Revised Nuclear Warfare for Civ3

[korn469]

Revised Nuclear Model 1.0

Preface: This Nuclear Model is a way to implement nuclear weapons into civ3 in a more fun, exciting, balanced, and realistic mannor than what was the case in civ2. Using the time tested mantra of keep it simple stupid, this Nuclear Model seeks to overhaul the civ2 with simple and elegent fixes.

Problems in Civ2: Civ2 had a number of flaws to its nuclear weapon implementation that rendered it unrealistic, unbalanced, and just generally in need of an upgrade. Here are the most serious problems found in the civ2 nuclear model.

*In civ2 nuclear weapons lacked both the range and the destructive power needed to simulate the destructive power of real nuclear weapons.
*In civ2 there was an inherent advantage to using nuclear weapons first, because of the turn based nature of civ2 a nuclear first strike was always 100% effective. This unbalanced nuclear weapons, and precipitated nuclear wars.
*The use of nuclear weapons in civ2 was fairly routine, which totally defies reality where nuclear weapons have only been used twice in anger.
*In civ2 an empire could launch a nuclear attack against a city, capture it with paratroops, and then the very next turn the population of that city would oftentimes have a "we love the president day" for the leader of the civ who just launched a nuclear attack on them. This completely defies reality.
*In civ2 no harsh diplomatic repercussions existed to curb the use of nuclear weapons.
*In civ2 nuclear weapons had no real role except that of a super siege weapon. This totally undermined the importance of the strategic aspect of nuclear weapons.
*In civ2 SDI made a city impervious to nuclear weapons. This unbalanced the game even more in favor of a nuclear first strike from the civ protected by SDI. Also SDI has never been deployed in real life, and might never be deployed because of the technical challanges that faces it, so it make it 100% effective seems quite absurd.

Proposals: In order to fix the civ2 nuclear model and make it worthy of civ3 the following solutions need to be implemented.

*Nuclear weapons need to be given the ability to strike targets anywhere on the map.
*Nuclear weapons need a major upgrade in damage. When a city is hit by a nuclear weapon it should take far greater than 50% causulties. The city should take at least 90% causulties and have have of it's buildings destroyed; that is if the city is not destroyed outright. All of the units and tile improvement in the surrounding square should also be destroyed by the blast.
*One of the most significant upgrade to the Nuclear Model should be that of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). That means when a nuclear missle gets launched at a civ, that civ should have an oppertunity to immeadiately retaliate. This in and of itself would mitigate the advantage of launching a first strike, and it would balance the power of the new more destructive nuclear weapons.
*Introducing MAD would have the positive effect of reducing the number of nuclear wars in civ3 while at the same time making them more destructive when they occured. This would bring the nuclear weapons in civ3 more into line with reality, while also introducing a natural and exciting arms race mentality.
*After being attacked by nuclear weapons a city should not be able to hold a "we love the president day" for at least ten years.
*Civ3 should introduce harsh diplomatic repercussions for using nuclear weapons. At the very least whenever a nuclear weapon is used it should significantly lower diplomatic relations with all civs not at war with the victim. It should also have at least a 50% chance of lowering diplomatic relations with all civs at war with the victim of the nuclear attack. Using nuclear weapons should always hurt a civ's reputation.
*In civ3 nuclear weapons should act as strategic weapons, and inspire fear (and possible loathing) in all other civs. Civs should try to avoid war (both conventional and nuclear) as much as possible with civs who have large nuclear arsenals. Also civs without nuclear weapons should be willing to appease civs who have nuclear weapons at least to an extent.
*SDI in civ3 should be expensive, and it should never be 100% effective. Even civs with SDI should be at least somewhat detered by MAD. Anything higher than a 50% chance of intercepting all incoming nuclear weapons could break MAD, and thereby unbalance the game. Without MAD a civ with SDI could launch crippling nuclear strikes against its enemies without fear of reprisals.

Extra Features: These are features that are not needed to improve nuclear weapons, however if the resources were there, they could be nice little additions that would make civ3 that much better.

*Instead of producing pollution, nuclear weapons in civ3 could produce radiation. Radiation would prevent a square from being worked, it would damage units that moved through it by 5% and it would damage units that ended their turn in a radioactive square by 10%. Radiation should take twice as many turns to clean up as what pollution does.
*Actually add in the infamous red button.
*Instead of causing global warming, nuclear weapons could cause nuclear winter which could have dire consequences on food production around the world, as well as causing more radioactive squares to appear.
*Besides radiation, nuclear weapons should have the chance of transforming a tile into a desert square.
*In the diplomacy menu, implement treaties that deal directly with nuclear weapons. Like a nuclear nonproliferation treaty, an ABM treaty, a SALT or START treaty.

comments, suggestions, and feedback is welcomed, wanted, and needed

[Father Beast]

OK, Korn. You beat me to it. and on the EC3 no less! Guess I wasn't paying much attention to that aspect. Do you realize I've played more civ2 since the EC3 than before it? I was still fairly new to the game.

Targeting:
I stick to my guns on being able to target and fire in the same turn. a turn will still be, what? a year?, a month? and it doesn't take that long to input a new destination program into your missle. a day, maybe? but of course, when the enemy has launched will be too late to retarget your missles.

about being able to target anywhere you have discovered: I agree with one limitation. Nukes should have a range, and be unable to shoot farther than that, ICBMs notwithstanding. makes for a bit more spice.

Of course, an OCC strategy would make you particularly vulnerable to nuking, since you're all concentrated in one spot.

I'm starting to realize that my initial listing of choices should be modified to allow retaliation for your ally getting nuked.

About game ending:
allowing a simple large amount of destruction to a city instead of destroying it allows nukes to be a tool of conquering, not destruction. some version of the 5 nukes, 5 paras strat will appear. I never liked that strategy.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'll reiterate my viewpoint that individual tiles in Civilization represent tracts of the earth's surface that maybe more than 200 miles across and therefore would not be completely destroyed by one nuclear device.
Yes, in the real world there are many different types of nuclear weapons, but it's beyond the scope of this game to represent them all, so the game needs only one icon to broadly represent all nuclear devices. I suppose it might be possible to allow bombers and cruise missles to have some sort of nuclear option. At the time of launching of the unit the player would be asked if the unit should carry a nuclear warhead. This option would become available only after the player has developed nuclear power and the Manhattan Project has been built.
The idea of MAD is intriguing.

[korn469]

i hate when the internet loses my posts!

father beast

the reasons i think that nukes should be allowed to retarget and fire on the same turn is because in the automatic system this could lead to an ally betraying you and nuking you and you not being able to respond, the one turn to change targets would fir that...however another fix for this could be having some nukes that are on alert and will nuke the most valuable cities of any civ that nukes you that doesn't already have a nuke pointed at them

Dr Strangelove

and i'll reiterate my point that nuclear missles on the map probably represent more than one nuclear device in real life

here is some food for thought from the civfanatics center

Units and Resource Requirements:
Phalanx: Bronze
Nukes: Uranium
Tank: steel, oil, rubber
Cavalry: horse
Modern wheeled vehicle: rubber
Jet fighter: oil

There are two types of nuclear weapons. ICBMs can hit anything on the map and tactical nukes that can be put on submarines and launched as cruise missiles. If you think you can have a war and launch tactical nukes you can try it, but it's a challenge in the game just to survive the whole era.

"The nuclear war part of the game should be (and this is something we're working on) something that you come to and pass through. In Civ2, it's sort of the end point. When you get nukes, everybody gets nukes and the game is pretty much over. In this game, if you're the first person to get them you will have an opportunity to benefit, but once everybody else gets them it's unlikely that you can use them and have a successful game."

There is a brand new set of "small wonders". While you can only construct one of each Wonder of the World, small wonders can be built by every civilization, such as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), Apollo Program and Manhattan Project.

[Father Beast]

If the SDI is a wonder, then it should protect (to some degree, korn) all areas within your borders. If that is so, that would eliminate the city limits umbrella in civ2.

Korn
I just read over your revised proposal. I think I am in agreement with almost all of it, except for being able to launch to anywhere on the map. I think that is an ultra modern development and should wait for a future tech.
I'm also having trouble figuring out what you meant about retargeting nukes in one place you said:

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

and in another place you said:

the reasons i think that nukes should be allowed to retarget and fire on the same turn is because in the automatic system this could lead to an ally betraying you and nuking you and you not being able to respond, the one turn to change targets would fir that...however another fix for this could be having some nukes that are on alert and will nuke the most valuable cities of any civ that nukes you that doesn't already have a nuke pointed at them

I'm trying to figure out if you think nukes should or should not be able to be targeted and fired on the same turn.
As for me, I think they should be able to be targeted and fired on the same turn. individually or collectively.
And I don't think you should be able to have nukes not pointed at anyone be able to fire in retaliation. Remember, the MAD retaliation is taking place during the other players turn. So nukes not pointed at anyone are useless, unless you are holding some back for later shooting.

About being stabbed by your allies. If you trust them to the degree that you don't have any nukes pointed at them, maybe you deserve to be stabbed. you should be able to check a civ's reputation (please let AI civs have reps, please!) and if their rep is spotty, have a nuke or 2 pointed at their lands in case they get uppity. if you're playing an online game with Horse as your ally, well, I hope you know better than to trust.
My point is: when the missles are flying, it is too late to choose a target!

About only reducing cities somewhat. if a city is still intact after nuking it, then MAD turns from mutually assurred destruction to mutually assurred damage.

I like my idea of moving nukes by rail or ship. In fact I think I formally propose the idea that all missles, nuclear or otherwise, be treated as land units, and move by road, rail, etc, but can only be fired from cities, silos (maybe an airbase can count as a silo, too), and certain ships or planes. that's cruise missles, too.
Why would anyone explore with a cruise missle?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Father Beast
If the SDI is a wonder, then it should protect (to some degree, korn) all areas within your borders. If that is so, that would eliminate the city limits umbrella in civ2.

If there is to be a 100% effective SDI I would prefer it to be the CtP "nanotechnology renders all nukes obsolete" version rather than one which gives one civ immunity.

I think nukes should be able to be targeted and fired on the same turn, individually or collectively.

Me too. In someone else's turn you're stuck, but your turn is when you can make all these decisions and (re-)targetting should not take a whole turn.

And I don't think you should be able to have nukes not pointed at anyone be able to fire in retaliation. Remember, the MAD retaliation is taking place during the other players turn. So nukes not pointed at anyone are useless, unless you are holding some back for later shooting.

Absolutely. A few untargetted nukes are for getting your own back later if you still can.

About being stabbed by your allies. If you trust them to the degree that you don't have any nukes pointed at them, maybe you deserve to be stabbed. you should be able to check a civ's reputation (please let AI civs have reps, please!) and if their rep is spotty, have a nuke or 2 pointed at their lands in case they get uppity. if you're playing an online game with Horse as your ally, well, I hope you know better than to trust.
My point is: when the missles are flying, it is too late to choose a target!

I'm uneasy on this one. If you have a few nukes pointed at your allies "just in case" then there would need to be additional diplomatic triggers so you did not fire them off by default, only if attacked by that player.

About only reducing cities somewhat. if a city is still intact after nuking it, then MAD turns from mutually assurred destruction to mutually assurred damage.

I agree. If there is anything left it should be absolutely minimal.

I like my idea of moving nukes by rail or ship. In fact I think I formally propose the idea that all missles, nuclear or otherwise, be treated as land units, and move by road, rail, etc, but can only be fired from cities, silos (maybe an airbase can count as a silo, too), and certain ships or planes.

Nukes moving as land units when relocating works for me. I think they should be able to be given a target no matter where they are though (change the graphic to a silo?) since all sides have developed mobile nukes. I don't fancy sending a worker around building silos everywhere and this would be simpler.

[Father Beast]

Good heavens Grumbold, do you actually agree with me?

except for pointing nukes at your allies. hmmnn... I originally suggested either retaliate at the one who nuked you, or let all your targeted nukes fly. perhaps it can be adjusted to add in an "everyone but my allies" and "everyone but my allies, unless they nuke me option.

in playing a PBEM game, I imagine this would get interesting. I think that in PBEM, you should set your reaction, rather than be prompted for it. suppose player 2 nukes player 1. Player 1 is a jerk and has his prefs set to nuke everybody. nukes fly all over the board from player 1. everybody retaliates, mostly just to player1, except for players 4 and 7, who are allied. player 4 has his set to nuke everybody but his ally. again, retaliations from all over, several more launches ( except for player 1, who has already expended all his targeted nukes). oh yeah, player 7 stupidly has his set to nuke everybody (including allies), and player 4, in the final phase of this madhouse scenario, launches his nukes at his ally, player 7.
Notice that all this happens after the first nuke has been launched, and before the first nuke strikes and does major damage (or destruction).

Just imagining dealing with the prompts in an online game is a dizzying thought, and in a PBEM it would become absurd. That's why I suggest you make your preference set, which makes the decision for you on someone elses turn.

I also try to imagine the horror the rest of the players would feel when they recieve the next phase of the turn from player 2.

[Grumbold]

I couldn't have put it better, FB!

Here is my ideal nuke scenario, and I will try to be brief on points we have covered heavily. I've extra twists that I'm sure will be controversial with the "KISS/nukes should not be devastating" players.

1. Someone researches and builds Manhattan Project. They get to produce nukes.

2. If they use a nuke, the cost of MP immediately halves for everyone. It stays at full cost until a nuke is used.

3. Nukes move as per howitzers and each nuke causes 1 unhappiness if within 1 tile of a city. Totalitarian/military regimes may have some immunity to that effect.

4. When targetted, a nuke changes to look like a silo. Targets can be:
- A specific city or tile. If a tile is targetted launch will prompt reaction from any civ whose border is on or adjacent to the target even if they have no units/cities present.
- The optimum city of a specified nation, defined by a rankable trait eg production, size, science
- The same city as a previous nuke ("follow me")
- the next best city of country X under the criteria given (this assumes the previous nuke/s are not intercepted).
- the biggest visible army/military threat from country X.
- any army/military threat within our border (I hope you'd only use this with cruise not ICBM's )

5. Your diplomatic settings would be:
- Respond against that country/non-allies/every country if nuked even within the launching countrys border.
- Respond against that country/non-allies/every country if ally is nuked within their border.
- Respond against that country/non-allies/every country if nuked within own border.
- Respond only if more than X nukes/more than my anti-nuke capability are launched at my/my allies country.

6. If a launch is initiated that does not trigger a MAD response, show a cutscene of the Enola Gay (haunting Ultravox music optional) and your turn can continue.

7. If a launch triggers a MAD response, show cutscene of Dr Strangelove w. "We'll meet again" playing, turn ends immediately after explosions show the effects (this isn't absolutely necessary but I feel the heightened tension of everyone getting an interim turn where all they can do is see the explosions go off is worth it in PBM. In on-line multiplayer it isn't going to make massive difference. The extra turn does not change the year counter).

8. Fallout: Cruise affect only the target tile, destroying all units, halving city pop etc as per Civ2 and making tile radioactive. ICBM affect the target tile, destroy all but 1 pop, all but one building and make the target and surrounding 4 connected tiles radioactive.

9. All governments on the giving or receiving end of a nuclear exchange collapse into anarchy and reform initially as military/totalitarian states. Those already set to military/totalitarian experience only one turn of anarchy. All are subject to the chance of revolts, rebellions etc.

10. On following turns, radiation spreads according to the wind direction. Every tile downwind of an existing radiation marker becomes radioactive. This is calculated at the beginning of each turn of the player whose turn initiated the nuclear exchange. Radiation drift over a border does not prompt a MAD scenario (Chernobyl radiation was detected in measurable quantities in Scotland). I like the idea of wind "forecasting" being possible and increasingly accurate but random would do. The player to launch first gets to try to pick a time with favourable fallout patterns!

11. "Hot" radiation degrades and after 4 turns becomes normal "radioactive pollution" that can be cleaned up by workers. Hot radiation kills any unit it contacts, radioactive pollution merely damages them. Cities affected by hot radiation cannot grow, build, rush buy or perform any other action. Tiles affected by hot radiation lose all improvements except roads.

12. Sufficient nuclear radiation levels will trigger a nuclear winter where the ice caps do their best to slowly advance and meet somewhere inside the tropics of cancer and capricorn. This does not prevent ozone destruction/global warming doing its best to turn the areas inside the tropics into arid desert and a combination of the two is likely to result in very small strips of fertile land near the tropics.

13. Researching and building the SDI mini-wonder allows you to build anti-nuke missiles. These are moved and targetted exactly like nukes but cause no unhappiness. Each one can be set to:
- Protect against any missile attack automatically/only if all incoming nukes can be intercepted
- Protect against nukes targetting cities automatically/only if all incoming etc
- Protect only cities above size X automatically/only if etc
- Protect only this city/tile automatically/ only if etc

14. Anti-nukes cost 1.5x a nuke in construction and maintenance.

15. Your diplomatic standing with the rest of the world will decrease toward fear and encourage alliances to form against you if you persue an aggressive "rogue state" attitude and threaten nuclear destruction. Even your allies will be wary. Similarlyif you are perceived to own more anti-nukes than the country has nukes it will seek alliance with other nuclear countries in mutual self-defence.

Thanks to all the contributors whose suggestions have influenced this post. All done. Phew!

[korn469]

ok responding from bottom to top

grumbold

1. Someone researches and builds Manhattan Project. They get to produce nukes.

i agree with you completely! i think that this is an essential idea, i would also like to add though that uranium should be a required resource to build the MP

2. If they use a nuke, the cost of MP immediately halves for everyone. It stays at full cost until a nuke is used.

i think you are on the right track here and i think this idea is essential, but i think that either your spies could have a "steal nuclear plans" option which would cut the cost in half (the rosenberg effect) or after the fist aactual nuke is built then the cost of the MP should get cut in half

3. Nukes move as per howitzers and each nuke causes 1 unhappiness if within 1 tile of a city. Totalitarian/military regimes may have some immunity to that effect.

i think that nukes should act in the same manner as freight does when it is moving, since it's a noncombat unit when it's not fired then you wouldn't have any "OMG a nuke just captured my city!" syndrome also i think a nuke acting like a noncombat ground unit (the nuke could even look like a mobile missle system) unless it's fired...about the extra unhappiness when a nuke is within 1 tile of a city i think this might be a little superflous, but if nukes were to cause extra unhappiness maybe they could turn one happy person into a content person when they were within 1 tile of a city and i think that idea is just extra

4. When targetted, a nuke changes to look like a silo. Targets can be:
- A specific city or tile. If a tile is targetted launch will prompt reaction from any civ whose border is on or adjacent to the target even if they have no units/cities present.
- The optimum city of a specified nation, defined by a rankable trait eg production, size, science
- The same city as a previous nuke ("follow me")
- the next best city of country X under the criteria given (this assumes the previous nuke/s are not intercepted).
- the biggest visible army/military threat from country X.
- any army/military threat within our border (I hope you'd only use this with cruise not ICBM's)

either a nuke could look like a silo or it could look like a mobile missle launcher that has set up (like a scud), a specific city or tile is essential...then being able to give a nuke a city to fire at with a list of commands is essential, but i think these are the only ones needed, especially if alot of functionality was built into the missle priority system...like maybe even missle defense could be taken into account, like a green light to only attack a city doesn't have any missle defenses, or a yellow light to only attack a city with missle defenses if all other targets have a missle pointed at them and there is a greater than 50% chance that the attack would succeed, or a red light that would authorize an attack on a city with missle defenses even if it had a less than 50% chance of suceeding...but targeting options are essential

5. Your diplomatic settings would be:
- Respond against that country/non-allies/every country if nuked even within the launching countrys border.
- Respond against that country/non-allies/every country if ally is nuked within their border.
- Respond against that country/non-allies/every country if nuked within own border.
- Respond only if more than X nukes/more than my anti-nuke capability are launched at my/my allies country.

that is a nice set of options...all of them look like they are pretty useful, and launch instructions are also essential

6. If a launch is initiated that does not trigger a MAD response, show a cutscene of the Enola Gay (haunting Ultravox music optional) and your turn can continue.

this idea is pure multimedia fluff...but hey that doesn't make it a bad thing

7. If a launch triggers a MAD response, show cutscene of Dr Strangelove w. "We'll meet again" playing, turn ends immediately after explosions show the effects (this isn't absolutely necessary but I feel the heightened tension of everyone getting an interim turn where all they can do is see the explosions go off is worth it in PBM. In on-line multiplayer it isn't going to make massive difference. The extra turn does not change the year counter).

again just more multimedia extras

8. Fallout: Cruise affect only the target tile, destroying all units, halving city pop etc as per Civ2 and making tile radioactive. ICBM affect the target tile, destroy all but 1 pop, all but one building and make the target and surrounding 4 connected tiles radioactive.

ICBMs killing all but one pop is genius! i'm just sorry i hadn't thought of that this sounds like how nukes should work, they kill all but one pop point! except on small cities of course (size 5 and smaller) which they should completely destroy...that means the game wouldn't be over because of nukes but that your empire would be in a world of hurt, i'm not sure if they should destroy all but one building, but it could work too...also nukes should destroy all tile improvements in their blast radius and this idea is essential...but in civ isn't there 8 adjecent tiles? and yea they should all get radiated/polluted

9. All governments on the giving or receiving end of a nuclear exchange collapse into anarchy and reform initially as military/totalitarian states. Those already set to military/totalitarian experience only one turn of anarchy. All are subject to the chance of revolts, rebellions etc

if this idea does get implemented i don't think it should happen to all governments...if the one civ nukes another into oblivion but it didn't get touched at all then nothing should happen to it...i think that a civ should only collapse if it takes major losses, like if a civ loses at least half of it's pop or if it loses at least a quarter of its pop and it's capital gets nuked...all civs should experiance the same amount of anarachy but it should be determined by the losses the civ takes in the nuclear war...like 1 turn of anarchy (even if the government doesn't collapse) for losing a quarter of it's pop, 2 turns for losing half of it's pop, 3 turns for losing 75% of it's pop, and 4 turns for losing 90% or more of its pop, and there should be an additional 2 turns of anarachy if a civs capital gets nuked...and this idea is an extra but it could be a very nice extra

10. On following turns, radiation spreads according to the wind direction. Every tile downwind of an existing radiation marker becomes radioactive. This is calculated at the beginning of each turn of the player whose turn initiated the nuclear exchange. Radiation drift over a border does not prompt a MAD scenario (Chernobyl radiation was detected in measurable quantities in Scotland). I like the idea of wind "forecasting" being possible and increasingly accurate but random would do. The player to launch first gets to try to pick a time with favourable fallout patterns!

i do not think this should be in civ...maybe there should be some random fallout that appears outside of the blast radius but no wind patterns, and the random appearance of fallout is an extra

11. "Hot" radiation degrades and after 4 turns becomes normal "radioactive pollution" that can be cleaned up by workers. Hot radiation kills any unit it contacts, radioactive pollution merely damages them. Cities affected by hot radiation cannot grow, build, rush buy or perform any other action. Tiles affected by hot radiation lose all improvements except roads.

this sounds pretty good except two things, if a unit moves through a hot radiation square it should take 25% damage and if it ends its turn in a hot radiation square it should take 50% damage...also fallout should only kill farms and colonies, mines and roads should be uneffected by fallout radiation

12. Sufficient nuclear radiation levels will trigger a nuclear winter where the ice caps do their best to slowly advance and meet somewhere inside the tropics of cancer and capricorn. This does not prevent ozone destruction/global warming doing its best to turn the areas inside the tropics into arid desert and a combination of the two is likely to result in very small strips of fertile land near the tropics.

hehe i'm all for nuclear winter, except it should have the following effect...all squares on the map produce two less food and one less trade for ten turns...just think how that would effect a game of civ...all of the stravation etc

13. Researching and building the SDI mini-wonder allows you to build anti-nuke missiles. These are moved and targetted exactly like nukes but cause no unhappiness. Each one can be set to:
- Protect against any missile attack automatically/only if all incoming nukes can be intercepted
- Protect against nukes targetting cities automatically/only if all incoming etc
- Protect only cities above size X automatically/only if etc
- Protect only this city/tile automatically/ only if etc

14. Anti-nukes cost 1.5x a nuke in construction and maintenance.

i doubt civ3 will have anti nukes but if it did i think they should cost the same as a nuke and have a 90% chance of intercepting a nuke

15. Your diplomatic standing with the rest of the world will decrease toward fear and encourage alliances to form against you if you persue an aggressive "rogue state" attitude and threaten nuclear destruction. Even your allies will be wary. Similarlyif you are perceived to own more anti-nukes than the country has nukes it will seek alliance with other nuclear countries in mutual self-defence.

hey this sounds great to me!

even though i don't think everyone of your ideas is essential to improving the nuclear model...i just wanna say i personally love the extras and hope tons of them get included in civ3 for both the nuclear model and the rest of the game, but i will take what i can get as long as it is a true improvemnt over a flawed system

If there is to be a 100% effective SDI I would prefer it to be the CtP "nanotechnology renders all nukes obsolete" version rather than one which gives one civ immunity.

i'd prefer this to one side having complete immunity to nuke the world

father beast

well if there was a miniturn system where players could launch nukes i think you'd need two miniturns to be fair, a launch turn and a counterstrike turn for all player, eventhough the nukes would all hit at the same side

but other than that i think grumbold's triggers for an automatic system are fairly complete and with a little bit of refinement could be all you'd need for civ3

[Grumbold]

*bump*

The successful missile test seems to have increased interest again.

[korn469]

and i'm still sticking to my opinion that SDI in civ3 should not be even close to 100% effective...

if SDI was a wonder, then i say it should cover all of your cities and territory, have between 50%-75% chance of intercepting all of the nukes launched at you except for the city that it was actually in and it should have between a 75%-90% chance of protecting that city

but concerning real life, there have been 4 test so far of the US missle defense platform, 2 successes 2 failures hehe so it's 50% so far

here is some information

http://www.defensedaily.com/

Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish acknowledged that this "robust test schedule" translates into spending $100 million per test every month or every other month.

more from cnn

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/15/mis...est/index.html

Russia criticized it, saying the test threatened a 1972 arms control agreement.

"These tests take many weeks to deduce the data, but we believe we have a successful test in all aspects at this time."

Kadish said the next test might include added decoys to simulate a real attack

from msnbc
http://www.msnbc.com/news/599472.asp?0dm=C12PN

but even the staunchest supporters of the controversial system acknowledged Sunday that many hurdles remained before it could be deployed

He said Russia could respond by placing multiple warheads on its intercontinental missiles.

“Both of us have a deterrent force in place, but we’re not threatening each other’s deterrent force with our defensive action,” Powell said.

risks upsetting relations with Russia and China, and it has the potential to create a new arms race.

abc news
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...est010715.html

Kadish said..."We do not know for certain that every objective was met," he added. "In all probability, some of them were not."

President Bush wants to pour billions of dollars into exploring half a dozen ways to shoot down missiles — from land, sea, air and space.

"This is more of a re-election defense system rather than a missile defense system," said Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's designed to be built by 2004 to defend Bush's right flanks against attacks saying he's weak of defense."

Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., is one of numerous vocal opponents of the Bush administration's missile defense policy. Cleland said, "We're gonna go unilaterally into spending a hundred billion dollars in deployment of a system that we haven't even tested out fully yet. I think that's insane."

basically i think it is technically possible for the richest nation in the world with the most powerful militaries to build a system that can defend it from small ill equipped rouge states who want to launch one or two ballistic missles, but building a system that could stop hundred of warheads from china or thousdands of warheads from russia without fail is a myth that will not happen

currently china has 23 warheads pointed at the United States...China looks like it is going to become the new super power in this dawning century...so isn't it likely this will cause china to build more warheads (based on the latest in US warhead design) to have a threat that will be certain of overcoming the US missle shield...that is where the real threat comes from, especially since the chinese economy is growing and it can afford to finance a buildup...

plus around 2010 the US baby boom is going to become the Baby bust...before one of the largest tax cuts in US history projected budget surpluses were going to turn into deficits once the baby boomers started retiring...this year the estimated budget surplus has already fallen from 275 billion to 160 billion with like 2 months still left in the US fiscal year because of the tax cut and slowing economy...the pentagon already wants billions of dollars in new conventional weapon spending and it wants the missle defense system paid for out of the budget surplus which is more than likely going to evaporate overnight

yes stopping a couple of missles from a rougue state might be possible and even affordable...SDI as depicted in civ is not possible!

SDI is dead, it was a bluff to encourage an arms race the Soviet Union couldn't afford to undertake...it was economic collapse because of too much military spending that beat the Soviets, not US soldiers...if we're not careful the missle shield might cause the same thing to happen to the US

[tniem]

I agree that StarWars/SDI should not be 100% effective.

Such a system, though, was necessary in past Civ games. Without it, nukes would have been used even more. In tight games the whole game would have been nuke, nuke, nuke. There had to be a defense.

However, as long as there is MAD, the old system can be scrapped. So I would believe the notion of SDI in Civ I and II was necessary for play balance but if MAD works than there will be no need for a missile system that does not work.

[Grumbold]

Nice post Krn. Just grabbing the bits I want to expand on.

Originally posted by korn469
i think that nukes should act in the same manner as freight does when it is moving

Absolutely. I meant howitzer in terms of movement speed, not anything else. In fact I don't think artillery should capture cities either but thats another issue.

[quote]about the extra unhappiness when a nuke is within 1 tile of a city i think this might be a little superflous[quote]

I was assuming a nuclerar base would be a nuclear target therefore citizens would be scared of any base close enough to result in fallout on their city.

being able to give a nuke a city to fire at with a list of commands is essential, but i think these are the only ones needed

I picked ones needed to work with anti-missile ideas but yes they could certainly be simplified.

this idea is pure multimedia fluff...but hey that doesn't make it a bad thing

done right, the first 10 secs of both movies would be identical so you would be on the edge of your seat wondering if you were getting MAD or a lucky break

nukes should destroy all tile improvements in their blast radius and this idea is essential...but in civ isn't there 8 adjecent tiles? and yea they should all get radiated/polluted

For my money the diagonal tiles were being left out because of the spread/drift ideas. Nine tiles plus drift would be too nasty. I think roads would survive as better places to travel on than rough terrain but unreinforced mines would collapse in the shockwave.

i don't think it should happen to all governments...if the one civ nukes another into oblivion but it didn't get touched at all then nothing should happen to it

I was thinking of the multiple effect of panic looting, total social breakdown and the almost guaranteed switch to a military/war footing with national emergency/curfew/ military law that would be imposed. It shouldn't last years but there are no smaller time units in Civ and it gives the opportunity for revolts which would almost certainly happen in that atmosphere of hysteria.

this sounds pretty good except two things, if a unit moves through a hot radiation square it should take 25% damage and if it ends its turn in a hot radiation square it should take 50% damage

Hot radiation should be fatal both for 'reality' and also in the game to stop immediate military occupation of a nuked city (by anyone).

hehe i'm all for nuclear winter, except it should have the following effect...all squares on the map produce two less food and one less trade for ten turns...just think how that would effect a game of civ...all of the stravation etc

That would certainly be a quick way of doing it. I was more for the 'slow death' method of triggering an ice age but they are both suitably catastrophic.

i doubt civ3 will have anti nukes

Me too, but I like it a lot more than the Star Wars nonsense

Right, I'll try and make that my last long post on the subject. Well, at least until we get some idea of what is actually planned for C3.