Nuclear Warfare

[polymths]

Well a couple of minor points first:
To reiterate what has already been said in various lists, nuclear missles (and cruise missiles for that matter) should attack like paratroopers rather than like fighters/bombers. You just point and if its within range, it just attacks the target. It's rather stupid that people can use these things as recon aircraft! When transporting nukes, nukes should be modelled as any land unit that needs to be loaded into ships and has limited mobility.

Now to my major point:
I would definitely prefer that nuclear warfare be modelled more like in our history instead of as simply tactical superweapons of Civ1/Civ2.

I would like there to be a need to build lots of nukes and have to station all sorts of ICBM subs. But I all these should be for deterrant effect to simulate some sort of Cold War style nuclear standoff. Some sort of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept is needed. Any use of nukes should trigger some massive world reaction and even perhaps a nuclear holocaust! This concept should not be that hard to implement IMHO. Of course the SDI defense needs to either go or be extremely late in the game for this to work.

Of course, it would be good that nuclear weapons would also be used to a VERY limited extent (a la WWII) by the first person building Manhatten Project so whoever builds it has a limited monopoly for a short time.

But I definitely hope that nuclear warfare is treated with more depth and realism than in Civ1/Civ2.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

For the first time a civ uses a nuke, they should have some sort of movie or animation, kinda like what they have for wonders. i can just see it. You see yourself pick up the phone, call the Nuke silo. "Launch Nuclear Wepones." Nuclear technicians say "Authenticate Alpha-Zulu" You "Bravo- Delta" (or something like that) Technicians "Authenticated. Launch in five four ..." at this point, the camerca switches to the silo, where u see the nuke being launced. The view changes to that of a passing satellite.Then, you go to the view of the other civ. Theres a bunch of people around a radar and thy see your nuke painted on it. "Bogey inbound. Possible Nuke." A few seconds later, the techy's say "Nuke identified. Bearing 235. Distance 356 miles. ETA 10 minutes. Sound the alarm" You go to the city view whre theres people calmy walking around. Suddenly, the air raid alarm goes off. "This is not a drill" says a loud speaker. (no pun intended) Everyone gets frantic and starts screaming and running all over the place. You switch back to the radar room. The blip is getting closer and closer and the techy is reading out the distance and time to impact. You turn to the view of a camera riding on the back of the ICBM. It is traveling high, almost in space, suddenly it starts its terminal dive towards the earth. The city gets bigger and bigger on the screen. You see the radar post, and the people milling about in the streets. The nuke come closer and closer and then impacts on the ground. The screen turns white for a couple of seconds, then you see the town from a distance along ground level. A huge mushrooms is coming out. All of the plants and stuff around the camera is blown down and destroyed by the Nuke.

Anyhow, thats jsut an idea. Feel free to rip it apart.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[ancient]

those are all good ideas.. it should be a big deal to nuke a citie it should maybe even make a ally cancel his alliance in disgust..

[Lung]

The big problem is that, being just a game, players have no reason NOT to start a nuclear war. Any player who is certain to lose can just start a nuclear war and stop anyone from winning. Nukes need to have their effect limited in some way. Perhaps an "active defence" type situation where, instead of fighters scrambling to defend against bombers, ICBM's are automatically set to respond to pre-determined targets.

This said, nukes should be available in two stages;-

a) As bombs which need to be transported by bombers, and
b) As ICBM's upon the discovery of rocketry or similar.

Only ICBM's can be set to automatic reponse. Bombers would have to be deployed the following turn.

This should also be reflected in diplomacy, so you can state to your rivals that you now have ICBM's set to automatically respond. This should assure that nukes aren't used without serious consideration.

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by Lung on 05-14-2001 09:01 PM The big problem is that, being just a game, players have no reason NOT to start a nuclear war. Any player who is certain to lose can just start a nuclear war and stop anyone from winning. Nukes need to have their effect limited in some way. Perhaps an "active defence" type situation where, instead of fighters scrambling to defend against bombers, ICBM's are automatically set to respond to pre-determined targets. This said, nukes should be available in two stages;- a) As bombs which need to be transported by bombers, and b) As ICBM's upon the discovery of rocketry or similar. Only ICBM's can be set to automatic reponse. Bombers would have to be deployed the following turn. This should also be reflected in diplomacy, so you can state to your rivals that you now have ICBM's set to automatically respond. This should assure that nukes aren't used without serious consideration.

The number of turns that will pass between "bomber carried nuke bombs" and ICBMs will be so small that this two stage approach won't be meaningful.

As for starting a nuclear war (just for the hell of it), it might be a problem in multiplayer but it'll just have to be a gentlemen's agreement for that.

For single player its obviously not a problem. (I mean you'll get tired of seeing the same nuclear holocaust happening over and over again. Might be cool only the first time.)

[Captain]

I think you've all got some valid criticism of the way nukes are implemented in civ 2. You're all totally on the ball with the MAD idea and auto-responses. No one sane these days would consider tossing nukes around the way they are in Civ 2 as is. and you're right in that SDI must go for MAD to work.

since we're talking realism, I definitely want to kill the idea of SDI. This was a concept bandied about by politicians with no real concept ofthe engineering limitations, and defence contractors who are either despicably evil and greedy or just plain ass-stupid. I'm sorry but even a few simple countermeasures could defeat any missle shield/SDI system currently in place to shoot down or disable nukes. I won't go into details unless asked.

the nuke movie sounds like a wonder movie, cool but I'd stop watching after the 3rd time or so.

also, even though disease isn't going to featured as much as I'd like, there should be something to reflect how devasting a nuke is in the long run as well. in civ 2 I had a pack of engineers that would go in and clean up all the pollution within one turn! with WLTxD, I get the pop back superfast. in reality, the radiation makes the place a wasteland for a long time (the moderate radioactive Strontium has a half life of something like
29 years or so). besides death, sterility and cancer are also major effects as well as the 'salting' effect on the ground from fallout.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Thats why it would only be implemented on the first nuke of the game.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I feel that the best solution might be to have the first nuclear weapon you develop after the Manhattan Project be a very short range Tactical nuke, only 1-3 MP's (that you can only launch from bombers and subs). Then every couple of turns the range of the Tac-Nuke increases by about 1-until you get to it's maximum range. You should only get ICBM's when you get rocketry.
Anyway, just my two cents worth.

The_Aussie_Lurker