Nuking Opponents

Grrr · December 11, 2000, 23:34

Just a something, in Civ CTP you can freely nuke anyone (even your allies) without any harm to your reputation or your peace agreements, I don't know if this has been fixed in Civ CTP II, which has not yet been released in New Zealand, but hope that this is not the case in Civ III

Stuff2 · December 12, 2000, 07:10

I think that the manhattan project should have a additional effect: two nukes can be fired at an enemy without any diplomatic and social penalties. But after that any nuke ever used will be an atrocity and have huge social consequenses. Even if they are fired at an evil enemy your own people will go mad.

Grumbold · December 12, 2000, 07:35

I like the idea of a first-use rule that has unique diplomatic repercussions. After that point the penalties for using them should be severe but extreme government types are likely to be able to use them against their enemies without internal protest. More 'enlightened' forms of government would probably still be able to get away with limited military use of nukes if faced with multiple opponents or a stronger opponent. There would need to be seperate battlefield nukes and citybuster nukes if this idea was expanded upon.

rremus · December 12, 2000, 12:07

It would be pretty useless to have two 'free strikes' if is not sure that you actually have the weapons first! As it is now, one can build the Manhatan Project and any other civ that know Missiles can build the actual missiles first! I think this is very unfair and also unrealistic. The Project should also give you one or two Nukes, so it would really be worth building it. As a compensation, the price of the Project should be increased to 800 or even 1000 shields.
In the general ideea of CIV game, I think there should be an Advance like 'Nuclear awarnes' that will turn nuclear attack into attrocities. Worldwide. After one develops the Project, it has few turn available to use them almost free of consequences. Then there would be two options: other civs build Nukes, thus resulting a Mutualy Assured Distruction situation, or somebody researches 'Nuclear awarnes', thus making it very difficult for you to use Nukes to attack.
I think this is how actually happend during the '45-'55 decade, the the game could follow the same trend.

Tical_2000 · December 12, 2000, 16:50

quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 12-12-2000 06:10 AM
I think that the manhattan project should have a additional effect: two nukes can be fired at an enemy without any diplomatic and social penalties. But after that any nuke ever used will be an atrocity and have huge social consequenses. Even if they are fired at an evil enemy your own people will go mad.

Such penalties should only apply to the instigator of nuclear warfare. Retaliation strikes should be expected by the world therefore no diplomatic or domestic social penalties. After all, if Russia nuked the US, how sympathetic would Americans be to Russians? Americans would launch so many missiles at Russia that they would turn it into a parking lot overnight.

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 13, 2000, 15:56

I agree with this, but I will add some ideas on:

1. Nuclear warfare is defistating, to the nations that participate in it, and it has great, long lasting effects on the rest of the world. when you nuke your opponent, in real life, the rest of the world would be scared to death of you, depending on how many nukes you launched, and the ammount of damage you did. I mean, in civ2, When I get to build the mannhatten project, I buy like 20 nukes,(not litterally), and nuke my worst enemy, then send in tanks, infantry, etc to capture the cities.

2. when you nuke another city in civ2, it only distroys half the population, and none of the buildings! the damage, and death should be depending on the size of the city, and where the nuke landed in the city. for example, in civ3, it should be that if you nuke a city that has a pop of 1 million, all the citizens should be dead, and nearly (if not all) the buildings should be destroyed.

3. when you nuke another city, it looks just the same except for the polution. Umm, would that happen in real life?? no, I dont think so, the city should look like, well, a nuked city!

4. when you launch a nuke, your opponent should have a 2 turn warning, and the nuke should take at least 2 turns to travel to the city. this would be a good thing to add, especially if they implement radar in civ3.

rremus · December 14, 2000, 03:55

Mutually Assured Distruction is the key solution. I'm playing a CTP2 game for a week now, but I still did not get to the point when I have nukes to see how they implemented it... (I can play only one or two hours a day)

I'm really courious. If is a good implementation, then it must be seen in CIV3.

Grumbold · December 14, 2000, 11:50

In one of my pollution rants I mentioned my preferred option. Nuclear attack would certainly devastate the city but also permanently irradiate many surrounding squares. Like CtP burnt squares except they harm any entering unit and cannot be cleaned up with a bit of PW after a few turns. Longterm repeated use of engineers/PW should be needed to slowly reduce them from deadly down to merely unpleasant. The game should be over before they get cleaned up unless Civ3 follows the recent trend of allowing the game to go AD 2050+. You can nuke your worst enemy, but don't expect to want to occupy the ruins. Battlefield nukes would merely lightly irradiate (!) the target square. Neutron bombs, if introduced, would be like Civ2 nukes.

Deity Dude · December 14, 2000, 19:00

Nukes should have a very high cost and a very high maintenance cost per turn. THis would represent the enormous security that is ongoing with a nuclear missile. They should be way more devastating than they are. There should not be any warning, nukes take about 30 minutes to go around the world in real life, but you should be able, with radar, to program a response if your radar picks up a nuclear attack. Maybe when you build one you can designate an enemy location as an automatic response target. The point is in MAD you don't have time to negotiate, evacuate cities, etc. its all setup ahead of time. I like the nuclear awareness idea. Manhatten project should be a Tech not a wonder.

Grrr · December 16, 2000, 00:08

On the subject of Nukes, I think that if a sub with a nuke in it is attacked, the nuke should denonate if the sub is sunk. This also counts in an attacked city, if the nuke is used for defence. It should also detonate if destroyed.
Wouldn't this be more fun as well as more realistic!

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 16, 2000, 19:37

If your using nukes as defense units, then, your thinking in the wrong (no offence). Nukes are used for attack. But, I do get what your saying, and yes, I agree that if you attack a nuke, it should detonate.

Heres my say on nuclear attacks on cities. When you attack a city with a nuke, all units, population, and improvements should be completely destroyed. and just a ruined city looking thing on the map should replace the city. all squares within 3 tiles of the city that was nuked should be PERMANTELY BURNED. THen, 25% population in all cities within ten tiles of that city that was nuked should also be gone. then to replace polution, there would be nuclear waste and fallout 15 squares out from the city. The fallout would last 10 turns, and any unit entering the fallout would lose 25% health each turn hes in the 'fallout'. The nuclear waste would be there until engineers would clean it up(like polution in civ2), and it would reduce agriculture by 10% in all cities within that radius of ten tiles.
This may sound a bit harsh, and unrealistic, but it is realistic, yet, maybe not even enough realistic. Also, nukes should cost big big bucks to buy(in civ2, they cost 3200 gold, it civ3, I think its well to say they should cost a minimum of 8000).

Grrr · December 16, 2000, 20:15

I don't use nukes as defence, I am not that dumb! However the AI is.

quote:

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-16-2000 06:37 PM
If your using nukes as defense units, then, your thinking in the wrong (no offence). Nukes are used for attack. But, I do get what your saying, and yes, I agree that if you attack a nuke, it should detonate.

Heres my say on nuclear attacks on cities. When you attack a city with a nuke, all units, population, and improvements should be completely destroyed. and just a ruined city looking thing on the map should replace the city. all squares within 3 tiles of the city that was nuked should be PERMANTELY BURNED. THen, 25% population in all cities within ten tiles of that city that was nuked should also be gone. then to replace polution, there would be nuclear waste and fallout 15 squares out from the city. The fallout would last 10 turns, and any unit entering the fallout would lose 25% health each turn hes in the 'fallout'. The nuclear waste would be there until engineers would clean it up(like polution in civ2), and it would reduce agriculture by 10% in all cities within that radius of ten tiles.
This may sound a bit harsh, and unrealistic, but it is realistic, yet, maybe not even enough realistic. Also, nukes should cost big big bucks to buy(in civ2, they cost 3200 gold, it civ3, I think its well to say they should cost a minimum of 8000).

rremus · December 18, 2000, 03:43

quote:

Originally posted by Grrr on 12-15-2000 11:08 PM
It should also detonate if destroyed.
Wouldn't this be more fun as well as more realistic!

I don't think any defender will detonate the Nuke unit if the city is conquered... It will self-destroy it, but no question of detonating it! I can't imagine the Nukes officers saying to one another '-Sir, the enemy has entered our town! - Ok, well, let us turn our city to a pile of dust, I've been long waiting for this!'...