Revised Nuclear Warfare for Civ3

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Well...I wrote my column, and 80% of the feedback I got was, "Some of your idea was ok, and good, but most of it sucked and was really quite in accurate". I do admit, I did go a bit too far with some of the points, but I think most it was good, I started this new thread to revise it, and perhaps make it more realistic, and funner.

1. The first point is that my old idea was that the actual blast wall/shield was would spread quite far, heres my new idea:

When the missile hits ground zero (hopefully a city), the blast wall/shield will destroy everything in that city, completely lay it to waste...everything, population, improvements, and wonders. And then the blast shield would completely scorch the squares that immediately surround the city, these tiles would become charred squares/tiles, and would not be usable for the rest of the game, the tile that the targeted city was on would also turn charred, then the rest of the city radius would be turned to a contaminated zone, and also a fallout or radiation zone. Everything within the city radius would be destroyed...including rails, roads, and agriculture, and any resources would also be destroyed. The fallout/radiation zone would also be contaminated, but only for the next 20 turns, but after that, would return back to normal. The fallout or radiation though would remain in those zones for the next 10 turns, and each unit that either passes through it, or stays there during those 10 turns would lose 25% of its current health while it remains in the zone, and would die once its health runs out.

2. Also another point, alot of you guys talk about ICBM's, but I don't think many of you know what they really are. ICBM means, Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. when something says, ballistic, it usually means nuclear, and nuclear means that it uses a nucleus chain reaction to cause the affect that it does. So a Ballistic Missile, means that that missile has a devastating affect on its target. Most ICBM's are launched from a submarine, do to their lack of range, NOT silos. The modern U.S. ICBM's' warheads usually carry 1 megaton of Nuclear explosives, or TNT, and they can travel up to about 5 thousand miles. Most ICBM's carry anywhere from 5 - 8 warheads, each with 1 megaton of explosives. Before the missiles reaches its target, it releases its multiple warheads like a shotgun, which causes the huge blast radius.

There are also 2 other types of nukes, the LRBM's, and SRBM's, the LRBM's are Long Rang Ballistic Missiles, and can travel anywhere from 8 - 15 thousand miles...NOT all the way around the earth. They are the ones that are launched from silos, usually hidden underground ones. They usually carry only 1 warhead, but that warhead generally carries 5 - 10 megatons of explosives.

The SRBM's are probably what you already guessed, Short Range Ballistic Missiles, which are like ICBM's, but not as powerful, and don't travel as far, usually no more then 2,000 miles, and carry from 100,000 - 500,000 tons of explosives.

Anyway, alot of you guys compared my "idea" with the bombing at hiroshima and nagasaki, but you can't, 'cause the modern missiles are ALOT more powerful then those atom bombs that we used on the japanese. The bomb at Hiroshima carried approximately 60,000 tons of TNT, and the one at Nagasaki carried about 52,000 tons. The one at Hiroshima devestated the city within a 5 mile radius, a modern missile could wipe out New York or London, and all of their many suburbs. And in case you didn't know, those two cities are huge.

3. My third point is that you guys also compared my idea with H-Bombs, but actually, Hydrogen bombs are not as powerfull as nuclear missiles...in fact, nukes are about 100 times more powerful.

And now about SDI's, I think they should be a future tech, but that you can have a on/off at the beginning to future techs. If they are implemented, they should be no stronger then 50%, so if a nuke hit a city with one, the damage would be reduced by 25 - 50%. Also, they should cost A TON, and should require a curtain amount of money to maintain them each turn.

Well, I think thats about it. I don't think I have to ask for feedback, I think I am about to get flamed for giving my own entitled oppinion.Since most of you are not used to that, you say us Americans can't do that either.Sorry for that rude coment, just sort of came out.

[korn469]

before i type anything, I just wanna say that Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction rules!!!!

ok about your idea...

first, you left out any mention of MAD in your article, any significant improvement of the nuclear war model in civ3 comes from implementing MAD, without MAD the model will be inherently flawed

even if nukes in civ3 had the exact same destructive power as in civ2, but civ3 had MAD, then the nuke model would be significantly better, all resources firaxis spends on improving the nuke model in civ3 should be spent on implementing MAD first, then after that is done, any additional time or resources should be spent on adding in the other cool extras

as for radioactive squares, and just fallout in general...i personally think that this would be a nice touch, but i don't know how receptive firaxis would be to adding fallout to civ3 because it would add in extra programing, art, and QA time without adding that much to the game...i don't think it is essential to the nuclear war model since civ is so abstract, but if firaxis could add it i would love it...

about blast radius i still think it should only be the square the nuke was targeted to hit and all of the surrounding squares...any more than that and nukes might be too powerful for the game (with ten nukes you could wipe out the world)

as for SDI i personally do not think it should have more than a 50% chance of intercepting a nuke and that an SDI system should have a range of two squares outside of the city, so the enemy can't target a nuke beside of your city and wipe it out without SDI having a chance to intercept it...also SDI should be expensive, but in balance with the cost of a nuke

The bomb at Hiroshima carried approximately 60,000 tons of TNT, and the one at Nagasaki carried about 52,000 tons. The one at Hiroshima devestated the city within a 5 mile radius, a modern missile could wipe out New York or London, and all of their many suburbs. And in case you didn't know, those two cities are huge.

3. My third point is that you guys also compared my idea with H-Bombs, but actually, Hydrogen bombs are not as powerfull as nuclear missiles...in fact, nukes are about 100 times more powerful.

where did you get those facts at?
as far as i know the fission bombs used against japan weighed about a ton each and had a yield of like 20kt (i'm approximating but it was somewhere in the 20-28kt range)

also as far as i know, most strategic nuclear warheads are some sort of fission/fusion hybrid and basically the same thing as an H-Bomb...so when you say nuclear missiles are 100 times more powerful than an h-bomb what exactly are you talking about?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
When the missile hits ground zero (hopefully a city), the blast wall/shield will destroy everything in that city, completely lay it to waste...

I think it's a bad idea to completely destroy the city, maybe it's more real, but it will make it a lot easier to win the game when you are the leader of the richest empire in the world (and knowing the enemies don't have any protection against it). Build a few of these missiles and kill half of the enemies cities (or even a few civilizations).

[TechWins]

I think your nuclear model just includes the cool little extras. Not neccesarily the important aspects such as MAD.

Well, I think thats about it. I don't think I have to ask for feedback, I think I am about to get flamed for giving my own entitled oppinion.Since most of you are not used to that, you say us Americans can't do that either.Sorry for that rude coment, just sort of came out.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. I'm American and people seem to listen to my opinions. Maybe you're just one of the few Americans here that nobody cares about because almost all Americans here get listened to.

[korn469]

ADG

I think it's a bad idea to completely destroy the city

actually i had been thinking the same thing this morning because in almost all of threads about nuclear warfare people say they do not want a nuclear war to end the game...

so how about this, implement mad, and have nukes kill either 80% of the city's pop or 90%...if they go with 80% then it should automatically destroy a size 4 city, and if they go with 90% then the nuke should automatically destroy a size 5 city

[Dauphin]

when something says, ballistic, it usually means nuclear

Since when? Something ballistic is if it travels through the air, usually only under the force of gravity after an original impulse. Things like arrows, catapults and firearms are covered in ballistics.

A ballistic missile is merely a missile that is allowed to fall to ground rather than be powered all the way to its target.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by korn469
ADG



actually i had been thinking the same thing this morning because in almost all of threads about nuclear warfare people say they do not want a nuclear war to end the game...

so how about this, implement mad, and have nukes kill either 80% of the city's pop or 90%...if they go with 80% then it should automatically destroy a size 4 city, and if they go with 90% then the nuke should automatically destroy a size 5 city

I like the idea about killing 80-90% of the population (and small cities with 100%), though then it would be great that all other nations, who doesn't use nuclear missiles, will turn against the shooter, this means: Some countries "only" looses their respect for that player (some countries more than others), while some countries even go to war (against the player) because of that!?!

Just a quick idea, haven't thought that much about it, so there can be a few things I didn't think about (Which could hurt the game somehow )...Maybe Firaxis already have implented that, haven't read everything about the game yet

[Ralf]

I like the idea of of point-and-click targeted ICBM:s provided that...

A/ You cannot exploit the limitations of turn-based games, by completely destroy a similar ICBM-equipped empire, before it is his turn to counterstrike. Point-and-click ICBM:s must be connected with the simultaneous attacks MAD-feature - that is: all ICBM attacks only gets executed after the attacked empire also have had a change of launching a similar point-and-click sequence (IF he has ICBM:s, that is) In short: MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction.

B/ the SDI-defence is still there for nuclear-attack immunity. The more nucs you have though, the less effective these SDI-defences becomes. For complete SDI-safety you cannot build & own any nucs at all. I realize that some civers gets pissed off by this weighted trade-off. But, I lend my arguments from the man himself:

"Those who make use of the sword, shall die by the sword" (Jesus Christ).

In other words: You cannot launch huge amounts of ICBM:s, and then except to sit tight & safe behind 100% effective SDI-defenced cities. Its also about game-balance and better game-challenge.

C/ they dont try to "make a game within a game" of this. Keep it simple - just implement the quintessential idea, without too many distractive details.

[korn469]

Ralf

i am in full agreement with point c, just look at my recent posts on nukes, and i think we are saying the exact same thing about MAD, you launch your nukes, and before anything else happens all nukes in the game launches and hit their targets

however i still completely disagree with your idea about SDI,

for one thing SDI is going to be later in the tech tree than nukes, so it will be possible for your civ to be nuked off the map before SDI is even discovered, whereas MAD and diplomatic repercussions exist from day one with nukes

also during the cold war, part of the reason for nukes was for the US to deter the Soviet conventional forces, and i think that nukes in civ3 should be a deterrance from being able to conquer the world with a conventional army...your idea just blows that out of the water

also in every single civ game buildings have had the same effect for every single civ, this would be at odds with that principle...really why should the same investment in SDI leave one civ completely immune from nukes while another civ who also invested in nukes gets punished?

all SDI should work the same, civs should not be rewarded for building a nuclear arsenal...really if japan built a national missle defense shield would it be any more effective than a similar US built system just because the US has nukes?

since nukes wouldn't destroy a large city, thereby meaning that a nuclear war wouldn't end the game i don't see where your argument holds any water...in almost all instances it would probably be impossible for one civ to build enough nukes to destroy every civ on the map...most of the time smaller civs who pose little threat to the larger civs wouldn't even have nukes pointed at them

why is your idea even needed?

your idea unbalances the game, instead of better balancing it...nukes should serve a purpose in civ3

that purpose should be

1. acts as a tool of blackmail, where a civ with nukes can bully civs without nukes
2.acts as a weapon which would rapidly either completely destroy a enemy or render him unable of continuing a war
3. acts as a counterbalance to a civ who has built up a huge conventional army
4. acts as a counterbalance to a civ who has built up a huge nuclear arsenal

though i do think we have pretty much came up with a nuclear model that would work for civ3

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
for one thing SDI is going to be later in the tech tree than nukes, so it will be possible for your civ to be nuked off the map before SDI is even discovered, whereas MAD and diplomatic repercussions exist from day one with nukes.

Yes, but these techs are not that far apart - and I can always try to counteract this by choosing mostly SDI-prerequisite techs within the modern era, so that I get my SDI-defences faster. The prerequisites for SDI:s should (as much as realistically possible) be different from the pre-techs leading to nuclear weapons. The player should be forced to make a road-split priority-choice here, even if the road to Nucs admittedly is shorter. Also, one can always build some just-in-case nucs early on, and then get rid of them then most cities gets SDI-defences. 100% effective SDI-improvement only works however, if you never used any nucs, and also scrapped the ones you currently own.

also during the cold war, part of the reason for nukes was for the US to deter the Soviet conventional forces, and i think that nukes in civ3 should be a deterrance from being able to conquer the world with a conventional army...your idea just blows that out of the water

Real life is real life and civ-game is civ-game. In a Civ-games most warlike civers make it their specific goal to "have fun with their nucs" or "conquer the world, the easy way". And I dont think any severe "diplomatic repercussions" gonna stop them. Looking at those mushroom-clouds becomes a goal in itself - but without any real life unpleasant repercussions.
The latter is the reason why its so irrelevant to make real world deterrence-comparisons. Civ-3 is, after all - only a game, with locked-within-the-computer gameplay repercussions.

I also get the feeling that you trying to cram a cold-war scenario into the main game, and I thinks thats fundamentally wrong. The main game should only borrow "properties" or "props" from history and modern times. You want to recreate the USA vs Soviet cold-war as realistic as possible, in Civ-3 - fine; but do so in a tailor-cut cold-war scenario instead, there you can block-out SDI:s altogether, setup everything exactly as you want it, and also add powerful events with script-language.

and i think that nukes in civ3 should be a deterrence from being able to conquer the world with a conventional army...your idea just blows that out of the water

1. acts as a tool of blackmail, where a civ with nukes can bully civs without nukes
2.acts as a weapon which would rapidly either completely destroy a enemy or render him unable of continuing a war
3. acts as a counterbalance to a civ who has built up a huge conventional army
4. acts as a counterbalance to a civ who has built up a huge nuclear arsenal.

The problem with above arguments, is that those civers who strive to build huge conventional conquest-armies, almost always are the exact same ones who also strive after huge ICBM-arsenals, as well. And the other way around: Those civers who instincively dislike the idea of being forced to build ICBM:s as the only "safe peacekeeper", is likely to at least down-prioritize them - just to find themselves being attacked regardless; simply because the more warlike AI/MP-civs also have nucs - and often more of them. So much for "counter-balancing" different playing-styles.

Now, one can argue that a huge warlike empire can deliberately concentrate fully on building a huge world-conquest armies, while ignoring nucs - but remember: Just "ignoring nucs" in itself doesnt protect you from anything. And in order to build these SDI-defences, you must have access to that late-game SDI-tech, and the time & resources to build all these city-improvements.
Also, enormous conventional conquest-preperations is no longer possible to achieve in the same easy way as it was in Civ-2. Combat-units now costs money and needs special recources. Both things that can be thwarted more easily in Civ-3, with help of foreign Civ-embargos.

Anyway, REAL counter-balancing comes from understanding that Civ-gamers have very different needs - they want to play the game very differently. Not all wants to be force-feed with the idea of MAD-setups, as "the only safe peace-keeper" (let me remind you, Korn469, that history isnt over yet - perhaps MAD doesnt help against a future WW-3. after all).

Therefore its very important that Firaxis also adds a similar SDI-defence escape-alternative in Civ-3, as well (and if I remember it correctly, I think I have seen the SDI-tech confirmed somewhere).
Also, maybe there are other "heavenly factors" (no - im not religious in the traditional sense - I just think we should take this into account) that decides who gets nuked, and who gets saved - other the presence of huge pile-ups of ICBM:s. The 100% effective SDI-defence symbolizes the alternative "sheep" escape-route for more peace-loving players.

You may not realize this, but what Im trying to do is to "soften up" the otherwise over-powerful Civ-2 style 100% effective SDI-defences. In Civ-3 these SDI:s should become much less effective if you also build and/or use Nucs, and only 100% effective if you DONT own and/or use any nuclear weapons at all. In return - once their backs is covered from nuce-attacks - the more peaceful players, uninterested in world-conquests, can concentrate fully on building mostly defencive units and defence-related city-improvements. A counter-balancing improvement, compared with SDI:s in Civ-2.

also in every single civ game buildings have had the same effect for every single civ, this would be at odds with that principle...

So what? The SDI-defence is an exception. Why should this be a problem?

[quote] really why should the same investment in SDI leave one civ completely immune from nukes while another civ who also invested in nukes gets punished?/quote]

all SDI should work the same, civs should not be rewarded for building a nuclear arsenal...really if japan built a national missle defense shield would it be any more effective than a similar US built system just because the US has nukes?

Dont always look at things so materialistically and close-to-the-ground. As I hinted previously, there are maybe other divine factors; for example reinkarnation- and karma-related factors (= "those who make use of the sword...") that decides that "the sheeps" have a change of getting almost 100% nuclear-protected, while "the goats" are more likely to get slaughted - even if they believe that they are equally (or even better) protected. As I said previously: almost 100% effective (but only under certain conditions) SDI-defences symbolizes that alternative peace-loving nuclear attack immune-alternative.

since nukes wouldn't destroy a large city, thereby meaning that a nuclear war wouldn't end the game i don't see where your argument holds any water...in almost all instances it would probably be impossible for one civ to build enough nukes to destroy every civ on the map...most of the time smaller civs who pose little threat to the larger civs wouldn't even have nukes pointed at them

The point is that Nucs obliterates all kind of unit-defences, for easy (too easy) key-city overtakings.

Now, it just so happens that Firaxis have announced that they gonna implement some kind of anti-BAB (bigger-always-better) measures - meaning that cities belonging to small (but otherwise advanced and well-managed) mini-empires (perhaps around 6-12 cities) in return gets some benefits that similar cities belonging to much bigger empires dont get. I dont know if these counter-acting BAB-benefits are city growth-related or economy-related, or what. One of these counter-acting BAB-benefits should be that these cities can in return be almost 100% protected against nuclear attacks (provided that they dont stockpile and/or use any nucs).

why is your idea even needed?

Because, not all civers want to play the game like you do. Not all wants to achieve nuclear-attack safety, in the exact same way you want. The idea of MAD as "the only safe peace-alternative" is a rather controversial one, and I dont want that viewpoint being shoved down my throat, if I can help it. Now, then it comes too MAD, Im a reasonable man. Even though Im not personally interested in using this feature, I nevertheless thinks its a good idea, for game-balance reasons. I just dont want it as the ONLY nuclear peace-alternative.

your idea unbalances the game, instead of better balancing it...

Its really the other way around.

By not allowing any "safe from nuclear-attacks" alternatives, besides the MAD one, you actually enforce a certain way of dealing with nuclear-attack safety - a way that benefits mostly those players that choose to invest both in huge conquest-armies and in huge ICBM/nuce-arsenals.

nukes should serve a purpose in civ3.

Yes, and they still do with my SDI-tweak implemented.

First of all, the SDI-tech lay further away in the tech-tree then the nuclear weapon-tech. Secondly; most civs have at least some ICBM:s so their cities is never 100% protected. And, even though some empires have cities with 100% SDI-defences, maybe other havent (you can easily check this out thanks to the ICBM-style point-and-click attacks). Finally, even if some empires are immune against city-tile-attacks, you can STILL always attack units and key RR:s and colonies, in order to quickly hamper their industrial production.

[korn469]

Ralf

i hate any thoughts of SDI being 100% effective, especially when one civ gets 100% effective SDI and other civ gets 50% effective SDI even when everything else is the same except civ A doesn't have nukes and civ B does

Anyway, REAL counter-balancing comes from understanding that Civ-gamers have very different needs

for all of the people playing civcity out there it comes down to this...you can adopt any playing style you like against the AI, because the AI on a good day makes the game competitive for a good player, and on a bad day it makes it way way too easy, even on the ardest settings...the one city challenge is a syptom of this...if the AI was better there would never be a successful OOC...look at all of the different challenges that civ2 and SMAC have, all of these are possible because of lousy AI

but when it comes to multiplayer you are going to have to adopt the best play style if you wanna be successful, and more than likely that play style is going to be agressive

so your idea for SDI would be like saying that as long as a civ hasn't built any military unit its cities be couldn't conquered, because there are players out there who just wanna be peaceful builders...that is the exact spirit of your idea

players should realize "hey eventually i am going to need to build an army to protect all i have built" if they don't realize this then they deserve to get conquered, plus it adds to the satisfaction of building an empire when you protect it from agressors

now i am all for making it harder to conquer the world, and making war have real consequences, which is the real problem here, but you wanna ignore that problem and make unrealistic play balance choices

I also get the feeling that you trying to cram a cold-war scenario into the main game, and I thinks thats fundamentally wrong.

i am doing nothing of the sort...nuclear weapons are one of the most important discoveries of the modern era, and they are the most significant weapons man have ever discovered...the main aspect about nuclear weapons is that they are fundamentally different from conventional arms

a nuclear war is unlike any kind of conventional war...in a matter of minutes a huge chunk of the entire planet could be a radioactive wasteland...in less than an hour entire nations on seperate continants could cease to exist, conventional war can never have that impact

so this means that nuclear weapons in civ should act differently from conventional weapons...also civ should try to simulate that a full scale nuclear war between two side would not have a positive outcome...that has little to do with creating a cold war scenario, i think that MAD is like playing chicken...the only way to win is to eventually back down, otherwise you are going to get hurt really badly

MAD is needed to balance nuclear weapons and make either side unlikely to use them...it's not some sinister scheme to turn civ3 into a cold war simulator...and plus the end game of civ is hardly ever a nailbiter, adding in more powerful nukes with MAD would certainly spice up civ3

Those civers who instincively dislike the idea of being forced to build ICBM:s as the only "safe peacekeeper", is likely to at least down-prioritize them - just to find themselves being attacked regardless

well for peaceful civs i think that diplomacy should be the best way to deter a warlike civ from building nukes...someone has to build the manhattan project and it should definantly require the special resource uranium, so a peaceful civ could maybe arrange an embargo to prevent that civ from completing the manhatten project

secondly in SMAC when a civ used nukes on other civs the rest of the AI automatically declared war on that civ, and the civ that got nuked would never make peace with that civ again...so using nukes ensured a fight to the death with your enemy and with the rest of the other civs too

so what i'm proposing is that in civ3 if you launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against a peaceful civ without nukes the other civs should reguard you as a threat to all mankind and should unite against you...that is why it was so easy to form the original coallition against iraq...basically most of the world considered saddam a threat to stability because he was trying to build nukes and corner the world's oil supply

anytime you launch a nuclear attack against a civ with nukes or a longtime enemy your at war with all of the civs not at war with the civ you nuked should downgrade their relations on you and possibly even declare war

this could be a very large deterant in civ3, because usally one civ (unless it's controlled by a human) won't be able to take on the rest of the world, and from what we have been told civ3 will have actual war penalties, loss of culture just being one of those

also Ralf you have forgotten than MAD protects the innocent civs as well as the guilty

for a civ to nuke another it means that every single nuke on the map gets launched, so even if you don't have nukes as a peaceful civ if another civ has nukes that are pointed at the one attacking you they will still be deterred by MAD and wouldn't risk nuking you

the only time this doen't work is when there is a nuclear bully...the first civ to get nukes will have an advantage, and there should be an option in the diplomacy menu to threaten to obliterate a civ with your nukes if they don't comply to your wishes...however you will know who is building the manhatten project and you will have time to form an alliance against this civ for the good of humanity...and if they do manage to build it, unless you a threat to them they probably wouldn't risk turning the entire world against them by nuking you...but building a nuke or two couldn't hurt

let me remind you, Korn469, that history isnt over yet - perhaps MAD doesnt help against a future WW-3. after all

well if we actually do have a full scale nuclear war then history probably will be over...almost all wars are about security, so why in the world would you go to war if you know you will be destroyed?

and remember nuclear weapons allows smaller states to deter larger ones...the gulf war would have never happed if iraq had of had a couple of soviet built ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads...the US would have wrote off quwait as not being worth the risk to US security...the same exact thing can happen in civ if nukes are made a little more effective, and this would be a good thing, plus it's realistic...widespread nuclear proliferation pretty much ends the era of gunboat diplomacy by superpowers

The point is that Nucs obliterates all kind of unit-defences, for easy (too easy) key-city overtakings.

well if implemented correctly, MAD in civ3 would certainly end the nuke and paradrop syndrome that civ2 had...for one thing if nukes killed 80% of a city then there wouldn't be much left to conquer...then add in civ3 nationality system and i'm sure you'll have a city full of people unhappy about being nuked (no more we love days for you pyscho boy)

so with a couple of tweaks the nuclear model could get a major overhaul that would be realistic and that would add to play balance and game excitment...plus i also think that they should make the AI a little trigger shy with nukes just to be on the safe side and not ruin most people's game

that is why i cannot support 100% effective SDI for a civ without nukes (or for any civ for that matter )

[Ralf]

Well, we simply have too different viewpoints on the subject, and I shall not try to convince you. This is my last reply under this topic.

Originally posted by korn469
i hate any thoughts of SDI being 100% effective, especially when one civ gets 100% effective SDI and other civ gets 50% effective SDI even when everything else is the same except civ A doesn't have nukes and civ B does

Firstly: We know for a fact that the Manhattan-wonder and nuclear weapons is already implemented in Civ-3. It is VERY likely that they added SDI-defences as well (perhaps as a minor wonder + city-improvements). The question is only IF and HOW they have changed it this time around.

Secondly: Civ city-improvements have always produces different outputs depending on city-size. A library in a 5-pop city doesnt produce as much lightbulbs as the same type of library does in a forreign 10-pop city. So it really isnt that farfetched that an SDI-defence can "produce" different nuclear defence-value, depending on the possesion & usage of nucs.

...if the AI was better there would never be a successful OOC...look at all of the different challenges that civ2 and SMAC have, all of these are possible because of lousy AI.

Well, I obviously didnt mean that a lousy AI should be the password for allowing different playingstyles, of course. It doesnt have to be one way or the other.

so your idea for SDI would be like saying that as long as a civ hasn't built any military unit its cities be couldn't conquered, because there are players out there who just wanna be peaceful builders...that is the exact spirit of your idea.

players should realize "hey eventually i am going to need to build an army to protect all i have built" if they don't realize this then they deserve to get conquered, plus it adds to the satisfaction of building an empire when you protect it from agressors

Are you deliberately trying to misinterpret what Im saying? Im saying nothing of the kind. Even a small peaceful empires MUST invest in military protection (hence: "the more peaceful players, uninterested in world-conquests, can concentrate fully on building mostly defensive units and defence-related city-improvements").
Civs, regardless if they are peaceful or warlike, are always going to be "military conquerable" in Civ-3. What Im saying is that MAD-setups shoudnt be the only way avoiding get involved in nuclear wars. Im talking about the relationship between Nucs and SDI:s first and foremost, because this is what this topic is all about.

now i am all for making it harder to conquer the world, and making war have real consequences, which is the real problem here, but you wanna ignore that problem and make unrealistic play balance choices

Believing that there are anti nuc-attack protective forces, other then collecting pile-ups of MAD-setup nuclears, is by all means not "unrealistic". And SDI-defences - if tweaked correctly - actually enhance the play-balance. Thats why the Civ-2 team inplemented those in the original game, in the first place.

so this means that nuclear weapons in civ should act differently from conventional weapons...also civ should try to simulate that a full scale nuclear war between two side would not have a positive outcome...

MAD is needed to balance nuclear weapons and make either side unlikely to use them...

someone has to build the manhattan project and it should definantly require the special resource uranium, so a peaceful civ could maybe arrange an embargo to prevent that civ from completing the manhatten project

secondly in SMAC when a civ used nukes on other civs the rest of the AI automatically declared war on that civ, and the civ that got nuked would never make peace with that civ again...so using nukes ensured a fight to the death with your enemy and with the rest of the other civs too

so what i'm proposing is that in civ3 if you launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against a peaceful civ without nukes the other civs should reguard you as a threat to all mankind and should unite against you...

Well, above is all good and well. But why should the idea of MAD-setups be the ONLY deterrence counter-measure? Especially for player who simply doesnt believe in the basic MAD-setup philosophy? Firaxis should, if they implement MAD (which I hope) nevertheless also give players the SDI-defence alternative. One thing doesnt necessarily exclude the other.

also Ralf you have forgotten than MAD protects the innocent civs as well as the guilty

What MAD protect and doesnt protect, we simply dont know - because history isnt over yet.

for a civ to nuke another it means that every single nuke on the map gets launched, so even if you don't have nukes as a peaceful civ if another civ has nukes that are pointed at the one attacking you they will still be deterred by MAD and wouldn't risk nuking you

Well, thats a nice twist. But, I still fail to see why SDI-defences shouldnt be allowed on the game. I want my SDI-defences - it is as simple as that.

well if we actually do have a full scale nuclear war then history probably will be over...almost all wars are about security, so why in the world would you go to war if you know you will be destroyed?

Common sense-reasons have often played minor roles in war-politics. Also, as the outbreak of WW-1 have taught us: Politicians and generals isnt always capable of overviewing the consequences of their initial actions. Theres so much national prestige at stake, that blurres "common sense. Just look at the Cuba-crises. We where VERY close to having a new world-war in our laps. Infact, if you have watched the recent movie with Kevin Costner ("13 days", or something like that), you should realize how weak MAD really can be as a deterrence-factor. All it takes is that the wrong people is set to make the final decision - pushing the button.

Also, dont automatically assume that everything stands and falls with mankind. There can very well be other spiritual and devine forces and laws, that controls what happening on earth, as well. Forces who decides then a erratic (or more stable) person gets power, and then its time to replace him. Everything in order to teach mankind the consequences of their believes and historic & present day actions. You (and I) just dont KNOW, do we?

plus i also think that they should make the AI a little trigger shy with nukes just to be on the safe side and not ruin most people's game

Agree.

[Grumbold]

We have pretty good evidence the MAD "defence" works because there has not been a single nuclear weapon activated except for testing purposes in over 50 years despite numerous wars. On the other hand no anti-missile mechanism has yet been developed which can stop the overwhelming number of missiles, bombs and shells sitting in arsenals around the world.

It seems they are making the tech tree leaner so I would no be entirely surprised if futuristic mechanisms like SDI and clean fusion power have been trimmed out. Were they to include them I'm on the side of them having a fixed effectiveness or actually exist as units so that they are expended on use. i.e. If I nuke Washington five times then four anti-missiles will protect it from everything except the final shot. That gives the feeling of the arms race since if your enemy continues to build nukes you have to build more defences to keep pace.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Grumbold
We have pretty good evidence the MAD "defence" works because there has not been a single nuclear weapon activated except for testing purposes in over 50 years despite numerous wars.

What is 50 years? Next to nothing, seen from a somewhat extended historical time-scale. Also, our world can change very rapidly, in unforseen ways; just look at the sudden Soviet collapse. CIA sure didnt expect that. And there can be other, much bigger events in our near future, that can suddenly plunge mankind into unforeseen pathways.

On the other hand no anti-missile mechanism has yet been developed which can stop the overwhelming number of missiles, bombs and shells sitting in arsenals around the world.

As I explained; the SDI-defences symbolizes for me, something much more secure than those rather unreliable and costly Star-Wars defence-projects.

It seems they are making the tech tree leaner so I would no be entirely surprised if futuristic mechanisms like SDI and clean fusion power have been trimmed out.

Well, I know as much as you do. We just have to wait and see, I guess. Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) makes a nice wonder though, and considering the extended number of wonders in Civ-3, (12 major wonders + no less the 24 minor wonders) I think its rather unlikely that they havent implemented SDI as one of them.

[korn469]

Ralf

i do think that they should add SDI to civ3, but i don't think it should be 100% effective...to me it shouldn't be more than 50% effective and it shouldn't come cheap either

one single building or wonder should not render an entire arsenal obsolete

As I explained; the SDI-defences symbolizes for me, something much more secure than those rather unreliable and costly Star-Wars defence-projects.

What is 50 years? Next to nothing, seen from a somewhat extended historical time-scale.

ok so MAD even though it has a very long track record can easily get written off, but SDI which the US government has spent billions and billions on, and have all but admitted that it would be unable to counteract a large scale nuclear launch and they can't even really conduct a successful test of shooting down a single dummy warhead should be in the game as a 100% successful entity?

MADs 50 year track record might be next to nothing, but SDI is still science fiction for the moment and it's track record is nothing at all! it seems that if i am trying to tack on a cold war scenario that you are trying to add on a fantasy sci fi scenario

A library in a 5-pop city doesnt produce as much lightbulbs as the same type of library does in a forreign 10-pop city

those libraries might produce different outcomes but they still have the same rule, it adds 50% to science if i remember correctly...just because civ A doesn't have stealth bombers shouldn't mean that their libraries add 75% to science while civ b with stealth bombers onlys gets 50%

so SDI should work the same for all

But why should the idea of MAD-setups be the ONLY deterrence counter-measure? Especially for player who simply doesnt believe in the basic MAD-setup philosophy?

the diplomatic repercussions of starting a nuclear war should be enormous and should be enough to prevent almost all nuclear wars...then you add in MAD and nuclear wars should be few and far between...but highly destructive when they occur

that to me is the best play balance

and in civ2 nuclear wars just happened way too often, but they were never even close to being as destructive as the real thing

[Grumbold]

So what do you think of the anti-missile missile? It offers some defence while only being as good as the size of your arsenal.

[Earwicker]

The Game:
An improvement to SDI would be reducing the radius of coverage. Three squares makes it easy to use them as part of conquest (build in border cities and cover recently captured neighbors with the same SDI). How about 2 squares, or one? That way, there is still a useful defense against nuclear aggressors but you are in jeopardy of nuclear retaliation when you send your forces on the warpath.

Reality:
BTW, Diablo. ICBM's are usually ground-based, larger boosters, but could technically include SLBM's (sub-launched). An ICBM can carry a single warhead or multiple re-entry vehicle/ warheads. The latter are called MIRV's. Someone else correctly pointed out that "ballistic" has to do with the characteristics of its flight, not its destructive capability.

Today, most nuclear missiles would carry H-bombs, and are not "100 times as powerful". A nuke is either a fission weapon or a fusion weapon, or tailored weapons like the neutron bomb.

For good info, check out www.atomicarchive.com

[Dauphin]

So what do you think of the anti-missile missile? It offers some defence while only being as good as the size of your arsenal

I like it. The effectiveness of your defence based on the number of defences you have. Say each missile has a 20% chance of taking out any one nuke, and costs twice as much as a nuke. That would give you a choice, build nukes a la MAD or go for extra missiles for sheilding.

I also think that SDI should become more efficient with each additional tech that is in that field. That way MAD is gradually removed rather than suddenly with a single tech.

As they say Civ4 please.

[Ralf]

Arrgh! The previous reply was to be my absolut last one under this thread, and here I am writing yet another one. Im leaving for vacation on thursday, and I really havent the time.

Originally posted by korn469
i do think that they should add SDI to civ3, but i don't think it should be 100% effective...to me it shouldn't be more than 50% effective and it shouldn't come cheap either.

A flat line 50% SDI effectivness isnt enough. It basically means that the attacker only have to hit the same SDI-protected city twice in a row, in order to completely nullify (yes, even below that) the strengthening effects of SDI-defence city-improvements. Two ICBM left-clicks instead of one...

one single building or wonder should not render an entire arsenal obsolete

One extra nuclear missile per attacked SDI-city should not render an expensive SDI-wonder + an entire arsenal of SDI-defence city-improvements obsolete.

Take that!

so SDI should work the same for all

And they do with my idea: Variably effective SDI-defences, is just as effective for other civs that have the exact same variable number of Nucs. But this wasnt exactly what you had in mind with above quote, I guess.

Originally posted by Grumbold
So what do you think of the anti-missile missile? It offers some defence while only being as good as the size of your arsenal.

Do you mean an Anti-missile missile (hmm) that only intercepts incoming nucs - and not functions as nuclear bombs themselves?
If so - then thats an idea that have nice potential. I dont like any percentage probabilities though - either you have enough of these SDI-missiles to intercept incoming nucs (= 100% protection), or you havent (= 100% failure). Its a one vs one unit affair. If you run out of SDI-missiles, and the attacker keeps on sending nucs at you - well...

------------ edited:
If above implemented, then SDI-defence city-improvements must be replaced with SDI-units instead. These "units" cant move around - they dont have to, just as point-and-click ICBM:s dont have to move around either.
------------------

Personally I would still prefer my own model, but I think that your idea have potential also. Any further explanation how you want this idea implemented? If so, write a reply about it before thursday, so I have time to read it.

[korn469]

Grumbold

the anti missle idea is pretty good...give them a very short range, like the square they are in and all of the surrounding squares, make them cost 75% of a nuke and have a 75% chance of intercepting a nuke (so if nukes cost 160 make them cost 120) and make them a one time use unit i think that would work just fine and it would lead to building up both your nculear arsenal and your anti missle force

however i think that only one of the ideas can work in civ3, either an SDI building or an anti missle unit, there probably isn't room in civ3 to have both, though i think the anti missle units would probably be more fun...though if it's true that civ3 will only have 60 units i doubt anti missle units will be one of them

Earwicker

An improvement to SDI would be reducing the radius of coverage. Three squares makes it easy to use them as part of conquest (build in border cities and cover recently captured neighbors with the same SDI). How about 2 squares, or one

i agree completely!!!!

Ralf

A flat line 50% SDI effectivness isnt enough. It basically means that the attacker only have to hit the same SDI-protected city twice in a row, in order to completely nullify (yes, even below that) the strengthening effects of SDI-defence city-improvements. Two ICBM left-clicks instead of one

first thing that it is a 50% to intercept each nuke launched against that city, so if five nukes gets launched against your city you have about a 3% chance of not getting hit at all, whereas if SDI was 75% effective you'd have about a 24% chance of not getting hit at all and if SDI was 95% effective you'd have about a 77% chance of not being hit at all from five nukes

but really if five nuclear salvos are pointed at your city which is 800 shields in civ2 you almost deserve to get hit...either you have alot of enemies or one really powerful enemy...for 800 shields they could build 13 howitzers...and i really doubt that a city could hold off that many howitzers especially not with only like between 80-320 shields (which is the price range SDI will fall into if nukes still cost 160 shields)...so if an SDI building cost about the same as a nuke or even more it is still worth it

and another point you are missing is that with MAD there is not two left clicks instead of one...one push of the infamous red botton and every single active nuke on the planet fires at their targets simultaneously that means if that civ attacks you with nukes and they have enemies armed with nukes then they get attacked when they attack you

however we are arguing about a moot point here, i can almost guarantee that firaxis will not tie SDI effectivness to the number of nukes you have on hand, because it really doesn't make much sence in civ terms and this is why

1. you get rewarded for not playing effectively
2. nuclear wars will be a rather rare occurance once more than one civ gets nukes because of MAD and negative diplomatic repercussions...so a peaceful civ will probably not get nuked
3. it is nor fair or balanced and it adds little to making the game better

all i'm saying is that i'm positive that civ3 will have nukes, and i am almost positive that civ3 will also have SDI present in some form or another...i just hope that firaxis doen't make SDI too effective because it will just lead the human player to out tech the AI and build a protective shield

once that is done the player will nuke the AI back to civ 1

MAD prevents nuclear wars because it removes nuclear first strike capability from the game so there are harsh consequences associated with nuclear war (as in real life)

SDI encourages nuclear war because it basically reintroduces the element of first strike capability into the game and selectively removes the consequences of a nuclear war for one civ

the better SDI is the more likely nuclear war mongers are going to use it to give them an advantage in waging nuclear war...

and if SDI would be more effective for one civ than another it should come from playing effectively

for example

building SDI in all of your cities
your tech level
a wonder (or mini-wonder)
if you are using nationalism and are in a state of war or if you are at peace
etc.

SDI shouldn't be more effective because your civ thinks more good thoughts than the other civ

that's all for tonight

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
and another point you are missing is that with MAD there is not two left clicks instead of one...one push of the infamous red botton and every single active nuke on the planet fires at their targets simultaneously that means if that civ attacks you with nukes and they have enemies armed with nukes then they get attacked when they attack you

Korn469, please dont go "over the top" with this idea. ALL whats really needed is a chance for the attacked empire to manually point-and-click a similar sequence of ICBM attacks, before the mushrooms in each empire starts to appear. It really doesnt have to be more complicated then that - and NO, it isnt necessarily a goal in itself to make everything exactly as in real life. Its an abstract & fun game first and foremost, with gameplay only repercussions. Some Civ-3-customers probably "want to have fun with their nucs" (but they should get harder backlash-effects to deal with, this time around), while others hate the very idea of getting a forced upon ICBM-arms race stuffed down their throats, as the supposed "only way" to avoid getting nucked.

however we are arguing about a moot point here, i can almost guarantee that firaxis will not tie SDI effectivness to the number of nukes you have on hand, because it really doesn't make much sence in civ terms and this is why

1. you get rewarded for not playing effectively
2. nuclear wars will be a rather rare occurance once more than one civ gets nukes because of MAD and negative diplomatic repercussions...so a peaceful civ will probably not get nuked
3. it is nor fair or balanced and it adds little to making the game better

You really cant "almost garantee" anything at this stage - neither can I. And dont even pretend that there is some kind of objectivity in above statements - its just subjective viewpoints. Just as I have my own subjective viewpoints on the subject also.

MAD prevents nuclear wars because it removes nuclear first strike capability from the game so there are harsh consequences associated with nuclear war (as in real life)

It doesnt do anything of the kind - not in real life (I think we are heading for world-war scenario within the next 15-30 years - with at least some usage of ABC-weapons), nor in the Civ-game.

SDI encourages nuclear war because it basically reintroduces the element of first strike capability into the game and selectively removes the consequences of a nuclear war for one civ.

And this is exactly the reason why I want those SDI-defences only gradually protective from 100% and downwards, depending on how many nucs you currently own and/or use (and perhaps also how much offensive conventional military power you currently have, as well - I dont mind if that factor also gets added to the equation).

About "selectively removes...": Well, I for one thinks theres some thruth in the biblical prophecy of "sheeps" and "goats", although I dont believe that "being religious" in itself, garantees anything. We all know that believing in God doesnt outrule a warlike/cruel attitude, and likewise not believing doesnt necessarily outrule a more humane and peaceful attitude.
For me, the possibility that (at great sacrifices, and under certain strict conditions) I can get almost 100% nuclear protectiveness symbolizes that peaceful escape-alternative. Whether unreliable physical SDI-defences is likely to pull it of is totally irrelevant, because for me, they only acts as symbols for more powerful spiritual destiny-laws.

the better SDI is the more likely nuclear war mongers are going to use it to give them an advantage in waging nuclear war...

SDI-derfences should only work 100% effective together with no-nuces owning peaceful civers (perhaps weak offensive conventional military power should play a role also), uninterested in military world conquest. I thought I explained that. Also; it only does so gradually, late in the tech-tree, and at great personal costs/investments.

and if SDI would be more effective for one civ than another it should come from playing effectively

In order to get 100% effective SDI-improvements you pretty much have to play effective - infact MORE effective then the average civ-warmonger. The reason to this is that the SDI-tech is stuffed away at the far end of the tech-tree, and you have to build an expensive Wonder; and you have to build expensive SDI city-improvements as well (or SDI-units with Grumbold's idea); and with my idea; you have to take a military risk by avoiding Nucs and also too many offensive conventional weapons.

SDI shouldn't be more effective because your civ thinks more good thoughts than the other civ

Well, what can I say, except that I dont agree, of course.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ralf
Do you mean an Anti-missile missile (hmm) that only intercepts incoming nukes - and doew not function as a nuclear bomb themselves?

yes, thats the idea. You would not want the anti-missiles to be nuclear as their radition would be falling on or near your soil unless you could intercept really early.

Originally posted by Ralf If so - then thats an idea that have nice potential. I dont like any percentage probabilities though - either you have enough of these SDI-missiles to intercept incoming nucs (= 100% protection), or you havent (= 100% failure). Its a one vs one unit affair. If you run out of SDI-missiles, and the attacker keeps on sending nukes at you - well...

A % survival rate ties in with the spy survival concept and it makes the beancounters unable to totally predict the outcome. It does of course mean save-reload syndrome may be enhanced in the 1 player game. On the whole I agree that 1-1 is best but that is what playtesting is for.

Originally posted by Ralf
If above implemented, then SDI-defence city-improvements must be replaced with SDI-units instead. These "units" cant move around - they dont have to, just as point-and-click ICBM:s dont have to move around either.

Yes, they would be units and consequently carry a support cost per unit, making it as expensive to have a huge anti-nuke arsenal as it is to have a massive nuke arsenal. Hence the arms race possibilities because you always need more anti-nukes than your enemies have nukes and vice versa....

Depending on how they are implemented they would either:
- have to be stationed within a certain distance of the tile under attack to be effective.
- cover the entire country from any location and just launch on order to protect from any attack.

In either case it would need manual intervention to decide whether to counter each attack otherwise you could sucker all the missiles to defend against outlying targets then leave the most important targets to last in the hope that the anti-nukes were exhausted.

Movement would be needed to allow the industrial cities to produce the nukes and then distribute them around the map (otherwise conventional capture of key cities could capture the entire nuclear protection arsenal). Movement should not be needed during the actual nuclear exchange, just a click to say whether each nuke will be intercepted and another to say from where, if it matters.

[korn469]

Ralf

Korn469, please dont go "over the top" with this idea. ALL whats really needed is a chance for the attacked empire to manually point-and-click a similar sequence of ICBM attacks, before the mushrooms in each empire starts to appear.

Ralf your above fix cannot work in civ3 because of a couple reasons

first you have got to consider how any idea is going to effect PBEM...and your idea would absolutely destroy PBEM because there is only two ways to implement your idea, either there has to be manual confirmation of launching a nuke or nukes have to take hit on the next turn which would leave the game open to abuse

with manual confirmation lets say you have seven players in a game and six of them have nukes, on the first player's turn he launches a nuke against player 7, then before the turn can go on, the turn has to be sent to player 7 to confirm that he is launching a nuke back at player one, player one then launches a nuke at player 3 before the turn can go on player 3 has to decide if he wants to nuke player 1 or not, player 1 then decides to nuke player 7 again, before the turn can go on player 7 has to decide if he wants to nuke player 1 back or not...so only three nuke attacks have happened so far this turn but it has already taken forever, a large scale nuclear war instead of happening in a split second is going to take way way way too much time...so that system doesn't fly...maybe if civ3 multiplayer didn't have PBEM it would work, but if civ3 doesn't have PBEM you are going to have a bunch of unhappy people

the other way is for nukes to take one turn to hit, and then they hit one at a time...well this wouldn't work because if my city was getting nuked the first thing i would do would be to save all of the units i had stationed in and around my cities...if my cities might actually be destroyed then i could sell off improvements and do whatever else i needed to minimize the damage from a nuclear attack...which is absolute crap

my implementation of MAD has neither of those flaws...it doesn't break PBEM and it doesn't let players minimize damage from a nuclear war...and like MAD in real life it acts as a deterant against nuclear war

Some Civ-3-customers probably "want to have fun with their nucs" (but they should get harder backlash-effects to deal with, this time around), while others hate the very idea of getting a forced upon ICBM-arms race stuffed down their throats, as the supposed "only way" to avoid getting nucked.

in SMAC nukes were way more powerful than what has been proposed for civ3 (the most powerful nuke had a range of 22 squares and could destroy a 16 square area completely...it was not uncommon for one nuke to completely destroy three or four cities) however very few people complained about being nuked by the AI...for one thing the AI wasn't trigger happy (if you got nuked more than likely it was the hive)...for another the AI hardly ever got nukes before the player, if the player was that bad the game would be over before nukes were actually needed, or the player would be ages ahead of the AI...in multiplayer you just didn't have any protection except launching a first strike up until Orbital defense pods (which had a 50% chance of intercepting one nuke per turn btw) which came way after nukes...however in a cut throat MP game a peaceful player wouldn't have to worry about an ICBM arms race getting shoved down their throats...they'd already be dead

You really cant "almost garantee" anything at this stage - neither can I. And dont even pretend that there is some kind of objectivity in above statements - its just subjective viewpoints. Just as I have my own subjective viewpoints on the subject also.

yes i can almost guarantee my statement...the civ franchise has been around since 1989 and in the past 11 years they have never implemented an idea like yours except maybe on the easiest level

now if we are talking about the easiest level i am all for your idea...civ newbies should have 100% effective SDI, while the computer should not...all of the complaints you have presented in defense of your flawed idea sounds like what a newbie whines about

"whaaa...mommy the evil AI nuked me...whaaaa...i didn't wanna build ICBMs for defense, mommy you always said ICBMs were baaad!...whaaaa...why can't i have better SDI than that mean old AI? i was the good guys....whaaaaa...why did this happen to me mommy?

if the AI or a human continues to nuke your civ their are steps that can be taken to prevent that from occuring...MAD is just one part of the equation...you can cut off your opponents uranium supply either through diplomacy or force, and this will prevent them from building a nuclear arsenal in the first place...also being at war with the entire world will keep most rational people from nuking unimportant targets...if crazy terrorist do get their hands on a nuke they are going to nuke wall street or the white house or the pentagon, not a curling match in montana (you know the sport with brooms) and that is about as much threat your civ sounds like it is going to be

also what is so subjective about

1. you get rewarded for not playing effectively
2. nuclear wars will be a rather rare occurance once more than one civ gets nukes because of MAD and negative diplomatic repercussions...so a peaceful civ will probably not get nuked

those are objective statements...your idea would be the same as saying that if you have the smallest army in the game all of your troops should get an extra 50% defense bonus, or saying if you didn't build any marketplaces that each one of the squares you work should provide one extra trade arrow

everyone one of those examples including a civ without nukes should get 100% effective SDI is an example of being rewarded for not playing as well as you could

two is not subjective at all...if there are lots of negatives to using nukes then they won't be used as much

point three is subjective but i think i have good reasons for thinking the way i do

It doesnt do anything of the kind - nor in real life (I think we are heading for world-war scenario within the next 15-30 years - with at least some usage of ABC-weapons), nor in the Civ-game.

Mutual Assured Destruction does prevent nuclear wars between rational people, because nuclear war is an application of game theory...a recognized field of study, the person who came up with MAD was a pioneer in game theory and he used those principles to prove his idea, which has worked for half a century...check out this link...it talks more about game theory and it explains the prisoner's dilemma

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html

by adding SDI into the equation makes nuclear war a virtual approximation of the prisoner's dilemma

if WW3 does happen and it involves nuclear weapons then the entire world is going to suffer worse than what it ever has...and SDI could not prevent that

About "selectively removes...": Well, I for one thinks theres some thruth in the biblical prophecy of "sheeps" and "ghoats", although I dont believe that "being religious" in itself, garantees anything. We all know that believing in God doesnt outrule a warlike/cruel attitude, and likewise not believing doesnt necessarily outrule a more humane and peaceful attitude.
For me, the possibility that (at great sacrifices, and under certain strict conditions) I can get almost 100% nuclear protectiveness symbolizes that peaceful escape-alternative. Whether unreliable physical SDI-defences is likely to pull it of is totally irrelevant, because for me, they only acts as symbols for more powerful spiritual destiny-laws.

more people have probably been killed in the name of a long list of gods than for any other reason...even jesus was cruxified though he was definantly a lamb, and he was cruxified because he upset jewish religious leaders backed by the romans by claiming he was the son of god...

and now you are saying that SDI (which is a completely defunt US military program, that has been replaced by a contriversial plan that would only be able to stop very small attacks from pariah states and accidental launches...but would never ever stop a full scale nuclear attack) should be in the game and represent some kind of spirtiual defense against nuclear missles because it just seems like bad things shouldn't happen to good people...that is really not a reason to include 100% effective SDI in civ3

In order to get 100% effective SDI-improvements you pretty much have to play effective - infact MORE effective then the average civ-warmonger. The reason to this is that the SDI-tech is stuffed away at the far end of the tech-tree, and you have to build an expensive Wonder; and you have to build expensive SDI city-improvements as well (or SDI-units with Grumbold's idea); and with my idea; you have to take a military risk by avoiding Nucs and also too many offensive conventional weapons.

well that isn't going to happen in most circumstances, and i can guarantee that also

basically you have to play like a superman, and leave yourself completely open to attack before your missles get better aim because your civ is one of a bunch of nice guys...just because you are too stubborn to either protect yourself with ICBMs of your own, or are too scared of the possibility that you might get nuked to rely on peaceful diplomatic options to protect your empire

well any newbies whining about getting nuked aren't going to be able to pull this off in multiplayer, because a big conventional force will either roll over them because they don't have suficient defenses against that, or a group of spies will sabatage their SDI and they will get nuked off the planet...or when they start on their first 100% effective SDI then it will be time to launch a nuclear attack on them while the window of oppertunity still exists

Grumbold

In either case it would need manual intervention to decide whether to counter each attack otherwise you could sucker all the missiles to defend against outlying targets then leave the most important targets to last in the hope that the anti-nukes were exhausted.

unless they acted automatically, then i am afriad that the manual intervention would break PBEM for the reasons i stated above

p.s.

is it just me or is this one of the best active debates going on in the civ3 section of apolyton

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Depending on how they are implemented they would either:
- have to be stationed within a certain distance of the tile under attack to be effective.
- cover the entire country from any location and just launch on order to protect from any attack.

I believe the second alternative is the best one. Since a nuclear attacker can point-and-click (just a quick question: we talking about the point-and-click method as if it was already a confirmed feature - is it really?) ICBM:s from any city or silo (if implemented) to any foreign city/silo/unit on the map, without any (or at least few) action-radius restrictions - why shouldnt SDI-missiles have the ability to cover/protect an entire empire, according to the same action-radius restrictions (if any). After all, these SDI-missiles is just as "inter-continental" as the ICBM:s are. The interception occurs in the highest point of the trajectory, I believe.

In either case it would need manual intervention to decide whether to counter each attack otherwise you could sucker all the missiles to defend against outlying targets then leave the most important targets to last in the hope that the anti-nukes were exhausted.

Perhaps one could choose between how many SDI-units should protect the entire empire, or how many should concentrate protecting only important key-cities, and ignore other attacs. Each time a SDI-unit is produced, the default status is intercept everything. With a special belong-to command you can have it guard key-cities only.

Movement would be needed to allow the industrial cities to produce the nukes and then distribute them around the map (otherwise conventional capture of key cities could capture the entire nuclear protection arsenal).

Yes, you right. Didnt thought about that.

Originally posted by Korn469
first you have got to consider how any idea is going to effect PBEM...and your idea would absolutely destroy PBEM

Civ-3 is a turnbased game and every player contributes in a rigid sequential order - also in PBEM-games. The problem you describe can easily be solved. Heres how to do it:

------------
Below example has been edited somewhat. Read again:
------------

If player one launches an ICBM-attack at (lets say) turn 470, the game temporarily "slows down" to half-turn ICBM-mode, meaning that the next turn is counted as "470.5" (Its still feels as regular new turn for each player, though).
However, the ONLY thing each player/civ can do in "half-turn ICBM-mode" is to initiate nuclear strikes & counter-strikes. They cannot do anything else then exactly that: initiate nuclear strikes & counter-strikes (alternatively; just passively do nothing; pass the half-turn). Nothing else happens under "half-turn ICBM-mode"; no nuclear explosions, no conventional combat-unit moves, no production- and diplomacy-updates - nothing. Everything else freezes temporarily.

If only counter-strike responses is launched in "half-turn ICBM-mode" (and no new strikes), then the game turns to a regular fullblown turn - turn 471, that is. IF however some new strikes is launched under "half-turn ICBM-mode" a new ICBM battle-turn; turn "470.5 - version b" is executed.

Once there is no new strikes, and then everybody have proved that MAD-setups isnt secure in the game either , the game finally turns to a regular fullblown turn - in above example; turn 471. Then - and only then nuclear explosions starts to pop up all over the place. Each player can now continue with other regurlar activities and moves - cleaning up the mess.

"whaaa...mommy the evil AI nuked me...whaaaa...i didn't wanna build ICBMs for defense, mommy you always said ICBMs were baaad!...whaaaa...why can't i have better SDI than that mean old AI? i was the good guys....whaaaaa...why did this happen to me mommy?

Korn469 - it isnt a question of "too hard competition" - believe me, it really isnt. Having MAD-setups as the only "secure" way of fending off nucs, is instead (at least for me) a question of decreased fun & gameplay, with fewer & mentally more narrow (dont feel offended - Im talking in generic terms here) real life & gameplay-alternatives to achieve nuclear safety.
Civ-3 is first and foremost aimed at entertaining gamers. And I for one, just cant feel "entertained" with that stupid nuclear MAD-philosophy stuffed down my throat. As an alternative? Yes. As the only nuce-safe end-game option? No thanks!!

is it just me or is this one of the best active debates going on in the civ3 section of apolyton

Somehow it always seems to heaten up the days directly before one is forced to leave for pre-arranged vacations. I wonder why?

[korn469]

Ralf

If player one launches an ICBM-attack at (lets say) turn 470, the game temporarily "slows down" to half-turn ICBM-mode, meaning that the next turn is counted as "470.5" (Its still feels as regular new turn for each player, though).
However, the ONLY thing each player can do in "half-turn ICBM-mode" is to initiate nuclear strikes & counterstrikes. He cannot do anything else then exactly that: initiate nuclear strikes & counterstrikes (alternatively; just passively do nothing). Nothing else happens under "half-turn ICBM-mode"; no nuclear explosions, no conventional combat-unit moves, no production- and diplomacy-updates - nothing. Everything else freezes temporarily.

Then everybody have proved that MAD-setups isnt secure in the game either , the game finally turns to a regular fullblown turn - turn 471, that is. Then - and only then nuclear mushrooms starts to pop up all over the place. Each player can now continue with other regurlar activities and moves.

all that does is add an entirely useless turn to the game, if you had it automatically occur that could save quite a bit of time in a 7 (if what the reviews say it could possibly be a 16 player game) player game, and it would achieve the same results, because once the nukes start flying probably almost all nukes are going to get launched, because to implement your idea either you wouldn't know where the nukes were coming from and all you would know is that somebody started a nuclear war

or to make it fair for all players and let people know where the nuclear attacks were coming from you would have to have at least two half turns, because the first player to launch nukes wouldn't know where they were coming from and it wouldn't be fair

Korn469 - it isnt a question of "too hard competition" - believe me, it really isnt.

i know the AI sucks, and in a multiplayer game you aren't going to use your peacenik strategy anyways (except for a diplo game or a special scenario like start)

Having MAD-setups as the only "secure" way of fending off nucs, is instead (at least for me) a question of decreased fun & gameplay, with fewer & mentally more narrow (dont feel offended - Im talking in generic terms here) real life & gameplay-alternatives to achieve nuclear safety.

for one thing as i have stated in my other posts MAD is not the only way to fend off nuclear agression

the main way would be diplomacy...and like i have said before, in civ3 there will be special resources, one of those special resources will be uranium, which will be required for building a nuke (as far as we know)...you cut off a civ's supply of uranium you prevent them from building nukes...firaxis has said that it would put special resources in big clusters to encourage trade...so this means diplomacy alone could prevent a civ from gettings nukes

also there could possibly be a nuclear nonproliferation treaty that if ratified would make any civ trying to get nukes a pariah state hated by all

you could also use conventional forces to secure uranium deposits, or you could use bombers, or partizans, or spies, or whatever means available to cut off high production cities from the uranium supplies (cut the roads, that civ is no longer connected to the trade grid, and it can no longer produce nukes)

also from one of the civ3 reviews (the game spy E3 review i think) it mentioned that being at war would lower a civ's culture score...so if you take part in a nuclear war i'm sure that you are going to take a big hit to your culture rating and culture sounds like it is going to be very important, so it might be advantageous not to build nukes because of culture...i'm sure that high body counts will only hurt you in civ3

all of those ways are more realistic and more fun (yes thats subjective) to prevent nuclear destruction of your empire

i agree MAD doesn't make nuclear war a thing of the past, it just gives your enemies a huge inncentive for not attacking you because they will take significant damage also...but if a nuclear war occur the arms race it took to make MAD effective would amplify the damage sustained in a nuclear war...but hey that is life and it's better than one side getting to nuke the other off the map just because they happened to get a turn first

Civ-3 is first and foremost aimed at entertaining gamers. And I for one, just cant feel "entertained" with that stupid nuclear MAD-philosophy stuffed down my throat. As an alternative? Yes. As the only nuce-safe end-game option? No thanks!!

well most players like building nukes, so many will feel entertained by nuclear arms race in the late game...I for one would feel entertained by that...also it is not the only option for a nuke safe end game...i have already listed a number of other options keeping you safe from nuclear war

plus if you don't wanna build nukes then don't...alderan(sp?) was a peaceful world, they didn't even have any weapons and that didn't stop the empire from obliterating them...you might not be safe from nukes but at least you upheld your values

also you have already backed down on your original position because i guess you realized how unworkable and unbalanced it was

the SDI-defence is still there for nuclear-attack immunity. The more nucs you have though, the less effective these SDI-defences becomes. For complete SDI-safety you cannot build & own any nucs at all. I realize that some civers gets pissed off by this weighted trade-off.

you have changed it to this

In order to get 100% effective SDI-improvements you pretty much have to play effective - infact MORE effective then the average civ-warmonger. The reason to this is that the SDI-tech is stuffed away at the far end of the tech-tree, and you have to build an expensive Wonder; and you have to build expensive SDI city-improvements as well (or SDI-units with Grumbold's idea); and with my idea; you have to take a military risk by avoiding Nucs and also too many offensive conventional weapons.

having no nukes, building a wonder, and having a very small conventional force is a big change from your orignial idea...and will lead to your civ being overran by conventional forces

and if i know you are building SDI i am going to nuke you before it is finished since nukes comes earlier and i will have at least a few before you can get SDI

but could everyone answer me two questions

we all agree with some form of MAD in the game so that one side wont have a first launch advantage because they get their first turn right?

also we all agree that nukes need a little more power and more negative consequences for using them than in civ2 right?

thanks!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
all that does is add an entirely useless turn to the game...

Why useless? Since only the initiation of ICBM-attacks & counter-attacks gets dealt with, these "half-turns" goes very quickly. Anyway, I have edited that example somewhat - read again. I shall see if I have time to respond to your other comments in your last thread tomorrow instead.

[Father Beast]

I think I was the one to suggest this model of MAD to Korn back in the other thread (why did we move to this one, anyway?). I gave a very cursory idea of what I had in mind.

Now this thread has devolved into an argument between Korn and Ralf, and my comments will probably be ignored for not taking part in that argument. Oh, well.

Anyway, I want to declare what I envision for a good implementation of MAD in civ3.

1. When you build a Nuclear Missle, you can target it toward a city or anywhere else in its range. You may retarget it anytime it is your turn. it goes to sleep while it is targeted. if you want to fire it, you can either wake it up and have it head toward it's destination, or choose a destination and fire that direction.

2. Nuclear missles can only be moved by land or water until they are fired. you can also build silos (a tile improvement) to house your nukes outside the cities (so your citizens don't get so upset at curling up next to a missle. if they are not in a city, silo, or nuke capable ship (like a sub) THEY CANNOT BE FIRED.

3. there is also the infamous "Red Button" that is available once you have shootable nukes. when you hit that button, you have the option of firing all of your nukes that are targeted at a certain country, all of your targeted nukes at once, or cancelling.

4. If you are nuked on somebody elses turn, you have the option of firing all your nukes tageted at them, all your targeted nukes at once, or doing nothing and letting your cities burn. notice, same choices as when you push the "Red Button" on your turn. Important note: You cannot retarget your missles after someone has launched against you . If you don't have enough nukes pointed at them, sorry, you're SOL. same if you were more worried about the neighbor and didn't target enough at the guy who did nuke you.
Of course, if it's your turn, you can retarget missles to your hearts content before hitting the "Red Button".

5. I envisioned a prompt coming up on my screen whenever an enemy civ launched. I was thinking of single player and direct connect games. PBEM hadn't crossed my mind. I imagine in that case, a preset choice is listed in your game, and you automatically nuke them back if they nuke you on your turn. Or you could be an A**hole and have it set to nuke everybody if anyone flings one at you.

Anyway, that's what I had in mind.

About SDI's:
Firaxis has stated that nukes will be in the game, but their time will pass and become obsolete. or something to that effect. if anyone could dig up the reference, I would be grateful.

The possibility exist that SDI's will remain in the game, virtually unchanged. I personally like the Idea of an SDI being not a 100% guarantee. I don't know exactly how to go about that, though.

About being a game ender:
Even if they destroy cities entirely (and I vote for this heartily. Nukes should be used to destroy, not conquer), they won't be neccessarily an end to the game. cities can be rebuilt, although it may have turned from a prime city site to a crappy city site. unless you saturation bomb a continent. there will probably still be a way to clean it up, even so.

[korn469]

ralf

ok i was too harsh when i said your nuclear war turns were useless and i appologize...they actually aren't useless and the way you described in the edited version of your idea is certainly workable, but it violates a rule you yourself laid down early on in this discussion

dont try to "make a game within a game" of this. Keep it simple - just implement the quintessential idea, without too many distractive details.

the half turn implementation does have one advantage over an atuomatic strike feature, it allows very precise attacks and counterattacks to happen, one can deploy their nuclear forces in the most effective and most appropriate way possible

with automatic strikes if the india civ launches a nuclear strike against the chinese civ, then all nukes launch and then the US, the russian, the english, and the french civs launch their nukes also, and that idea might have to be tweaked some, because this could be a problem and could open the game to abuse where if the mongolian civ developed nukes and no nuclear missles were pointed at them they could launch a nuke against the indian civ and basically get the US to anihilate their archenemies the russian civ through the horrible nuclear chain reaction

your idea of half turns gets around that but with a few tweaks the automatic system could not be open to the abuse i mentioned above...your idea also would allow appropriate use of force against an enemy but there is one penalty to using your idea

it adds in extra baggage to the nuclear war model...under less than optimal circumstances you could have a number of miniturns and in a large PBEM (from 5 players to maybe as many as 16) this could get tedius especially if out of sixteen players only three were doing most of the action...if 16 players were in the game there could possibly be as many as 6 miniturns so you could spend a few days stuck in the miniturn phase if your game averaged about 2 turns a day...hehe that would be almost as long as the entire cuban missle crisis

however that would be the worst case scenario it could possibly work, but i do think that it has the potential to bog down the game when an automatic system could be just as good and be instantaneous

to make the automatic system better you need these rules, if your civ is attacked and it has nukes targeted at the civ that attacks it then it retaliates or if you have an ally with nukes targeted at the civ that attacks you then your ally retaliates against that civ, however if neither your civ nor any of your allies have nukes pointed at the civ that attacked you then nothing else happens...if you you or your allies retaliates against the civ that nuked you and it has allies with nukes pointed back at you or your allies then they retaliate and so on and so forth until no civ retaliates...also you should have to break an alliance before you can attack a civ and you shouldn't be able to target allies, one last rule is if you retarget a nuke on a turn it shouldn't be able to launch that turn...with those rules i don't think you could abuse the system

ok in summary

both systems are an implementation of MAD and they are both better than the civ2 system

your miniturn idea gives better control over nuclear strikes and counterstrikes but it adds in another layer and it might bog down PBEM

my automatic retaliation system is instantaneous and all you have to do is aim your nukes but it takes away some of the control over a nuclear war

i think firaxis could use either system, but yours might prove too bulky and my might prove to unprecise

[Sabre2th]

Keep it simple! Not everything can be as complicated as we might want it. We have to stop at some point, preferably before civ3 turns into 16 separate games.

[korn469]

father beast

we cross posted and i try to respond to all posts...

I think I was the one to suggest this model of MAD to Korn back in the other thread (why did we move to this one, anyway?). I gave a very cursory idea of what I had in mind.

nope i got you beat on that checkout this thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=14903

Originally posted by korn469

Mutual Assured Destruction: when a nuke is targeted it can be put on one of two modes.

either on Alert mode or on Counterstrike mode.

when on Alert mode, if a nuclear weapon is launched then ALL nukes on alert launch and all of them hit simultaneously. this ensures Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]

ok but in responce to your ideas...

1. When you build a Nuclear Missle, you can target it toward a city or anywhere else in its range. You may retarget it anytime it is your turn. it goes to sleep while it is targeted. if you want to fire it, you can either wake it up and have it head toward it's destination, or choose a destination and fire that direction.

i think that if you retarget a nuke in a turn it shouldn't be able to fire that turn...but you should be able to target it anywhere that has been discovered by you

2. Nuclear missles can only be moved by land or water until they are fired. you can also build silos (a tile improvement) to house your nukes outside the cities (so your citizens don't get so upset at curling up next to a missle. if they are not in a city, silo, or nuke capable ship (like a sub) THEY CANNOT BE FIRED.

i agree 100% with you on this point, and this is the exact way i had envisioned nukes working (though i don't know if i had wrote it down yet or not)

3. there is also the infamous "Red Button" that is available once you have shootable nukes. when you hit that button, you have the option of firing all of your nukes that are targeted at a certain country, all of your targeted nukes at once, or cancelling

well if we implemented Ralf's system then when you hit the red button it should bring up the map and put your nukes on active status...if we did it automatically then it should give you three options, select the civ(s) you wanna launch against, launch all, or cancle

as for your points 4 and 5 please read my thread about how the automatic system rules would work

About SDI's:
Firaxis has stated that nukes will be in the game, but their time will pass and become obsolete. or something to that effect. if anyone could dig up the reference, I would be grateful.

i hadn't read this anywhere...but i hope this doesn't mean 100% effective SDI, or some stupid wonder that disables all nukes (that would be a million times worse than 100% effective SDI) to me SDI shouldn't be 100% effective because it upsets the balance created by MAD, because the AI usually lags behind the player in correct implementation of infrastructure and technology in general, so in single player this means that the AI would get nuked off of the board, and in multiplayer it would be an end game race to SDI so you could finish the game up with a nuclear bang

About being a game ender:
Even if they destroy cities entirely (and I vote for this heartily. Nukes should be used to destroy, not conquer), they won't be neccessarily an end to the game.

i could go either way with nukes either incinerating a city or just doing massive damage to it...i have played SMAC and one late game nuke can destroy a bunch of cities at once...actually one of my early attempts at a quick transcend game ended right around turn 200 when the Hive nuked my super city in a sneak attack...that ended my attempt at a quick transcend that game, and actually helped me to develop a much better strategy that won in like 75 turns

however i think that the majority of players would prefer a nuke that did massive (more damage than in civ2 and like i said earlier either 80 or 90% with the 80% nuke incinerating a size 4 city and the 90% nuke incinerating a size 5 city)) but didn't completely kill a large city...i mean if you hit a size 25 city and it suddenly drops to size 5 loses half of it's buildings, all of it's surrounding tile improvments, and it either has pollution or radiation around it, plus it can't have a we love day for ten turns that would be considered harsh but not game ending...

i think i will write down all of our thoughts into a list and let your guys take a look at them, critique them, and see what we can come up with as a group that we agree on, then send it to firaxis