The Case for Nukes

[korn469]

Ladies and Gentlemen of Apolyton, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that based on the evidence that Nuclear Weapons in Civ3 have been abused repeatedly by firaxis. I will clearly show that Nuclear Weapons are not effective for the role which they fill, both because of ommissions to the game and because of their ridiculous cost compared to their limited destructive power. On that note I will begin the prosecution.

Exhibit A

Fighter
*80 shields (4)
*oil
*flight (39)
*4(2).2.1 4[1]
*50% chance to intercept

Bomber
*100 shields (5)
*oil
*flight (39)
*0(8).2.1 6[3]
*50% chance to intercept

Jet Fighter
*100 shields (5)
*oil, aluminum
*rocketry (49)
*8(2).4.1 6[1]
*50% chance to intercept

Stealth Fighter
*120 shields (6)
*oil, aluminum
*stealth (53)
*0(4).0.1 6[2]
*5% chance to intercept

Stealth Bomber
*240 shields (12)
*oil, aluminum
*stealth (53)
*0(8).0.1 8[3]
*5% chance to intercept

Tactical Nuke
*300 shields (15)
*oil, uranium
*space flight (51)
*operational range of 6
*kills half of a city's population
*triggers global warming and could cause other civs to declare war

ICBM
*600 shields (30)
*oil, uranium
*satellites (52)
*unlimited operational range
*kills half of a city's population
*triggers global warming and could cause other civs to declare war

Tank
*100 shields (5)
*oil, rubber
*motorized transport (46)
*16.8.2
*can raze a city

Transport
*100 shields (5)
*oil
*combustion (38)
*1.4.5
*transports 8 units

Carrier
*180 shields (9)
*oil
*mass production (41)
*1.8.4
*transports 4 air units

Nuclear Submarine
*120 shields (6)
*uranium
*fission (49)
*6.4.3
*transports one tactical nuke

Manhatten Project
*800 shields (40)
*uranium
*fission (49)
*all civs can build nuclear weapons

My basic assumption is that if both sides have an equal amount of resources and use those resources in an optimal way on the battlefield, that the player who pursues a Nuclear strategy will always either lose or make things unnecessarily hard on themselves.

Here are the following assumptions for this:
*Both sides only have a single city
*That city is size 12
*Both city's have a fixed production of 20 shields per turn reguardless of city size
*Techs come at one tech every three turn reguardless of city size
*15 water spaces exist between the cities
*Only offensive units can be built, and the each city is always considered to start each turn with one full strength fighter unit and four full strength infantry units (6.10.1) garrisoning it
*The objective is to reduce the enemy's city to size three, it does not have to be captured

Under the rules of the scenario the player only has a certain number of strategies they can pursue in this situation.

1) They can get the jump on the other player and build carriers, fighters, and bombers then pound the city to rubble.
2) They can wait until stealth and then build carriers and stealth bombers and pound the city to rubble.
3) They can wait until motorized transport and build a task force of tanks to take the city
4) They can pursue a tactical nuclear weapons based strategy

The first strategy will start with the discovery of the 41 tech, and it will have a 36 turn head start. They will pursue the following build order, carrier, four bombers, attack. Considering the discovery of 41 techs the first turn, they will start airstrikes on turn 32.

The second strategy will start with the discovery of the 53 tech, and it will not have any head start. They will pursue the following build order, carrier, four stealth bombers, attack. Considering the discovery of 41 techs the first turn, they will start airstrikes on turn 95.

The Third strategy will start with the discovery of the 46 tech, and it will have a 21 turn head start. They will pursue the following build order, transport, six tanks, attack. Considering the discovery of 41 techs the first turn, they will attack on turn 49.

The fourth strategy will start with the discovery of the 51 tech, and it will have a 6 turn head start. They will pursue the following build order, Manhatten Project, then two tactical nukes, attack. Considering the discovery of 41 techs the first turn, they will launch a nuclear attack on turn 109.

Imagine the same scenario, except with one change that 90 spaces of both water and road exist between the two cities. Following the same basic strategy except for switching ICBMs for tactical nukes, and getting rid of the transport for the tanks and having them travel along the road, the attacks would be carried out on the following turns

turn 50 (21 turns travel)
turn 113 (20 turns travel)
turn 56 (16 turns travel) [turn 40 if a railroad link exists]
turn 130 (0 turns travel)

Pursuing a nuclear strategy will always fail, because the time it takes to implement it is outrageous, and even then nuclear weapons have fatal flaws.

*Nuclear weapons can never destroy a city, ie no matter how many ICBMs a player uses on a size 1 city, that city won't die
*Nuclear weapons cause global warming which is just as likely to hurt the player launching the attack as it is the player being attacked
*Nuclear weapons no longer destroy all units in the square they strike, in fact many units might survive the attack unharmed
*Nuclear weapons can destroy 50% of a city at most, so it would take four nuclear weapons to reduce a size 16 city to size 1
*Each time a nuclear weapons is used, all other civs have a chance of declaring war on the civ using nuclear weapons
*Nuclear weapons require an expensive gateway wonder before they can be built, unlike conventional weapons in Civ3
*Once a player builds the SDI wonder, then nuclear weapons only have a 25% chance of actually striking their targets
*Compared to using nuclear weapons, obliteratinga city inflicts less political damage with other civs (except for possibly the civ being attacked) and any ground unit can destroy a city, plus once a city gets destroyed, up to half of its population can become captured workers...plus all wonders in the city are permanently destroyed

All of this is a direct result of the lack of a true implentation of M.A.D. in civ3

here is the proof

Exhibit B
[gamadictG] You can't destroy enemy cities with nukes...
[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] Nukes do not destroy enemy cities... it used to work that way but it was deemed too powerful.

without fear of retribution because a working M.A.D. system wasn't implemented they decided that the first strike ability was too powerful...go back and read, i made this point long ago...then instead of following through with my line of logic (ie: implementing a working M.A.D. system) firaxis instead just powered down nukes without decreasing their cost, and now nukes are a complete waste of money...any object that a player can achieve with a nuke, they could achieve in a more efficient manner by using conventional (especially ground) units

this will be a continuing a case, however since it is 6:18am i am going to cut it short for now

[LaRusso]

korn, are you economist by vocation? i say this because you construct a model to prove a theory.

let me counter it with a practical experience. it's endgame. i am entering a war with aztecs, romans and iroquise join me, french join aztecs. french and iroquise are already at war for some turns at another continent so they cannot interfere in our little threesome. yet, i get two french ICBMs on my head immediatelly, reducing my top two cities to a shadow of their former glory. nukes as they are now are not your first war option, but they certainly are a good strategic kaboom to tilt the war being waged on another side of the planet.

were they any cheaper i would use them indiscriminately. they are expensive yet have their limited use.

[Earthling7]

I think the Planetbuster was perfect. Powerful beyond anything, but using it was an attrocity.

Using nukes should be effective. Let's face it, the Cold War would have been very different without the possibility of mutual annihilation. And that's what nukes are good at, annhiliation. Nukes are bad, and using them is bad, so make them bad. But if someone decides to nuke another, everyone else would declare war (a la SMAC).

[korn469]

LaRusso

i'm studying economics and marketing in college

it's endgame. i am entering a war with aztecs, romans and iroquise join me, french join aztecs. french and iroquise are already at war for some turns at another continent so they cannot interfere in our little threesome. yet, i get two french ICBMs on my head immediatelly, reducing my top two cities to a shadow of their former glory. nukes as they are now are not your first war option, but they certainly are a good strategic kaboom to tilt the war being waged on another side of the planet.

ok you left out a few important things

*how big is the map?
*who built The Manhatten Project?
*how many civs total are there in the game?

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by korn469
LaRusso

i'm studying economics and marketing in college



ok you left out a few important things

*how big is the map?
*who built The Manhatten Project?
*how many civs total are there in the game?

normal
french
5 still out of 8

[korn469]

LaRusso

one more question
how big were your two largest cities?

[LaRusso]

27 and 25

stacked with cool units ready to strike...and they evaporated, leaving me with a measly one crippled mechinfantry per city

[korn469]

well you are unlucky, because i have a save game where i lost three of eight or nine units after a nuke strike

but the french spent 2,000 shields to kill 25 of your population, a few units, and make the city location worth less

the french could have built 16 modern armor units for 1,920 shields and taken out one of the other AIs or attacked you with those units...killing way more than 25 of your population

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by korn469
well you are unlucky, because i have a save game where i lost three of eight or nine units after a nuke strike

but the french spent 2,000 shields to kill 25 of your population, a few units, and make the city location worth less

the french could have built 16 modern armor units for 1,920 shields and taken out one of the other AIs or attacked you with those units...killing way more than 25 of your population

okay
count in:
1cost of transporting those over water
2) likelihood of being sunk by my glorious navy
3) maintenance costs per turn of those 16 modern armor units
4) the possibility that i could muster some modern armor too in defense of my cities

[MisterMuppet]

You make some good points as always Korn, even if I have trouble following your arguement.

I agree with Earthling7, Nukes should be expensive, hard to build, require a gateway wonder, and be very destructive. However if they are used, all the other Cvis should gang up on you.
On the other hand, if you saw an AI Civ Nuke an opponent would you go to war against a civilisation that had a very powerful, unlimited range Nuke in the tube ready to fly.
MAD only works if both side have Nukes. I don't want to be held to ranson by a country that does have them if I am behind technologically.

[korn469]

LaRusso

for one thing they could have spent those shields to build a force to beat the iroquise who are on their continant

for the price of building those two ICBMs they could have built a glorious navy of their own, they could have built six battle ships, four modern armor, two mech infantry, and a transport

the maintenance cost of 16 modern armor units might not hurt them, hell they could be running communism for all i know, and still have 20 extra units under their cap

and you are mustering modern armor in your cities, not nuclear weapons, my point is that nuclear weapons will lose you a tight game, because they are less cost effective than conventional weapons and this just backs it up

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by korn469
LaRusso

for one thing they could have spent those shields to build a force to beat the iroquise who are on their continant

for the price of building those two ICBMs they could have built a glorious navy of their own, they could have built six battle ships, four modern armor, two mech infantry, and a transport

the maintenance cost of 16 modern armor units might not hurt them, hell they could be running communism for all i know, and still have 20 extra units under their cap

and you are mustering modern armor in your cities, not nuclear weapons, my point is that nuclear weapons will lose you a tight game, because they are less cost effective than conventional weapons and this just backs it up

korn, i will not nuke a continent i want to take over. i would use it against a distant ally who i want to hurt a lot in the endgame. they could not build tanks because they have no rubber. they can build nukes because they have uranium. go figure
anyway, i am saying that nukes ARE expensive but that making them cheap would turn the endgame into a desert.

[korn469]

LaRusso

you wouldn't happen to have an autosave of that game? possibly a before and after the nuke strike, so we could add up the losses

anyway, i am saying that nukes ARE expensive but that making them cheap would turn the endgame into a desert

just by making nukes cheaper, there is nothing that says the AI would be any more likely to use them, i'm not saying that nukes should be used very much, i am saying that nukes when they are used should be very powerful, and i truly believe in diplomatic penalties, M.A.D. and a not very trigger happy AI to keep nukes in balance

as it is now, nukes should not be in the game because they are so over priced as to be completely useless...i'm sure in the game that the nuclear strike happened that the french could have most likly traded for rubber, though it does kind of suck that every industrial and modern era ground unit except for the rifleman requires rubber...if you are unlucky enough to not get oil or rubber in your borders then you will probably lose, since the only unit you can build besides hopelessly out of date units like warriors, would be riflemen

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by LaRusso
making them cheap would turn the endgame into a desert.

They can be expensive, but they should be as powerful. as IRL.

[korn469]

think about it like this

four ICBMs and the manhatten project cost as much as building all of the space ship components, and four ICBMs would take your size 27 city down to size 2...that seems fairly expensive doesn't it?

[Trifna]

The main problem is that consequences are too low for someone using nukes. In real life, a country doing such would:

1- have lots of country against him and diplomatical consequences for a lonnnng time, plus embargos. Hope you're able to go without lot of trading...
2- other countries may make an exception to the "no atomic law" just for him, so he's one against many others to play that game
3- his own population wont like it alot... espescially knowing that it will have dramatic consequences for them. Expect revolts, maybe people not going to work for many reasons (less shields), a nice generalized psychosis with effect on morale and whattever else,etc.
4- intern consequences such as commerce that may go down, etc.

So, compared to Civ III, it's much much more. Doesn't seem impossible to put in to me tough...

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by korn469
think about it like this

four ICBMs and the manhatten project cost as much as building all of the space ship components, and four ICBMs would take your size 27 city down to size 2...that seems fairly expensive doesn't it?

i do not have autosave
IMHO, spaceship is really cheap

[Wrong_shui]

If america nuked afghanistan, ppl would ***** and moan but who would have the balls to do anything?.

So my point if your the only superpower in the game everyone sould suck up to you, even if u use nukes.

[Grumbold]

At the cost of getting excessively topical, recent events have shown exactly what sort of comeback you get with that sort of cavalier attitude. A terrorist network slaughter thousands of innocent civilians and the US still can't persuade the world that they are acting for the good of everyone in trying to hunt the perpetrators down. Suspicion and hatred is so deep seated it cannot be completely overcome (although the co-operation from some surprising places has been very welcome and reassuring). If they were so foolish as to use weapons of mass destruction we really would have a world war this time.

[korn469]

well the great library and the colossus put together cost the same as a single ICBM, gaining both of those wonders in a game could win the game for a player, whereas building a single ICBM and using it 99% of the won't win the game for the player...ICBMS cost at least 100 shields too many, or they should do at least 75% damage to a city

[redstar1]

If America nuked Afghanistan it would suddenly find itself without any freinds, removed swiftly from the UN security council if not the UN itself and would probably find itself in a perilous position with Russia and China. Not to mention India and Pakistan.

Dave

[MisterMuppet]

Grumbold, you have to bring reality into it.

Anyway shouldn't Kabul have defected to the Americans as they admire their culture. Must be a bug.

[redstar1]

Yeah. Not sure what the Taliban are worried about anyway. Its not as if the bombing is going to destroy any of their Units....

[HugoHillbilly]

Originally posted by korn469
Nuclear strategy will always either lose or make things unnecessarily hard on themselves.

duh

Nukes arent designed as common place weapons meant for actual use on the battle field. Its the threat of nuclear attack not actual nuclear attack that makes them effective.

Ok maybe they ruined the 'fun factor' of using a nuke, but at least your not wanting to go build one for each of your opponents cities then wipe them all out in 1 turn.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by redstar1
Yeah. Not sure what the Taliban are worried about anyway. Its not as if the bombing is going to destroy any of their Units....

sarcasm is miscplaced. i can bet you that the bombing destroyed none of their units.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by korn469
All of this is a direct result of the lack of a true implentation of M.A.D. in civ3

without fear of retribution because a working M.A.D. system wasn't implemented they decided that the first strike ability was too powerful...go back and read, i made this point long ago...then instead of following through with my line of logic (ie: implementing a working M.A.D. system) firaxis instead just powered down nukes without decreasing their cost, and now nukes are a complete waste of money...any object that a player can achieve with a nuke, they could achieve in a more efficient manner by using conventional (especially ground) units

Back to the topic, of course M.A.D. (and Main Nuclear Ally retaliation, i.e. USA or former USSR menacing to use Nuclear Weapon in case minor nuclear power as Israel or Pakistan abuse of their tactical nuke weapons) is the way to go.

It doesn't seem so complex to me: let the player to assign to every ICBM mission order, as with fighters air superiority (I know, assumed it's not bugged ).

You can set a retaliate order like:
1- if this city attacked from nation A, fire back to city xy
2- if nation attacked from nation A, fire back to city xy
3- if ally attacked from nation A, fire back to city xy

The difference from order 1 to order 2 is meant to let you diversificate your response.
An example: you have 5 ICBM in different cities of your Civ.
You set 3 ICMB to fire if host city attacked and 2 ICBM to fire if anyone of your city (nation) is attacked.
This way, if you suffer a limited attack you will surely automatically launch the 2 ICBM on "nation level", while the others will act only if directly involved.
On a massive attack, surely every your main city will be targetted, so everyone of your ICBM will launch back.

The problem is you can't manage 15 others possible civ easily with a "mouse right click menu": you need to activate a matrix of MAD targets, with as many column as Civs still available on the game (max 15) and as many rows as your available and alerted ICBM.
At every cell you can set a target city, according to rules above.

That if you want the freedom to set multiple Civ as potential target (more flexible for response, without the need for frequents order change - warning, only a target will be addressed at the missile launch, depending on attacking nation).

You can accept to limit every missile to a single nation menace, risking to have ICBM left unused if not targetted to the attacking enemy.

AFAIK that was a problem with real 80's ICBM too, because you needed some time to change the programmed target, so it can be an acceptable limit in game, assuming the cost of nuke fall so low to let you have many of them, enough for a superpower to match every main target with a dedicated nuke.

This solution let Firaxis with a simple solution for a pop up to set target mission (only one for missile).
AI can be programmed to chose target according to city power (pop., available wonder, culture produced, etc.).

Is this a model do you like, korn469?

Is it something can be added, at least at the CIV III Xpack, Firaxis?

[MrBlud]

Nukes are underpowered in Civ3. When I launch a ICBM I want the city down to at least 1 and the terrain changed to desert with pollution around a 2x2 square radius surrounding the former city, D@mn the consequences!

[Brutus66]

The idea of having the MAD deterrent involved in diplomacy sounds very interesting. It would be really neat to be able to assign a taget to a nuke upon completion of production, and maybe a little red button on the bottom of the screen to launch them all...
The MAD deterrent would become obsolete upon the completion of a missile shield.
I think it would be really exciting to recreate the cold war situation in the Modern age, but you would need to develop the espionage angle some more and introduce spy planes, sattelites, etc.
Alas, another cool idea we will never see...

[Aendolin]

Here's what I'd like to see:

1. reduced cost (but not too much..)

2. Metropolises lose half their population.
Cities lose 75% of their population.
Towns are obliterated.

3. All units in radius destroyed.

4. Drastic measures from the other civs.

5. And, of course, a MAD system.

[jgflg]

I think nukes work well as they are, but you need to use them right. The benefit that they provide over spending the resources elsewhere is that you can simultaneously take out massive amounts of resources in one swipe. Reducing a city population by half and polluting the two square radius around it means that that city won't be building much of anything anytime soon. Assuming you can nuke 10-15 major cities at once, you can pretty much grind weapons production to a halt for another civ. You can also use nukes to quickly take out resource squares that are located deep within an empire. You can't do any of that with tanks.

The strategy I generally follow is to wait until I have enough nukes accumulated to strike most major cities of my opponent, usually around 10-15. I then use espionage to uncover his military locations and plan my strikes accordingly. Even with a 50% survival chance, odds are pretty good that you should be able to chop his strength down substantially. If you take out resource squares as well, then your opponent will be easy pickings when your armor rolls in.

Once I start taking over nuked cities, I raze them and use the labor I capture to start cleaning up the pollution.