More realistic WMD in Civ4 needed

[Lambiorix_be]

In Civ3 nuclear missiles are too local. As in the real world I would like to see the effects of an atomic explosion to have global implications (i don't mean a 'global warming effect') If in the real world there would be a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, the radioactive cloud would kill many millions of asians and/or europeans depending on the wind. In todays games nuclear missiles are just more powerful weapons like any other. (which I find a bit uncomfortable in an educational point of view)

Also if Biological weapons are concerned they too cannot be contained if for instance all empires have connecting airports, roads and sea ports...

Only chemical weapons could remain local.

The use of any of these weapons should however have very substantial negative implications on a diplomatic, cultural and trade level.

Anybody has an opinion about this?

[Sandman]

Chemical and biological weapons have had relatively little effect on warfare and should not be included in the game.

I mean, would you spend time researching a gas warfare tech, then a gas mask tech, then a blistering agent tech, and so on?

It's better ignored, abstracted like a lot of minor advances are in civ. Flamethrowers, armour-piercing weapons, arquebusiers, petrol and electricity driven trains, etc. Chemical and biological weapons should belong to this unseen category.

[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]

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.

[POTUS]

What about Global Warming? Would flood plains and costal land turn to costal water, and there be more deserts?

[Nikolai]

I like your ideas mrmichell, but I think that not the whole world should attack you. You would be looked down upon, and get DoWs from your non-allies, but your allies would stay with you. After all, if the US had nuked the communists under the cold war, there is little doubt IMHO that it's allies in Europe would have supported the US.

[Kuciwalker]

If you use nukes, your allies should shoot off all their nukes too, and neutral civs should shoot off their nukes at a random target, and your enemies (or people who don't like you) should shoot their nukes at you and your allies.

I think chemical and biological weapons should be in tool. Bioweapons are an option from the espionage menu (instead of nukes) and basically create a plague (plagues could also occur naturally, the chance being reduced by a hospital and certain techs). Plagues would kill lots of pop and spread to cities that are connected through a trade network, ESPECIALLY through airports. It can spread to other countries too, even yours. "Gas bombardment" is an ability of artillery units and damages every unit in the square (as well as destroying a few pop points if used on a city).

[POTUS]

Go Diseases!!!
The pesky (insert annoying enemy Civ's name here) are no match for the power of my friends, (insert devestating disease here).

[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...

[joncha]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
This is a pretty good simulation of the fact that no one utterly hates the USA

hmm... not so sure you can easily say that....

Anyway, I like most of the rest of your idea. I don't like the idea of a grace period. Maybe a set of percentages that increases dramatically each time a nuke is used (by anyone) would be better for deciding when the world turns against.

Repsonses should also vary based on each civs current attitude towards you (ie, not everyone declares war, but everyone ends up hating you). And, as mentioned, your allies should back you regardless.

jon.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

[Lambiorix_be]

I like the ideas of mrmitchel. Although I do think that the reaction to the use of a nuke (even tactical) should also depend on the fact if the opposing empire has himself nukes or not.

If you are fighting a 19th century empire the use use of a tactical nuke should be regarded as a barbarous act. Your allies should immediately become 'annoyed'. Trade embargo's should have to be raised against you etc..

Also if your military power has not been decreased considerably the use of a nuke should have a bigger negative impact then when you use them as a last 'resort'

There should also have to be a diplomatic option to threaten your opponent with the use of nuclear weapons. This could avoid the actual use of them...

[Kuciwalker]

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Something like that?

[mrmitchell]

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.

Well, yeah, but if it just happens to be the 4th nuke launched and then no one has any more, then it's not a nuclear war exactly. So the neutrals should at least wait for "x" number launched within "x" amount of turns--and then, nuke whoever they dislike the most.

If you are fighting a 19th century empire the use use of a tactical nuke should be regarded as a barbarous act. Your allies should immediately become 'annoyed'. Trade embargo's should have to be raised against you etc..

Also if your military power has not been decreased considerably the use of a nuke should have a bigger negative impact then when you use them as a last 'resort'

[GePap]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

The thing about this is the chemical weapons is that it creates three distinct classes of WMD for use by different types of countries. Small, militarily weak countries would use bioweapons and assymetrical warfare, because they wouldn't have the forces to exploit a chemical attack and the bioweapon wouldn't necessarily give away the attacker (and nuclear missiles are far out of their reach). Chemical weapons would give medium-sized states the advantage they need when fighting conventional war (and because they are less important, the diplomatic repercussions are less significant). A large state a) wouldn't need chemical weapons and b) would have larger diplomatic repercussions from their use (though like nukes there is a grace period of 10 or 20 turns during which they can be used without repercussions). Example: Iran-Iraq war. Nuclear weapons would need a large infrastructure to support building them (make them cost a lot of shields) and would be the most powerful weapon in the game, making them suited to large states. However, the diplomatic repercussions are severe (as we've described), so what should often result in-game is an "arms race" rather than outright nuclear war.

Because of these three different types, I don't think "plant nuclear bomb" should be an espionage option.

[DarkCloud]

Hmm... we had some discussion on this subject in this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...9&pagenumber=2

Just for future referencers and list organizers

[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]

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

--

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...

[mrmitchell]

A large amoun of fallout, as opposed t industrial polution cause nucear winter.

That's why I tied in the requirement of "x" nukes launched as well. 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.

I agree nukes should some in sizes-2 levels. The first level are fission bombs, followed by fussion bombs.

"Fission" and "Fusion" (or better yet Atomic and Hydrogen) are better names. I was just using the names for nukes that are already in Civ3.

[POTUS]

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.

[Paddy]

I too would like to see nukes beefed up some what, and there to be substantal fallout when they go off.

In this day and age, I believe that we should have nukes that our spies can deliver too.

Bring on the Hotline idea.

[wrylachlan]

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.

[joncha]

Maybe you could have a "fail-safe" option that works kind of like mutual defence pacts in civ3. If you enable it (maybe on the military advisor's screen... available with ICBMs) you automatically launch all of your nukes against whoever nukes you. If you don't enable it, you need to manually launch all your nukes (all that survive, anyway) when your turn comes up. Any civs that you have a mutual defence pact with (and fail-safe) will also fire-off all of their nukes.

I think this makes for a much less complicated way of dealing with mutual assured destruction, etc. while still keeping to the turn-based format. As an added plus, if you don't like it, don't enable it.

jon.

[GePap]

I don't agree with a "nuclear war" page or screeb, for it makes it seem nuclear war is an integral part of civ- and it aint. At most, it could show up in the military advisor screen.

There should be no set diplomatic consequences for the use of nukes besides changes in prestige and reputation. For example, the use of nukes vs non-nuclear enemies would carry huge hits of prestige and reputation. First use of a nuke in a war would carry a smaller but still significant hit. Still, there should not be set consequences diplomatcaly- that is as unrealitic a move as possible.

[Kuciwalker]

I think that as soon as a nuke is launched, the game should go into a special "nuke-phase" - not a special screen, but something similar to placing the initial armies in Risk. Each player gets to launch 1 nuke at time, taking "turns" (though this all occurs during the turn the first nuke was launched). Once every nuclear missile has been launched or spacebar-ed, the nuke-phase ends. This keeps the person to launch first from getting a HUGE advantage while still giving them a small one.

There should be no set diplomatic consequences for the use of nukes besides changes in prestige and reputation. For example, the use of nukes vs non-nuclear enemies would carry huge hits of prestige and reputation. First use of a nuke in a war would carry a smaller but still significant hit. Still, there should not be set consequences diplomatcaly- that is as unrealitic a move as possible.

I agree. What I was talking about was the behavior of the AI in response to a nuclear launch - a response that would be pretty realistic and add to the MAD feeling.

[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.)

[Fosse]

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!

[Kuciwalker]

that's way better than my idea

[wrylachlan]

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.