Armageddon Clock in the game. As a conventional war got hotter, or an atrocity was committed, it would tick closer to midnight, until finally an AI player would snap and then everyone would launch missiles.
Poof.
"Bend Over.
Place your head between your legs.
And kiss your goodbye."
Then you can play the Mad Max scenario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by manofthehour
I love it, the only problem is could you program the AI to understand that if it launches so will you? |
Yeah, that would be pretty easy to program into the AI.
And as Krypter brought up, just when would the AI determine enough is enough and launch their missiles?
Well here's some ideas:
When does the AI decide enough is enough?
When you attack something important to them.
Say you attack an ally that is very important to them. It would have to be a war where they feel very threatened and fear you would gain a huge advantage if you won it.
When they are losing in a war to you
If the AI sees they are losing in a war to you and that will very likely be conquered, they may decide to launch since they have little to lose anyways.
Only the most peaceful of Civs would not launch their nuclear arsinal if they were about to die (they probably wouldn't even have one to start with).
Trigger Happy Civs
Maybe there are some trigger happy Civs in there - like the ones with the expansionistic, militarisitic policy (whatever is the most extreme of AI types in CivIII). These might be ready to shoot off their missiles at the slightest attack from you. If there's any war between these gusy it would be a nuclear war first and what's left later. These kinds of Civs you would really be locked in a cold war with, without much a chance to conquer them.
Ok, well maybe these are not the best instances of when an AI should attack, but it's a start.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
YAY!!!
But kevin should still get some credit for his hard work - i doubt the civ3 thing will be so complex
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
Neutron Bomb
I honestly don't know a lot about these, but from what I know, they are capable of destroying all lifeforms in the area, but leave structures unscathed.
Is this true? And what about their area of effect? Is is smaller or larger than regular nuclear weapons?
These may make an interesting extra type nuke you could put on tactical or ICBM warheads.
Also, today's nuclear weapons have a much larger blast radius than the first ones. I believe they have a different name, but I can't really recall what it is. Maybe these should be a second or third type of nuke that you research. When you get these much larger nukes, then the deterent would get increasing greater to not use them (I suspect).
If anyone recalls what their name is, well, speak up.... Is it fusion bomb?
Also about how the AI should treat "Cold War," korn469 brought up a good point in the Nukes thread.
quote:
there is not any known device that can stop a nuclear missle once launched from hitting it's target, not SDI, not a nanite defuser, nothing at all
the only thing that has prevented a nuclear war so far has been careful calculation of the outcome of a nuclear war, which would mean both sides would suffer tremendously and gain nothing!
the reason they signed the ABM treaty to begin with is not because it would be a true deterrant to nuclear destruction but because it be like an imaginary secruity blanket...this false sence of safety would finally lead to a miscalculation that could result in the deaths of millions of people
if SDI is even in the game it should be very expsensive and should work only somewhere between 25% to 40% of the time...meaning nuclear deterrance would be the primary method of staying alive
the reason Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and other states want nuclear tipped ICBMs is not because they think they could actually completely destroy the USA in an overwhelming nuclear strike, but because they can deter the US from using force inside their sphere of influence...really who in their right mind would risk the millions of people (and billions of dollars) in New York city on defending breakaway kurdish rebels in Iraq just because the the pentagon promises that the US national missle defense system is 90% effective in stopping simulated ballistic missles
the answer is NOBODY!
Iraq would have a free hand to do whatever they wanted because the US couldn't intervene
the AI needs to understand this in Civ3 and diplomatic options need to reflect some of these realities |
Last edited by Kevin Ar18 on 29-05-2001 at 21:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tabun
|
 |
Hampton, VA, USA
Oct 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
OK, let's see if I can recall what I learned in my Cold War studies, and this should answer you question, possibly ad nauseam.
Nuclear Weapons is the general term for any device that uses the power of nuclear energy to destroy something.
The first Nuclear devices were Trinity, Little Boy & Fat Man. They were Atomic weapons. The explosions SPLIT atoms in order to release energy, this is call fission.
I believe in the early '60s, the US developed a much higher-yield nuclear device. That is to fuse two atoms together (making a different element...), this is called fusion. These weapons are the nukes of the present; Themro-Nuclear weapons. They are alson known as Fusion weapons, but not commonly - even though that's exactly what they use for their power.
A Neutron weapon is designed to destroy every living creature by use of radiation alone. Damage to structures is minimal (in nuclear terms, that's a good 10-30 blocks leveled). Also, the radioactive isotopes released in a neutron bomb have very short half-lives (the amount of time it takes a known amount of a radioactive substance to half it's original mass). Something like 4 days to 3 months. That means that within a maximum of 1 year, it will be safe for the attacker to occupy a 90% operational city!
As a side, and departing note, the attacker would have little to no problem getting food and plants to grow. Radiation that doesn't kill a plant directly will make the sucker grow like mad. This is the same principle that makes garden seeds sprout sooner if you microwave them for a bit before planting them.
Hope I gave you plenty of info! (Guarsh, hope it's all reasonably correct too!) 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
manofthehour
|
|
Your idea is ok about the 3 choice but why not just ude dilomacy, find out they are nuking you, turn on SDI (how would this work, I thought they were always on) than next turn bombs away?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andreiguy
|
|
Though it is a good idea, I believe neutron bombs would unbalance the game; if you spend all your time building neutron bombs until you have one for every city not owned by you on the planet, you could win the game in a couple turns by quickly occupying cities and destroying any small opposition that comes up. For that reason, I think that:
a) some units should NOT be destroyed: non-human units, like missles, which could be launched automatically, and maybe futuristic units which are radiation-resistant
b) there should be VAULTS where a certain number of people in a city could seek refuge in the case of a nuclear strike (like in Fallout and Fallout 2, great games, by the way)
c) you should be able to know approximately how many nuclear or other missles an enemy has, and if a country chooses not to disclose this information, they could be pressured, even sent an ultimatimum from the UN. You could ask an enemy to reduce their arsenal (like in CTP 2)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
manofthehour
|
|
I think that an emienies nuclear arsonal should be pretty much common knowagle. And if there is an auto aim feature you should know how many they have pointed at you. Also how many are in range, like nukes on bomber that could hit your civ in 1 turn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
manofthehour
|
|
About Kevins idea about the AI saying when enough is enough is a good one. Some other things I might add are
1. Nukeing someone because they are deafeating your ally seems unlikely. It seem logical that you would first declare war and see what you can do without Nukes. Than if they start deafeating you than would use you Nukes.
2. Well there should be some trigger happy Civs.
3. If the AI feels that war is invitable and they only way they can defeat you is by completely wipping out your military while they are unprepaired.
Also depending upon why a Nuclear strike happens should effect the punishment on the country.
1. Nuking after being Nuked should have realitily no punishment.
2. After fighting a long and loosing many men a nuclear attack is made than this would premote anger but not as much drastic action.
3. Declearing war and then immeditaly using Nukes should have very harsh reaction. Trade santions places on what goods Nukes requier, (not sure what this is yet) by all civs, except mabey your closest ally and fully trade sanstions placed by some civs.
4. A Nuclear attack while not at war should cause outrage. Full trade sanstions by all civs except allies who would refuse to help you and mabey even break off alliences. Mabey even war declealred on you by some civs who have been mad at you for a while.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
manofthehour
|
|
This would put some hard choices on you. Because you cities that can make the ICBM the fastest are the one you really want to make.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geoff the Medio
|
|
quote:
A city cannot be expected to produce; store or launch ICBM's and be protected by SDI-defence at the same time |
Why? Is this a game-balance thing, or a realism thing?
Either way, I don't get it...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2001 02:13
But the hour is late (over here) so I come back later!
for civ3 to be capable of providing a true cold war experiance it needs to first thing increase the destructive capability of nuclear weapons...using nuclear weapons should either destroy the city or severly damage it...i'm talking at least 75% population loss if not 80 or 90 percent...massive infrastructure loss (both buildings and tile improvements)...then some sort of lingering radiactive debris that is much harder to clean than pollution
There is no such thing as a free meal. 
|