How are Nuclear Weapons going to be applied in Civ3? - Page 2

korn469 · August 14, 2001, 21:45

java4me

i am almost certain that civ3 will have ICBMs that can stikre anywhere on the map...from the screen shots civ3 is going to have three missile units and i suspect these units to be a conventional cruise missile, a nuclear cruise missile, and an ICBM...i really don't think silos are going to be a tile improvement, because on the tech chart you can see the fortifications, bridge (possibly canal), and railroad tile improvements but silos aren't there, and hopefully there will be M.A.D. in the game and that it will work in multiplayer

as for SDI i think it will be a mini wonder made available by integrated defense and it will protect your civ from all nuclear attacks

General Ludd · August 14, 2001, 21:54

I don't think anything should offer 100% protection from nuclear missles.

korn469 · August 14, 2001, 22:18

Osweld

neither do i...check out the Firaxis i'm M.A.D. thread if you want to know my reasoning

however since SDI comes with the last tech, and firaxis spoke of the nuclear era being something to survive most likely SDI will be either 100% or close to it...if they implement it as a wonder then it will probably make any nuclear attack against you as an automatic failure...but if they implement it like orbital defense pods from SMAC, then you would be able to overwhelm it

java4me · August 14, 2001, 23:38

korn,

I like your reasoning!

But what I am wondering is where the ICBM's are going to be lauched from?

Uffty · August 15, 2001, 07:20

ABout the 2 turn thing...its not from me...i red that from somewhere...wouldnt like it either...but who knows?

And KORN.....sit back and relax...i have seen all your posts which can almost count as a book!

You're taking all this Nuke and MAD stuff way too seriously...this is just a little part of the game and also...IT IS just a game!

Get out and have some fun....its summer!

PS: Java,...yes good question...launching them in Towns would be very "suicidic"

and well, in human history...they aren't any missiles silos in Towns, are they??

So silos might be in there I suppose

java4me · August 15, 2001, 12:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Uffty

PS: Java,...yes good question...launching them in Towns would be very "suicidic"

and well, in human history...they aren't any missiles silos in Towns, are they??

So silos might be in there I suppose

That is what I want FIRAXIS to clarify, is how ICBM's are going to be launched. Right now I think that a silo tile improvment is our best bet. But, we won't know until FIRAXIS goes into the NUKE subject in more detail! Also, they are still manipulating the game a little to allow it to be more fun and exciting!!!

dearmad · August 15, 2001, 13:22

I just don't understand the need for silos at all. I've never thought of the "city" as an actual city on the map but more the general location of serious population density. And the "scale" of CIV even on the largest maps would allow that a city square would about the size of Washintong State... plenty of room to pretend in your own mind that a "silo" exists somewhere other than "in the city of Seattle."

Sheesh, I hope Firaxis does NOT add silos- what a waste of my game playing time to add another level of interference between me and using a unit- it seems silly to me.

As for MAD, I would only want it developed as a serious investment made by a player, say as a city improvement, so that once you have spent the resources you get it- MAD represents a system, not just an idea- a system of submarines, airplanes constantly in flight, and hidden missile launch locations- that takes resources, and it oughta be a serious cash drain on any nation that would want to enact it with their missles, and it ought to be on a per-warhead basis, like 2 gold per missile per turn to keep those puppies in a ready state, maintaned, and aimed. Otherwise, I think nuking a country out of existance that wasn't prepared to spend the $$ on a MAD system is possible, I'd bet the US could do it to India at the momentwithout receiving a single counter attack.

Gramphos · August 15, 2001, 13:44

UberKruX, where did you get that image? I've not seen it before

.

Pythagoras · August 15, 2001, 13:45

Hmm too include many arbitrary things like MAD tends to tear away at the core gameplay. For instance, it sort of tears away at the turn-based fiber at the game. However, MAD is a thing that needs to be considered, so heres what I propose-

Instead of turns being 1 year long, after a certain tech is researched (or just entry into the modern era), perhaps turns could be 1/3 a year and let nukes have like 4 5 or 6 movement w/ 3 or 4 turns to refuel. This way there is a really good chance of you detecting a missle (in flight), and you can get off yours. This also agrees with the reality that nuclear retaliation depends on detection and the window of oppurtunity, so if the enemy is careful enough, and you are foolish enough, you wont see the nuke coming, and you are screwed. Similarly you could do a nuclear sneak attack on the enemy. This increases the importance of having nearby nuclear forces and submarines, and makes "Cuba Missle crises" events more likely to happen.

tniem · August 15, 2001, 22:25

I think the best way to do nukes in this game is by a seperate screen. It appears that there will be seperate menus for trade (no caravans) and espionage (no spies) so why not for nukes as well.

Any way, nukes would be missiles that could hit any target on any turn. You could use them to take out cities, take out military targets, and other places. But as soon as you submit your launch nukes command your turn is over for a time.

At this point the AI or your MP opponent get a turn to conduct diplomacy or launch their own nukes. They do not get time to move units around or build anything to counter the attacks. Under Pythagarous' proposal three turns would allow the defender to not only launch their own nukes but also move units out of attacked cities and launch a huge tatical convential war.

In the Cold War there was never time for this. Only time if a nuke was launched for a phone call or two to your allies to decide a course of action and then launch. Maybe a call to your rival that launched the nukes. And as soon as everyone has time to launch nukes than it goes back to the original person's turn to see what happened.

This would force you to deal with every situation differently. You would know that if you launch a nuke or two that you would be nuked back. It force another layer of strategy and keeps the fun level high late in the game as conventional war would be the preferred method so your own cities are not scorched. And of course using MAD as a diplomatic measure would defend yourself from conventional war as well by saying that if you fight us we will launch nukes.

General Ludd · August 15, 2001, 22:34

I completely support that idea, tniem.

It also might be neat to have the option of a timer (especially during MP games) while this is all going on, so that there is alot of pressure while you try to negotiate, or think things over with your allies and whatnot. Though, if this is the case, the nukes should be able to be pre-targeted, so you don't have to use up all of your time targeting cities.

java4me · August 16, 2001, 01:01

Osweld has a good point there on how nukes should work!!! I think that the ICBM's are the missiles where you designate where you want them to hit.

Pythagoras · August 16, 2001, 02:48

It seems like a big stretch to develop this whole nuclear war-MAD system. Its like developing a whole minigame.

dearmad · August 16, 2001, 12:00

Pythagoras: I agree with you. I really hope Firaxis doesn't waste their time developing it to such a deep degree that it requires a submenu.

I've never had a problem with it the way it is.

KrazyHorse · August 16, 2001, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
thats dumb. i cant see a bomber carrying conventional and nuclear bombs at the same time. if they were doing that you would have to chose at unit building time (like ss modules)

Really? Then why can B-52s carry both?

StSz · August 16, 2001, 14:39

I REALLY hope that at a nuclear counter-attack (or world wide strike) all nuke impacts are shown.

It was dissapointing that in CTP2 after a attack you were not able to EXACTLY trace where and how much missles stroke in.

Just some black spots you had to search... I had to guess if that was a nuclear strike-back or pollution.

It would be also cool to have a Button which launches all pre-programmed nukes... Like in the real world if you press the big red button

SerapisIV · August 16, 2001, 15:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
UberKruX, where did you get that image? I've not seen it before

.

Civ2, city-view screen. It's the Manhattan Project monument

Inverse Icarus · August 16, 2001, 15:40

yea vgriph :P, its from the civ 2 city view.

im trying to carve the fact that the nuke bomb on the tech tree under fission is the manhattan project.

java4me · August 16, 2001, 20:40

That shows that Firaxis needs to update us on how nukes will work in the game!!!

tniem · August 17, 2001, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by dearmad
Pythagoras: I agree with you. I really hope Firaxis doesn't waste their time developing it to such a deep degree that it requires a submenu.

I have to believe they have already developed a submenu. There is no longer it appears at least from the tech screen shots a nuke unit. So that leaves city improvements that launch nukes or a submenu. I believe that they will be using a submenu

And it makes the most amount of sense. It will reduce micromanagement. No longer will you have to move your nuke across the entire globe when in reality that nuke could have been launched and hit its target on its own. So you go to your nuke menu and build some nukes out of your tax budget. And then you make a nuke strike. The submenu will be easier, more fun as you watch nuke strike animations, and will add depth to the game (MAD).

Gramphos · August 17, 2001, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
yea vgriph :P, its from the civ 2 city view.

im trying to carve the fact that the nuke bomb on the tech tree under fission is the manhattan project.

It is Gramphos for you!!

That would explain it, I don't check the city views any more, and don't remember hod Manhattan Project look. You should get

for this!

dearmad · August 17, 2001, 20:05

Tniem: I doubt they've developed the submenu based upon your deduction. For one reason the tech trees do not show half the units- most of the spaces are empty and awaiting the unit pictures. For myself, I think I saw two rockets and one big bomb unit- seems like non-submenu type stuff to me.

Nemo · August 17, 2001, 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
java4me

i am almost certain that civ3 will have ICBMs that can stikre anywhere on the map...

this was confirmed by firaxis several weeks (months?) ago. there are two types of nukes: icbm which have unlimtited range and regular nukes (i forget the name that they used to define this nuke, sorry). only regular nukes could be carried on subs, bombers, etc. and they would have a limted range.

so, since it has been confirmed about the icbm's being unlimited range, i was wondering why we would still need silos? there would be no need for them.

java4me · August 17, 2001, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Nemo

so, since it has been confirmed about the icbm's being unlimited range, i was wondering why we would still need silos? there would be no need for them.

The silo's are where the ICBM's would launch from!!! That is so you could have many silo's in your borders all targeted at a city or a unit!!! Where else would ICBM's launch from? The City...

No, most ICBM's launch from the middle of nowhere outside of cities to reduce the threat of if the ICBM backfires or explodes in the silo.

General Ludd · August 17, 2001, 22:59

Uhm, this has nothing to do with backfiring. (even in real life, I doubt having a nuclear missle 'backfire' is even a realistic possibility)

It is about being able to counter attack with your nukes in the event that you are attacked with nuclear weapons, resulting in MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) which will allow for a more realistic depiction of nuclear warfair, and opens the way for cold wars.

If you have to store your nukes in your city, or don't get to fire them before the enemies hits, you will lose all of your nukes, and will not be able to counter attack.

Though, this is only an issue with the ICBMs, the 'regular' missles should be able to give you a first strike advantage, if you are able to get close enough to launch them. Though in the case of silos, you'd still be able to have some nukes hidden away.

korn469 · August 18, 2001, 00:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Pythagoras
It seems like a big stretch to develop this whole nuclear war-MAD system. Its like developing a whole minigame.

Quote:

Originally posted by dearmad
Pythagoras: I agree with you. I really hope Firaxis doesn't waste their time developing it to such a deep degree that it requires a submenu.

I've never had a problem with it the way it is.

M.A.D. doesn't have to have a submenu, it doesn't have to be complicated and M.A.D. is truly needed to rebalance nukes, which are most likely unbalanced by the addition of infinite range and most likely increased damage

in addition to increasing balance in the game, M.A.D. although it is a simple addition, can give many deep, yet subtle layers to gameplay in the modern age

i really don't see why you are opposed to M.A.D. because it is arguably as large an improvement as stacked combat

you launch a nuke, and the civ that you attacked fires back it's as simple as that...no submenus, just strategy...having to man your catapults is more micromanage for less gain than what M.A.D. is

also launching nukes from cities should be fine...a city in civ doesn't just represent the metropolitan area of a city in real life, and silo could also be represented on the map by airbases...silos are found at military bases and not just in the middle of corn fields for the most part

java4me · August 18, 2001, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
Uhm, this has nothing to do with backfiring. (even in real life, I doubt having a nuclear missle 'backfire' is even a realistic possibility)

What I meant by "backfire" is if for some reason the nuke explodes either in the silo or right above the silo!!!

I do agree that most silo's are situated on military bases!!!