What exactly is wrong with Civ 3??

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Nemo
No MAD (Mutual Assured Distruction) ...easily implimented by making it take 2 turns for ICBMs to hit target (one to launch and alert the recieving nation, and have opportunity to launch counter attack, the second turn for impact)

You're misunderstanding MAD. With land-based missiles there is a real possibility of not having time to counterattack. This led to the situation where the first strike could wipe out the opponents missiles. Indeed, it could be disastrous not to strike first, because you may not be able to retailiate. This created a chaotic situation with a real chance of an accidental war. (No chance to respond means no extra turn between launch and impact.)

The solution was to put nukes on subs, where they are virtually invulnerable. Then you would have as much time as required to analyze and respond to the situation. There was no longer an advantage to a first strike, as you knew you would be destroyed in the retaliatory strike -- MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction

The same problems and solutions apply to Civ3.

[Nemo]

that''s why i said "ICBM's" and NOT tactical nukes. second of all it takes hours for an ICBM to hit its target..it leaves the atmosphere and re-enters. upon launce our satalites pick it up and relay to command centers which have a reaction time, but still can get our nukes in the air before the incoming hit (hence the entire point of the cold war)

the first wave of attacks was to hit as many missle silos and military installations as possible. there are 1st wave and 2nd wave silos. 1st wave is for military installaitons targets, 2nd wave for densly populated cities. not all nukes were supposed to be launced in teh first wave

nukes were put on subs not becuse of a timed reaction fear, but because both the US and USSR both knew most of teh each others silo locations. so we put them on subs to constantly move the locations, as to not be knocked out during the 1st strike, in which case the other would not easlily know the locations of our retaliation or 2nd strike "silos" (i.e. subs)

I believe there was a line in one of my books on this...something like "the first to launch is the second to die" ...a summary of MAD

in order to impliment the properly in civ3, ICBMs should be able to 'raze' a city on impact, with a 2 square radius pollution, whereas tactical nukes should have their current effect, or slightly more depending on one's preferences. this should be adjustable in the editor, as well, for those with differences of oppinions as to the strength of each type of nuclear attack.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Nemo
the first wave of attacks was to hit as many missle silos and military installations as possible. there are 1st wave and 2nd wave silos. 1st wave is for military installaitons targets, 2nd wave for densly populated cities. not all nukes were supposed to be launced in teh first wave

If one nation has missiles that can knock out the other nation's missiles, then there is no assured destruction.

ICBMs only take a few minutes to travel from Russia to the U.S., hardly time to verify the relevant information and reach a decision before initial impact; therefore the survivability of the missiles was paramount. Originally, they were put in hardened bunkers. This worked and MAD worked. Once missiles became accurate enough to knock out hardened missile silos, then other solutions were required in order to maintain MAD. Solutions included mobile ICBMs, bombers always on the alert, subs, etc.

In other words, you don't need an extra turn to simulate MAD. If the missiles are vulnerable to a first strike, then you don't have MAD. Put them on subs to protect your retaliatory capability. Then you can nuke 'em at your leisure.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Zachriel


If one nation has missiles that can knock out the other nation's missiles, then there is no assured destruction.

Well by the time they reach the silos of the 1st strike missiles, those missles would be already in the air...therefore it is assured.

ICBMs only take a few minutes to travel from Russia to the U.S., hardly time to verify the relevant information and reach a decision before initial impact; therefore the survivability of the missiles was paramount.

a low orbit ICBM has a flight time of 1/2 hour (sorry, thought it was 1 1/2 hours), which is more then enough time to launch a counter nuclear strike. therefore our retalitory missles would be in the air before the incoming ICBMs would hit their launch pads...there again--mutually assured.

Put them on subs to protect your retaliatory capability.

you mean an SLBM? in civ3 this is called a "tactical nuke" which is (once again) not what i am refering to.

[nationalist]

I hate the new WOTW. Take out Statue of Liberty and Eiffel Tower, put in fake medical advances late in the modern age where no civ wants to make them. Replace pictures of the wonders with drawings. Take out some of the immersion. I like the leaders, though.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Nemo
a low orbit ICBM has a flight time of 1/2 hour (sorry, thought it was 1 1/2 hours), which is more then enough time to launch a counter nuclear strike. therefore our retalitory missles would be in the air before the incoming ICBMs would hit their launch pads...there again--mutually assured.

Total flight time 90 minutes; however it takes several minutes to detect a launch, a few more to find and inform the president, who will certainly want some sort of confirmation before starting WWIII. What if the information is mistaken? Use them or lose them is the problem with standard, land-based missiles. Planners wanted more "assurance."

If you were correct in your reasoning, there would be no need for hardened silos, or mobile-icbms, or bombers always in the air, or sub-launched nukes.

BRITANNICA
Initially, long-range bombers had to be kept on continual alert to prevent them from being eliminated in a surprise attack. When ICBMs moved into full production in the early 1960s with such systems as the U.S. Titan and Minuteman I and the Soviet SS-7 and SS-8, they were placed in hardened underground silos, so that an unlikely direct hit would be required to destroy them. Even less vulnerable were submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) such as the U.S. Polaris and the Soviet SS-N-5 and SS-N-6, which could take full advantage of the ocean expanses to hide from enemy attack.

[Zachriel]

MORE BRITANNICA
A devastating surprise attack was considered possible because, with improved guidance systems, nuclear weapons were becoming more precise. Therefore, it was not inevitable that they would be used solely in “counter-value” strikes against easily targeted political and economic centres; instead it was just as likely that they would be used in “counterforce” strikes against military targets. A successful counterforce attack that rendered retaliation impossible—known as a “first strike”—would be strategically decisive. If, however, the attacked nation possessed sufficient forces to survive an attempted first strike with retaliatory weapons intact, then it would have what became known as a second-strike capability.

[Austin]

Originally posted by Nemo
No MAD (Mutual Assured Distruction) ...easily implimented by making it take 2 turns for ICBMs to hit target (one to launch and alert the recieving nation, and have opportunity to launch counter attack, the second turn for impact)

Depending upon what stage of the game you are at, this COULD result in ICBM's that take 50 years to hit targets but I know what you mean.

Either that, or when missiles are launched you get a pop up window and the ability to launch your own missiles. I'm not sure which would be harder to do code wise, but you SHOULD be able to have some response.

Any Civ with radar or satellites or any sort of SDI system would be able to detect and track a launch and then respond before they get hit themselves.

Can't put a cruise missile on ships! wtf is the point of it then? take it out of the game or make it to be used correctly!

I agree. Battleships should also be able to carry cruise missiles. And subs.

Can't put Helicopters on carriers. It makes more sense to put a Helo on a carrier then a freaking huge B-52 bomber that would never make the runway even with a catapult system!

For most nations other than the USA Helicopters ARE their carrier fleet!

Austin

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Total flight time 90 minutes

I forgot what the total flight time was so I looked it up on the military airforce URL, it is 30 minutes at >1000ft/sec. According to the US military, its 30 minutes. However, this is a figure for modern ICBMs; older ICBMs obviously took longer due to technological shortcomings.

If you were correct in your reasoning, there would be no need for hardened silos, or mobile-icbms, or bombers always in the air, or sub-launched nukes.

BRITANNICA . . .

First off it is not just MY reasoning, it is the reasoning of both PhD profs that taught the two semesters of classes I had on "international warfare in the modern age" and "the cold war crisis" at Rutgers University. This includes the reasoning of the authors of the books I have read for the classes as well. Reading the "Britannica" and understanding the Britannica are two different things.

Note that the Britannica does not say a "surprise ICBM attack" there is a reason for this.

Ok, I am done with this nonsense for now; please go read some books, not just segments of an encyclopedia

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Nemo
I forgot what the total flight time was so I looked it up on the military airforce URL, it is 30 minutes at >1000ft/sec. According to the US military, its 30 minutes. However, this is a figure for modern ICBMs; older ICBMs obviously took longer due to technological shortcomings.

Please be fair. The 90 minutes was your figure, not mine, and was modified from your original assertion of "hours." I knew it was less but it didn't change the argument, so I didn't argue the point.

Your original suggestion was that there should be an extra turn to account for the exchange of missiles. IMHO, this is not necessary and would add nothing to the game in terms of realism or game play

[Zachriel]

BRITANNICA
In a celebrated RAND study of the mid-1950s, a team led by Albert Wohlstetter demonstrated that the air bases of the Strategic Air Command could be vulnerable to a surprise attack, after which retaliation would be impossible, thereby exposing the United States and its allies to Soviet blackmail.

The Delicate Balance of Terror by Albert Wohlstetter 1958:
http://www.rand.org/publications/cla...472/P1472.html


Now I have a possible Civ3 solution!

The game pops up and tells you there is a certain percentage chance that the AI has launched an all out nuclear attack, say 30%. Then a 5-second countdown starts. If you want to launch a counterattack, then you must do so within 5-seconds, or sustain the attack and wait for your own turn to retaliate. If you launch on warning, then the game tells you that it was just a piece of space debris, or a computer glitch. Nevertheless, the AI retaliates.



To be fair, the AI must sometimes be provided inaccurate information allowing it to miscalculate and mistakenly launch a nuclear attack, too.

[PatLasch]

I like that idea, Reminds me of all the stories about near launches during the 70's and 80's.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

based on numerous ICBM attacks, military units seem to survive. Therefore, isnt it reasonable to assume that if you were attacked, your ICBMs would survive allowing you to counterattack. i once hit a city with 4 ICBMs. When my troops moved in that same turn, 2 mech inf had survived altho damaged.

[PatLasch]

ICBM's do survive an attack. Always have for me anyways.

[Zachriel]

---

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by PatLasch
ICBM's do survive an attack. Always have for me anyways.

They do for me too. So the ICBMs must be the earlier, less accurate, versions; city-busters, not silo-busters. So the retaliatory force is intact. MAD RULES!

[pat01]

as a big civ2 fan (hundreds of hours and still played it till few months ago from time to time) i find Civ3 a big disappointment.

It's not that the game it's not good (well at times its really frustrating) but I expected a lot more.

And one thing that really disappointed me is the whole 'feel' of the game... in civ 2 the emphasis on wonders and discoveries was really big, with really really cool multimedia files, sound effects (I really liked to hear the crowd screaming and clapping) and a true great feeling thorughout the game...
The structure of civ3 seems 'back to the game' with the cut of all unnecessary things.

I dont like this...to me it was slightly more than a strategy game