Firaxis i'm M.A.D.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
but back to the point...SDI is bad for strategy because it introduces huge imbalances into the game

I guess you thinking about first building 100% effective SDI:s, then launching fullscale nuc-attacks without worrying about counterattacks, because your own cities are totally immune. Well, that IS an inbalance, of course. But this can easily be fixed by...

A: introducing the simple & straightforward half-turn ICBM-mode that I described in the Revised nuclear warfare thread. And...
B: Making the question of Nucs or effective SDI-defences much more of a mutually exclusive road-split decision, one way or the other.

As for deterring fullscale endgame conventional blitz-krieg attacks, there are other factors, besides nucs, like severly negative- diplomacy- and trade-reactions (wich is much harder to ignore in Civ-3 then it ever was in Civ-2, because of the introduced connection between war, economy & resources).

Above - Korn469 - is a simple straighforward and easy-to-understand gameplay-aimed solution, resting on the fact that Civ-3 is only a fun GAME, after all. Lou Wigman put it very well in the Realism vs Fun thread:

"Civ/2/3 certainly isn't realistic, but that is not the issue. The point is that there are enough connections to reality to allow the player to IMMERSE themselves in the game."

You seems to forget that playing the Civ-3 main-game is much more about "What if? history-development. For some reason you seems to have "fall in love" with your extended version of M.A.D ( the1963 movie "Dr. Strangelove", with Peter Sellers springs to my mind ) - upto a point that an implementation of it would more or less dominate the whole endgame.

Many future Civ-3 customers simply dont believe in assured M.A.D = assured peace from here to Kingdom come. They dont like having the idea of M.A.D as the one and only secure counter-measure, if one want to avoid being nuced. It makes them feel uneasy and it going to effect their feelings of the game. I of course accept having military arms-race escalations and M.A.D launching ICBM:s i the game. But I want other alternative methods of feeling safe & secure as well (not ignoring military defence, of course), enabling the new cultural & diplomacy victory-conditions, for example.

[korn469]

You seems to forget that playing the Civ-3 main-game is much more about "What if? history-development. For some reason you seems to have "fall in love" with your extended version of M.A.D ( the1963 movie "Dr. Strangelove", with Peter Sellers springs to my mind ) - upto a point that an implementation of it would more or less dominate the whole endgame.

actually i've never seen Dr. Strangelove...my favorite cold war movie is Fail Safe...it is a 50's movies about glitch in a computer that generates a false attack command so a squadron of B-58 hustlers set off to nuke moscow, the president calls them up they refuse to turn back because it could be a soviet trick, their wives call them up and beg them to turn back again because of their training they refuse to stop the attack, the president calls the soviets up and orders SAC to help Soviet air defenses destroy the squadron...at one point in the movie one of the B-58 that isn't carrying nukes but instead is carrying either anti radar missiles or anti-aircraft missiles destroys some of the soviets and people in SAC cheer...before the head general tells them to shut up and to try and help the soviets prevent this nuclear war...finally right outside of moscow the soviets launch nuclear tipped SAMs to destroy the remaining B-58s (they have got a few) and they get everyone but the flight leader who stays close to the ground and does a kamikaze run over moscow and manages to nuke moscow...then at the end of the movie to prevent a war the US drops a nuke on unsuspecting New York city to even things out...basically this movie said that there is no such thing as a perfect system, that nothing was Fail Safe (not even M.A.D.) and that humanity is heading down a dangerous pathway

as for nuclear warfare dominating the endgame...you mean kinda like how it has dominated strategic planning in the real world? nuclear weapons changed the nature of warfare, that's what it came down to...no longer could u carry out a d-day style amphibious invasion because defenders armed with tactical nuclear weapons, or subs armed with nuclear tipped torpedos would completely wipe out that type of invasion...why hoards of bombers to carpet bomb a city when a few nuclear bombs could just incinerate that city? the firebombing of dresden actually caused more causulties that nagisaki or hiroshima iirc, but that took thousands of bombers

plus look at all of the movies about nuclear weapons Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, The Day After, Mad Max(hehe cool series), 13 Days, and many many more...compared to absolutely zero movies about the dangers of howitzers and mechanized infantry attacking along railroads...if there is going to be one weapon to dominate the game, why not make it nukes? wouldn't that be better than howitzer and mech infantry dominating the game? and if nukes were in their proper strategic role, almost all wars would be conventional

nuclear warfare set the stage...it made the second half of the 20th century what it was...it hard larger repercussions than any other weapon (with chemical and germ warfare right behind it)...without nuclear weapons the cold war would have more likely than not turned into a shooting war in europe...without nukes what would have stopped stalin from launching a war shortly after ww2?

I guess you thinking about first building 100% effective SDI:s, then launching fullscale nuc-attacks without worrying about counterattacks, because your own cities are totally immune. Well, that IS an inbalance, of course. But this can easily be fixed by...

A: introducing the simple & straightforward half-turn ICBM-mode that I described in the Revised nuclear warfare thread. And...
B: Making the question of Nucs or effective SDI-defences much more of a mutually exclusive road-split decision, one way or the other.

i'm glad that you finally agree that 100% effective SDI is a problem...the first step to solving a problem is admitting that it exists

however remember that you have to discover all of the non culture techs before you can advance to the next age...so unless both nukes and SDI are virtually the last techs you discover this problem will arise in civ3...and why would SDI be completely seperate from ICBMs on the tech chart besides to solve the problem of unbalances created by 100% effective SDI? none that i can think of...more than likely the modern age will start with nukes...and yes firaxis has changed the tech tree some, and i do think the industrial and modern age tech trees are going to get the most changes, but has anything they done indicated that they will place SDI on one side of the modern tech tree and nukes on the other?

and what problem does 100% effective SDI solve? i don't understand that one...what gamebalance issue to it take care of?

also Ralf you keep saying that i am making this into a game within a game...i'm doing nothing of the sort...all i suggest is

*increase the power of a unit already in the game (infinite range and more destruction inflicted on cities)
*add in ONE new feature (M.A.D.) to solve a gameplay issue
*make sure ONE structure (SDI) doesn't unbalance the game

that's all i really want and that is all i ask for...i even suggested that M.A.D. be automatic...so i want two balance changes and one fairly simple new feature, i hardly call that a game within a game...going from single unit combat to stacked combat is just as much (if not more) of a leap as going from the civ2 nuclear system to M.A.D.

i never suggested adding additional half turns to the game...that was you my friend

so is asking for those three things too much?

please include Mutually Assured Destruction...it is the best feature ever!
M.A.D. means nukes hit simultaneously so a nuclear first strike isn't possible...and you gotta make nukes more powerful!
plus a little radiation and nuclear winter would be nice

they already tried to simulate radiation by using pollution in civ2, but i said those things would be nice, but i can live without them...i want M.A.D. it is a feature that you just can't add in

as for automatically aiming nukes it should be easy...in SMAC there was a "best base listing" civ3 is built out of modified SMAC code...so use the best base feature to aim nukes, either you want to hit their best science bases, or best gold bases, or largest bases, or whatever...it assigns a nuke to strike at each...that way you don't have to aim each nuke you build, set it up and it's ready to fire...also you don't have to add extra half turns to the game...so that way it wouldn't needlessly cause multiplayer to be any longer than normal

Many future Civ-3 customers simply dont believe in assured M.A.D = assured peace from here to Kingdom come. They dont like having the idea of M.A.D as the one and only secure counter-measure, if one want to avoid being nuced. It makes them feel uneasy and it going to effect their feelings of the game.

again there are other counter measures than just M.A.D. diplomatic repercussions, trade embargos etc, but M.A.D. is the most persuasive argument against starting a nuclear war

100% SDI is the most persuasive argument for starting a nuclear war

as for those players who feel uneasy about nuclear warfare...i don't ever remember that be a big complaint against civ2 which had far more nuclear warfare than civ3 will have if M.A.D. gets implemented, also wouldn't those same players feel uneasy attacking and bombing their neighbors off the map? wouldn't they feel uneasy when it comes time to launch a conventional blitzkrieg? is this really a legitimate concern since nuclear warfare has already been in civ without incident?

But I want other alternative methods of feeling safe & secure as well (not ignoring military defence, of course), enabling the new cultural & diplomacy victory-conditions, for example.

why is being forced to build up a conventional military force quite acceptable, while building a strategic military force is almost unthinkable? as long as we are adding things that don't exist to the game why don't we make city walls prevent conventional military attacks also? that is the same idea...if you are being overran i doubt you'll feel better because they did it with howizters and mech infantry

if all of this military conflict is too much for a player, maybe they should play something else like the sims

[Lord Magnus]

If MAD was implemented in Civ3 and SDI wasn't implemented then the only way to win Civ3 is by a non-military route (ie: cultural route or building a spaceship to AC) since trying to overrun the other side with any other weapon will result in a full-scale nuclear war. Even a non-military route may be difficult to win by if most of your resources are tied up in nukes. While MAD won't unbalance the game but it may stall it out till the time runs out (ie 2020 arrives) and there's still a stalemate. I doubt not many people will like a game where you can't win.
And the nuclear weapons and SDI in Civ2 didn't really unbalance the game. The other side can build SDI and also if they didn't, not too many civers rained nukes down on the other side due to the fact if the pollution piles up they're going to get damaged by the global warming and Civ3 will probally have worst environmental damage resulting in nuke attacks.
I believe that MAD should be implemented into Civ3, but if it is the game, the game should be extended into the future to allow for post-nuclear age weapons and SDI to be built to allow for a military win in the game. If not the Civ2 model should just be reimplemented with nukes that do more damage.

[korn469]

Lord Magnus

If MAD was implemented in Civ3 and SDI wasn't implemented then the only way to win Civ3 is by a non-military route (ie: cultural route or building a spaceship to AC) since trying to overrun the other side with any other weapon will result in a full-scale nuclear war.

this is almost true...

first M.A.D. isn't the only nuclear deterence built into the game, pollution from nukes, and new diplomatic repercussions now exist...also i would almost guarantee that using nuclear weapons will hurt your culture, even if you come out of the war unhurt...also hopefully the AI will be less trigger happy in civ3

aditionally implementing SDI (unless it had a close to 100% effectiveness) would not address your concern about conquering the world...there would still be M.A.D. looming there over your shoulder...then if the do implement 100% effective SDI, if you are planning on winning by conquest and you get this tech first then you really could nuke the AI off the map, you would have one less consequence to worry about from using nukes...you could stand behind your shield destroying the AI (or other players in mp) at will

SDI does not take care of the concerns you stated, unless all sides had SDI and it was 100% effective only then would your concerns be addressed...but why even put nukes in the game if they are going to be useless before the first one even gets built?

also Lord Magnus do you think the player should be able to win every game of civ3? i don't...i don't think every game should end in stalemate either, but i do think the player should lose many games on deity...i for one don't like a game where you know you are always going to win

The other side can build SDI and also if they didn't, not too many civers rained nukes down on the other side due to the fact if the pollution piles up they're going to get damaged by the global warming and Civ3 will probally have worst environmental damage resulting in nuke attacks.

i think the conclusions you are drawing here are correct but i think you are missing something else...not too many civers used nukes because they weren't as good as other weapons, then on top of all that they cause pollution and global warming...for ten shields less than the cost of two nukes you could have three howitzers and two mech infantry units, or ten spy units (20 shields less), or four howitzers and two fanatics (same cost)...that's not even counting the 600 shields for the MP...nukes compared to infantry moving along railroads was slow, and SDI made nukes obsolete...a conventional army gave you more bang for your buck, plus it was never obsolete, and then you didn't have to worry about pollution and global warming like you did with nukes...so that is why nukes weren't used alot...plus nukes barely even hurt small cities...the "cool! this game has nukes" probably contribute to most of use of nukes...also nukes were best used in civ2 as part of the begining of a blitzkrieg, so they were more representative of tactical nukes that strategic warheads

I believe that MAD should be implemented into Civ3, but if it is the game, the game should be extended into the future to allow for post-nuclear age weapons and SDI to be built to allow for a military win in the game. If not the Civ2 model should just be reimplemented with nukes that do more damage.

how is the civ2 model better than M.A.D.? under the civ2 model you cannot have nukes that hit anywhere on the map, if you did then one side would have a huge advantage because whoever attecked first would reap all of the benefits...also if nukes could hit anywhere on the map and completely destroyed a city, then the civ2 method would be even more flawed because the side that attacks first would gain such an advantage...having a huge advantage like that would encourage players to attack...M.A.D. makes the players think twice...

so what civ3 needs to go along with nukes that can hit anywhere on the map and are more powerful than civ2 nukes are the following things

*diplomatic repercussions from using nukes
*cultural repercussions from using nukes
*M.A.D.

then i could go for 50% effective SDI, which wouldn't makes nukes obsolete, but would force players to make a choice...do i invest more in nukes to overwhelm the SDI defense...or do i invest more in other areas of the game...that would be fun and interesting presenting players with strategic choices...but 100% effective SDI breaks the game balance, and it does two things...it allows a peaceful player to have a completely open shot at a spaceship victory, and it would allow a war monger to nuke their opponents off the map without repercussion, both of which are bad

the peaceful player should still have a chance of getting stopped, and the warmonger should still have to worry about getting nuked, maybe not as much, but he should still have to worry even after building SDI...which would be good enough for me

there is no reason to extend the game in the future though if you put M.A.D. into the game

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by korn469
if you are planning on winning by conquest and you get this tech first then you really could nuke the AI off the map, you would have one less consequence to worry about from using nukes...you could stand behind your shield destroying the AI (or other players in mp) at will

I didn't mean that if you got the SDI tech(s) BOOM you have SDI, a civ would have to build a SDI infastucture first. The opponent will see this and step up their SDI research to catch up to you. And if SDI can't be made to be balanced (?) then Civ3 could use CTP's natite diffuser, and the playing field is leveled, no one has nukes and you can still go onto conquering the world.

Originally posted by korn469
also Lord Magnus do you think the player should be able to win every game of civ3?

I said "I doubt not many people will like a game where you can't win" not "I think that Civ3 should be won everytime" Besides being nuked isn't the only way to lose, a horde of opposing tanks will do the job.

Originally posted by korn469
there is no reason to extend the game in the future though if you put M.A.D. into the game

So how do you propose that I can play the game with MAD without having it end always in a stalement or having me get nuked every time I don't want to play the MAD game and try to build a spaceship?
I don't think that the Civ2 nuke model is better than MAD but if there is nothing to break the stalemate of MAD to allow a military win, then MAD is just make the game boring at the end as the rush of overrunning your foe is not avalible.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Lord Magnus
BTW - re: Human cloning. I think that we should scale back biotechnology. The human body is something that we don't understand very good and this could be a Pandora's box we're opening. We'd be better off investing the resources in nanotech and nerual to computer interface.

Or it might not be...

It is not your money to spend - except your tax dollars and their is a ban in the U.S. but that is not going to stop people from doing it in other countries. Human cloning will happen - there is no question of that, it is a simple matter of how soon and where.

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by tniem

Or it might not be...

It is not your money to spend - except your tax dollars and their is a ban in the U.S. but that is not going to stop people from doing it in other countries. Human cloning will happen - there is no question of that, it is a simple matter of how soon and where.

[evilmode] Then those heathen will be consumed by a nanological bio-mining wave of bots. bawh haha [/evilmode]

Ok maybe not but nanotech and downloading ones brain into a computer will relieve more pain, suffering and other biological ills than bio-tech. In fact bio-tech will make more biological ills.

[korn469]

I didn't mean that if you got the SDI tech(s) BOOM you have SDI, a civ would have to build a SDI infastucture first. The opponent will see this and step up their SDI research to catch up to you. And if SDI can't be made to be balanced (?) then Civ3 could use CTP's natite diffuser, and the playing field is leveled, no one has nukes and you can still go onto conquering the world

if you are a smart player, and you are about to discover SDI (assuming it's 100% effective) i'm sure that you could arrange it so that you had at the very least your core protected by SDI before another who is even slightly behind you could build an SDI shield...like i said i wouldn't mind if civ3 had about a 50% SDI structure, but i cannot support 100% effective SDI because it unbalances the game too much

I don't think that the Civ2 nuke model is better than MAD but if there is nothing to break the stalemate of MAD to allow a military win, then MAD is just make the game boring at the end as the rush of overrunning your foe is not avalible.

ok do you agree that you can't upgrade nukes (more powerful and can hit anywhere on the map) without implementing some form of M.A.D.? if you don't why not? doesn't the thought of whoever attacks first, even if similar resources were invested, gains 100% of the benefits disturbing and doesn't that seem unbalanced?

M.A.D. prevents that, and that is why i think it should be in civ3 along with more powerful nuclear weapons...

now as to the lategame military stalemate problem created by M.A.D.

i do not think that nuclear weapons should destroy large cities completely (cities over size 5) so even if there is a nuclear war, i don't think it should be the end of the game

so then the question comes down to when does a military stalemate (caused by M.A.D.) arise?

*both sides would have to have a fairly equal number of cities
*both sides would have to have about the same technology
*both sides would have to have a significant nuclear force
*both sides would have to have about the same amount of allies
*both sides would have to have nearly equal conventional forces

now to break the stalemate you'd have to gain a significant advantage in one of those areas, so M.A.D. wouldn't make it impossible to win, just harder...

*if one civ has 10 cities, and the other has 30 and they both have 10 nukes, then that isn't a stalemate
*if both had 10 cities, but only 3 nukes each then that isn't a stalemate
*if both had 10 cities but one had 10 nukes and the other had 4 nukes that isn't a stalemate
*if both had ten cities and 15 nukes each, but one had five allies with 10 cities each and the other didn't have any allies that isn't a stalemate
*if both had 10 cities, but one only had a conventional force of 10 riflemen, and the other had 10 tanks, 10 stealth bombers, 10 paratroopers, and 10 mechanized infantry that isn't a stalemate

so the only time that there is an unwinable stalemate is if you had two side with ten cities each, ten nukes each, no allies, and 10 tanks, stealth bombers, paratroopers, and mech infantry each

then when you get in that situation you could still win militarily...you would have to build up enough of a conventional force, that even after a nuclear exchange you could still have a large enough army to deafeat your opponent

or there are other things you could do...conquer a neighbor to increase the number of cities you have (especially large valuabe cities) then use carrier based airforces and subs with cruise missiles to cut your opponents uranium supply lines so he can't build more nukes...then launch an all out conventional attack, and force them to either surrender, or start a nuclear war which you would win

plus hopefully the AI in civ3 will know when it's beat, and as long as you aren't a savage it won't fight to the death (well i could see a few civs fighting to the death)...it will surrender like in SMAC

plus there are still diplomatic, environmental, and cultural reasons not to start a nuclear war

your 2 10 city civs in a nuclear stalemate...one starts a nuclear war...then maybe all of the other civs should declare war on that civ

your 2 10 city civs in a nuclear stalemate...one starts a nuclear war...both are severly wounded and other civs start taking over their territory because these two civs have so much culture...also they would not be much of a threat to a five city civ that was in third place going for a alpha centuri win

so in these cases starting a nuclear war doesn't help them

but your 2 10 city civs, one discovers 100% SDI while the other will discover SDI 2 turns from now...during those 2 turns, the player who discovers SDI first builds SDI in his 5 most important cities, then nukes the other player...the other player is now severly wounded, while the first player is only partially wounded...all of the conventional units saved by SDI now roll over the severly wounded civ...the first player can now nuke the rest of the civs off the map behind it's unassailable nuclear shield...

M.A.D. makes starting a conventional war risky only because it might escalate into a nuclear war...but (except in the case of 100% SDI) there are no clearcut winners in a nuclear war...sometimes (but certainly not always) there will be military stalemates and players will just have to work around those

[Laszlo]

Originally posted by korn469

Laszlo

that is SDI...the current national missile shield uses a kinetic kill vehicle that hits the ICBM before the warheads seperate...no lasers are involved

korn469, our "current missile shield" is not exactly operational yet. Both lasers and kinetic kill vehicles are being explored (and our discussion included SDI, even though you say it is dead). You wouldn't believe how many weapons systems the military explores. I also just read an article in MIT's publication, Technology Review that a Tactical High-Energy Laser prototype has destroyed 20 rockets over the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, and soon will be miniturized enough for mounting on trucks. It gave the impression that laser weoponry is viable, under Bush will have $1B/yr in backing, and will revolutionize warfare. It does not look like the US government believes that SDI is sci-fi. [Available online if you want to read it yourself - The Light Brigade ]

why should the US share this technology? it gives the US a strong advantage over everyone, and why should they share it with china? the US and china basically came to blows over a spy plane...then there is always tiawan...would iraq get in on this tech?...why not dismantle all nuclear weapons instead of building an SDI system?

Not sharing with them the technology per se. I see how SDI is bad in encouraging SDI-protected nations to attack without as much thought to the consequences. What I mean is that both will be partners in development, possibly in a world-wide coverage kind of system. And China is not hold some totally alien mindset bent on our destruction. I feel rogue states are more likely to pose a significant threat.

actually they think the missile shield might take 2.5 billion dollars away from current pentagon priorities...some of that money would have went to help the russians dispose of nuclear warheads

I think just helping Russia can not solve the nuclear threat. There are more nations now banging on the doors of the nuclear club, and some will soon have the resources and capabilities to make a nuke or aquire one. Arms limitations treaties among the original nuclear club members will do nothing to contain that outside growth.

...are you saying that 100% effective SDI should be a wonder jointly built by all civs? if you are then i do disagree...i think a treaty signed by all civs banning nukes would be better...if you are going to spend money building something to stop nukes, why not go the safer, cheaper, more effective way of dismantling your arsenal?

I think that SDI would be a very expensive project for one civ to tackle alone. But if some international agency such as the UN coordinated the joint effort, all would enjoy protection. Treaties would be an alternative path, though in Civ2 they often ended up "not worth the paper they were written on". And considering the truly awesome waste of monetary, natural, and mental/human resources used in stockpiling of nukes in case of attack, I see worldwide SDI possibly being below par in cost, especially if initiated before all the ICBM and nuclear research had enough time to establish a lead.

[korn469]

Laszlo

here are a few quotes from reagan, the man who first envisioned SDI

But it is inconceivable to me that we can go on thinking down the future, not only for ourselves and our lifetime but for other generations, that the great nations of the world will sit here, like people facing themselves across a table, each with a cocked gun, and no one knowing whether someone might tighten their finger on the trigger.

__________________________________________________ __

They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe--indeed, the world--would look very different today.

Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms?

__________________________________________________ __

Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade.

and here is a quote from Bush's state of the union address

Our nation also needs a clear strategy to confront the threats of the 21st century -- threats that are more widespread and less certain. They range from terrorists who threaten with bombs to tyrants in rogue nations intent upon developing weapons of mass destruction. To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses.

And as we transform our military, we can discard Cold War relics, and reduce our own nuclear forces to reflect today's needs.

let me clarify myself...the Strategic Defense Inititive program to stop a massive nuclear strike from the Soviet Union against the United States, is dead

Bush is talking about reducing nuclear stockpiles, he is talking about terrorist, and rogue nations...he never one time mentioned trying to develop a shield that would protect the United States from thousand of warheads...for the moment nobody in the pentagon is talking about deploying a system that could stop a massive strike (which is seeming more and more unlikely)

while laser do look promising, and they may one day revolutionize warfare, there is also a chance they might not as quickly as what we think...kind of like the permanently manned space station reagon wanted deployed in a decade back in january of 84

yes one day lasers might be able to stop any incoming missile threat...but that day is not today...here is a quote from your article

Between Reagan's program and more recent funding, the government has put $14 billion into high-energy laser research and development. It's now spending some $200 million a year on general research—plus $400 million more on specific weapons programs. Those numbers are expected to nearly double under President George W. Bush.

The advantage is that each missile-killing shot will burn about $10,000 worth of chemical fuel (aircraft should carry enough fuel for about 30 shots), compared to the $1 million cost of a conventional antiballistic missile. "We'll be worldwide deployable as early as 2008," says air force colonel Lynn Wills, who heads Airborne Laser acquisition. Wills expects to field seven aircraft, two of which will be in the air over hot spots at any given time.

basically in the article a plane (Boeing 747) would with a laser would have to be 300km from the launch site and then it would burn out the fuel tank, blowing the missile up...what about SLBMs? what about launch sites deep in heavily defended Soviet airspace? how are seven planes, two of which would be in the air at any given moment expected to stop THOUSANDS of warheads? simple...they're not

what i'm saying is that the current missile defense program is to stop a couple ICBMs from iraq or a nation like it...it is not designed to stop a massive strike...that was what SDI attempted to do...and SDI died when the cold war ended

so do you agree with me that SDI is dead? national missile defense is alive and well...but it is not designed to fulfill regan's vision of SDI...NMD is designed to stop small fry meglomaniacs from nuking DC...this might be possible by 2004, certainly by 2020...but scaling it up to stop a cold war M.A.D. scenario isn't possible by 2020 in my opinion without extordinary costs, especially if you think that it would be 100% effective...a nation with a similar level of technology and funding could obviously develop counter measures...making the missile surfaces mirror like seems like it could be a somewhat effective countermeasure

SDI reminds me of another government program that is dead...LBJ's great society

Your imagination, your initiative and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For in your time we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society.

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning.

The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community

would you argue that the Great Society is not dead too? basically a government program never really dies, they just change and evolve over the years...many aspects of the great society are still programs today...but the cohesive vision behind the great society is gone, just like the cohesive vision behind SDI is gone

ok in game terms

*SDI should be an expensive undertaking
*SDI should not be 100% effective (not even close) against a massive strike
*SDI should be 100% effective against a single nuke

i could even go for the following

1 nuke launch=100% SDI
2 nuke launch=90% SDI
3 nuke launch=80% SDI
4 nuke launch=70% SDI
5 nuke launch=60% SDI
6+ nuke launch=50% SDI

but SDI should not be 100% effective against a true massive retaliation strike...and if it is either going to be one way or another then i'd want to see 50% effective SDI rather than 100% effective SDI

And China is not hold some totally alien mindset bent on our destruction. I feel rogue states are more likely to pose a significant threat.

what if they sold the technology to North Korea...who then sold it to iran, iraq, pakistan, syria, and lybia?

I see worldwide SDI possibly being below par in cost, especially if initiated before all the ICBM and nuclear research had enough time to establish a lead.

why would you spend the time, effort, and money on developing SDI if ICBMs didn't really exist in the world? plus before spy satellites you would only know that ICBMs were attacking you when the early warning radars went off...meaning the warheads were already halfway to their targets...also meaning that SDI would be much harder to develop

i wish there weren't nuclear missiles, or VX nerve gas, or stockpiles of anthrax...but there are...if humans could get along better then just imagine what kind of world we'd have today...hell lord magnus might have already had the oppertunity to download himself into a computer built by nanorobots

however, tons of ICBMs exist, and they would probably have about a 90% rate per missile of hitting their target (but they figure that in to how many warheads each target needs to assure a kill so ICBMs would have a 100% chance to kill)...so far NMD isn't even close to protecting a nation from a massive nuclear strike...so i hope they include ICBMs in civ3

[Laszlo]

Originally posted by korn469

yes one day lasers might be able to stop any incoming missile threat...but that day is not today...here is a quote from your article

basically in the article a plane (Boeing 747) would with a laser would have to be 300km from the launch site and then it would burn out the fuel tank, blowing the missile up...what about SLBMs? what about launch sites deep in heavily defended Soviet airspace? how are seven planes, two of which would be in the air at any given moment expected to stop THOUSANDS of warheads? simple...they're not

In my post, I specifically mentioned the ground-based High Energy Tactical Laser, not the 747 or space-based or the blinding lasers also mentioned in the article. This more closely follows the city-based SDI from civ 2, and also what I believe would first be effective, for ground-based will lead in power and cost effectiveness without resupply issues.

Though later on (when you have the capability to lauch an interstellar space ship), electrical, solar replenished satellites, space SDI would not be unreasonable.

And I see no reason a massive distributed attack against all the cities couldn't be prevented. Concentrated attacks could fluster the city's defenses to get a hit. With M.A.D. you could re-create the massive stockpiling of nukes from the Cold War, but despite this, I think that since you are writing history, you could lead your civ on a different path in time to avert Cold War problems.

Just suggesting more possibilities that our own single line of history and limited experience.

***

ok in game terms, I still basically agree on all your SDI specs

*SDI should be an expensive undertaking
*SDI should not be 100% effective against a concentrated strike
*SDI should be 100% effective against a single nuke

i would go for the following, or something similar over your more linear effectiveness ratings because it accounts for the overloading the system's expectations in a more likely way

1 nuke launch=100% SDI
2 nuke launch=95% SDI
3 nuke launch=85% SDI
4 nuke launch=70% SDI
5 nuke launch=50% SDI
6 nuke launch=25% SDI
7+ nuke launch=0% SDI

ps - I also plan to download myself into a computer built by nanorobots

[Lord Magnus]

I think that I have to agree mostly with you now but I do have a few points to pick on.

Originally posted by korn469
if you are a smart player, and you are about to discover SDI (assuming it's 100% effective) i'm sure that you could arrange it so that you had at the very least your core protected by SDI before another who is even slightly behind you could build an SDI shield...

I remembered in Civ2 that you can "charge up" your shields bin by using captalization and when the SDI tech is in, just let the cities rip. But in a proper production system you should start building SDI after the tech is discovered not before. Besides I'm glad that in Civ3 that you need a specific resource to build a unit instead of just only using the 'magic shields'.

Originally posted by korn469
i do not think that nuclear weapons should destroy large cities completely (cities over size 5) so even if there is a nuclear war, i don't think it should be the end of the game

It wouldn't be the same in real life but it'd work in Civ3

Originally posted by korn469
so then the question comes down to when does a military stalemate (caused by M.A.D.) arise?

*both sides would have to have a fairly equal number of cities
*both sides would have to have about the same technology
*both sides would have to have a significant nuclear force
*both sides would have to have about the same amount of allies
*both sides would have to have nearly equal conventional forces

now to break the stalemate you'd have to gain a significant advantage in one of those areas, so M.A.D. wouldn't make it impossible to win, just harder...

I guess so, i didn't realize that it had to be that tight to be a stalemate, but I was basing the stalemate scenario on the US-USSR situation.

Originally posted by korn469
then when you get in that situation you could still win militarily...you would have to build up enough of a conventional force, that even after a nuclear exchange you could still have a large enough army to deafeat your opponent

It'd be a victory, but a bitter one that'd I'd like to advoid

Originally posted by korn469
plus hopefully the AI in civ3 will know when it's beat, and as long as you aren't a savage it won't fight to the death (well i could see a few civs fighting to the death)...it will surrender like in SMAC

I guess, but I still like to beat the other civs into the ground
Anyways the Civ2 model wasn't horrible and I had fun with it. MAD would be better as long as Firaxis can implement it properly (ie: prevent excessive stalements). There's no use implementing it just for the sake of implementing it.

BTW - no matter what you say I still think that Civ3 and on should have a Sci-fi extension, even if it's an expansion pack. You won't get me to agree there like you finally did on MAD.

Originally posted by korn469
I wish there weren't nuclear missiles, or VX nerve gas, or stockpiles of anthrax...but there are...if humans could get along better then just imagine what kind of world we'd have today...hell lord magnus might have already had the oppertunity to download himself into a computer built by nanorobots

Damm war mongers stole that

Originally posted by korn469
ps - I also plan to download myself into a computer built by nanorobots

Cool

[korn469]

Laszlo

In my post, I specifically mentioned the ground-based High Energy Tactical Laser, not the 747 or space-based or the blinding lasers also mentioned in the article. This more closely follows the city-based SDI from civ 2, and also what I believe would first be effective, for ground-based will lead in power and cost effectiveness without resupply issues.

in the article it states

Airborne Laser is placing the basketball-sized beam on the streaking missile's fuel compartment—then holding it there for the five or ten seconds it takes to work its magic

Resembling a spotlight on a turret, the weapon boasts a 10-kilometer range

ok since they didn't mention other laser systems lets assume that it takes 5 seconds to disable a warhead (being generous here) and that the range of the system is 10 kilometers...so as long as a warhead traveled faster than 7200 km/h right before it hit the surface then a laser wouldn't work

i did some digging and this is what i found here

An article in Scientific American (one of Costa
Tsipsis' "proofs" that ABMs can't work) had impact velocity for an ICBM on the order of Mach 10.
That would be roughly 8000MPH

so if ICBMs travel roughly 8000 mph (about 12800 km/h) then you would have to increase the range of a laser to at least 18km for a 5 second burn or about 40km for a 10 second burn...and that is not even taking into account they could harden warheads against lasers, or that warheads may take longer to destroy than a fuel tank, also each MIRV could contain many many decoys which would make the job of stopping warheads that much harder

one other problem presents itself for a short range ground based laser...to defend a large nation like the United States, you would have to build thousands of laser sites all across the US, each one of those sites would have to be continously manned by soldiers who know that about 10 seconds seperate them from victory or ground zero...this would be a fairly large drain on military power

i really don't think a ground based laser system would cut it

i think the most effective way of stopping incoming nukes is to launch interceptor missiles that have nuclear warheads...that way you wouldn't have to worry about the decoys, or even accuracy in general...however this presents the problem of having hundred if not thousands of nuclear airbursts over your territory in a very short amount of time...this would completely destroy the ozone layer, probably contribute to increased radiation levels, and most likely destroy most if not all of the satellites serving your nation (billions of dollars of assets) plus a staggering your launch could complicate how the system would work...plus this would only stop ICBMs...it isn't going to stop SRBMs (you'd be airbursting not on the edge of space but close to your cities)

With M.A.D. you could re-create the massive stockpiling of nukes from the Cold War, but despite this, I think that since you are writing history, you could lead your civ on a different path in time to avert Cold War problems.

well first if nobody builds the Manhatten Project then you don't have to worry about nuclear weapons...what if albert einstien had of died at birth and e=mc^2 wasn't discovered for centuries?

basically M.A.D. is useful when there are two or more civs that have close to the same amount of power and they are on the verge of war...one will go for nukes and the other will have to counter them...this is where stalemate could occur...if you are the first civ to hit the modern era and you do it while the other civs are still in the middle ages there is no need for nukes...bombers and tanks will do just fine...there is no need for nukes when the most powerful civs are close allies...

ok in game terms, I still basically agree on all your SDI specs

*SDI should be an expensive undertaking
*SDI should not be 100% effective against a concentrated strike
*SDI should be 100% effective against a single nuke

and when i say concentrated i don't mean against a single city, i mean against the entire civ...i hope that is what you mean...and if so i could even go with your plan...but i fear you mean city

1 nuke launch=100% SDI (real hit percentage=0%)
2 nuke launch=95% SDI (rhp=9.7%)
3 nuke launch=85% SDI (rhp=38.6%)
4 nuke launch=70% SDI (rhp=76%)
5 nuke launch=50% SDI (rhp=96.9%)
6 nuke launch=25% SDI (rhp=99.9%)
7+ nuke launch=0% SDI (rhp=100%)

that would mean that you'd have to have either four or five nukes per city so it would take between 640 to 800 shields before you'd have a chance to defeat a 200 shield SDI system which is ridiculous...but if you mean by civ, then there does need to be a bottom percentage bracket...like 6 nuke launch=34% SDI...otherwise SDI would be a waste of shields

on gamespot there are new screen shots...one of them is of the modern age tech tree and it can be found here

while there are a few candidates for SDI the most likely candidate is "integrated defense" which is basically the last tech in the game...so this leads to the conclusion that SDI will be attached to the last tech at least 6 techs after you get ICBMs...hopefully they won't make it 100% but who knows...i guess by that point you will have won or lost anyways...plus it might be a wonder...and if it is, then it will probably be really expensive

[tniem]

This argument may regrettably be all for nothing in the revealing of the Modern Age techs you find Integrated Defense stemming from Satallites, Semiconductor, and Smart Weapons. Sounds like some type of SDI or Star Wars system to me.

I guess Firaxis has decided not to scrap the Sci-fi SDI system, at least they put it at the very end of the game this time around. As for MAD, I guess it is still anyone's guess but if diplomacy and trade has been improved as much as they say hopefully it does play a role.

[korn469]

tniem

i agree that SDI is most likely a wonder attached to Integrated Defense...and most likely it will be a 100% effective star wars type system...but since it is the highest tech on the tech tree i don't guess it's that bad...you'll still have an oppertunity to nuke whoever starts to build SDI...but if it is 100% effective, and the game is almost over anyways then the normal way of winning a speed game will be, a few turns before your space ship is about to arrive at alpha centauri you nuke all of the AIs since they can't nuke you back...it goes back to my point about 100% effective SDI ruining game balance, however being the last tech minimizes the damage done

as for M.A.D. i think firaxis would be insane not to include it...also i sent the civ3 team a M.A.D./nuke question in the ask the team section...hopefully they will answer it

[tniem]

Originally posted by korn469
as for M.A.D. i think firaxis would be insane not to include it...also i sent the civ3 team a M.A.D./nuke question in the ask the team section...hopefully they will answer it

Let's hope so.

korn, I think you said perfectly my feeling for allowing SDI to stay in the game - it is the last tech and so it hopefully will occur after the game is already decided. Plenty of time to nuke the one who is trying to build it. Plenty of time for the diplomatic or spaceship victory conditions. And since it is the last tech, a little push into the future can't be all bad.

[korn469]

tniem

i have my fingers crossed that M.A.D. will be in civ3, i don't see how they could give nukes infinate range, and possibly upgrade their damage without adding some form of M.A.D.

i won't mind as long as SDI comes with integrated defense, but if it comes earlier, and is 100% effective and ruins the game balance then i will be very upset

[Lord Magnus]

So Korn you saw the Intergrated defense and it's probally an SDI since it's the last tech. I hope too that MAD was also implemented with the SDI. I'd be interesting to have MAD before intergrated def comes by. Anyways I hope that Firaxis answers your letter, but they probally decided on the nuke system that will be used. If they don't use MAD I'll be a bit dispointed but I'd still play Civ3, too many other great features.

[korn469]

Lord Magnus

trust me if they have made major upgrades to nuke power like letting nukes hit anywhere on the map and completely destroying a city without implementing M.A.D. the game would be unplayable...you build up enough nukes to disable your opponents then you attack, and whoever attacks first wins...everyone else gets destroyed...and even 100% effective SDI couldn't stop that

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by korn469
if they have made major upgrades to nuke power like letting nukes hit anywhere on the map and completely destroying a city without implementing M.A.D. the game would be unplayable

I don't think Firaxis is stupid. If MAD isn't implemented then we'll just see the old Civ2 style nukes with better graphics and maybe some minor tweaking to the unit's properties. Like I said, I like to see MAD in Civ3 but if it isn't there, I'm not going to boycott the game like the idiots in the "why isn't [insert country here] included in Civ3" threads, we just press our case harder for Civ4.