Nuclear suggestions for civ4

pollyworth · July 15, 2003, 01:09

Nuclear suggestions for CIV 4.

If your country already has nukes and you dont want certain other countries to possess them, you should be able to pressure them into NOT acquiring that technology.

Also, in the real world, nukes are not easy to obtain for three reasons 1.technology 2.recources 3.production. While civ 3 covers all these bases, I would like it to be much more complicated to obtain these weapons, much more difficult.

And once you get them, you should be able to sell them to whomever you want. A spy planted in a country will be able to tell you if that country is planning to create or sell nuclear weapons. The spy will also be able to tell you how many nuclear weapons a country has and if they are tactical or ICBMs.

johncmcleod · July 15, 2003, 01:37

Yeah good idea but this is civ, not real life. The system they have now is simple and is fine. The idea might just complicate the game too much. The game is already really complicated.

johncmcleod · July 15, 2003, 01:41

Also keep in mind that in civ there are way less civilizations than there are in real life, so that means the average civ has a much greater percentage possesion of land of the earth, meaning a civ3 civ is bigger. The bigger/more influential civs in real life are the ones that get nukes, so the civs in civ3 have a much better chance of getting nukes than your average country today.

That's why you don't need the new system.

pollyworth · July 15, 2003, 05:36

The decision to use nukes should be a BIG ONE. And they should have a much more devistating effect... like rendering land usless and uninhabitable for a thousand years. (yeah, I know, there's people living in hiroshima and nagasaki now, but the bombs they dropped back then pale in compairison to an ICBM of today.

Therefore, the countries that dont already have them should be pressured not to build them by the countries that do (that is, if nuclear war hasn't already broken out!)

Nym · July 15, 2003, 08:30

Quote:

Originally posted by pollyworth
The spy will also be able to tell you how many nuclear weapons a country has and if they are tactical or ICBMs.

Already possible.

vmxa1 · July 15, 2003, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by pollyworth
The decision to use nukes should be a BIG ONE. And they should have a much more devistating effect... like rendering land usless and uninhabitable for a thousand years. (yeah, I know, there's people living in hiroshima and nagasaki now, but the bombs they dropped back then pale in compairison to an ICBM of today.

Therefore, the countries that dont already have them should be pressured not to build them by the countries that do (that is, if nuclear war hasn't already broken out!)

True but the properties of radiation has not changed.
That aside, I always wanted to make Nukes much harder to aquire and the backlash of their use much greater.
In fact I had hope the Manahantten Project would not be a great wonder and not enable nukes for all, only for the ones that build it. It should be a super wonder, much more epxensive to make and maintain.
More than 50 years after the Manhatten Project, how many nations have nukesas a percent of the world?

TheArsenal · July 15, 2003, 12:46

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Yeah good idea but this is civ, not real life. The system they have now is simple and is fine. The idea might just complicate the game too much. The game is already really complicated.

Shouldn't be that complicated. I'm not sure if it is CTP2 Vanilla, or one of the mods, but there is the diplomatic option to demand that a civ "stop researching that technology" under the threat of war, IIRC. It's a very cool option, and IMO, reflects the real world pressure countries place on those trying to obtain various WMD technologies.

vmxa1 · July 15, 2003, 21:13

This brings up an option I have longed for many times. To be able to demand that they not make an alliance. The same for the research, would be useful.

Shogun Gunner · July 15, 2003, 21:50

Once again, folks clamor for improved diplomacy options!

I agree that nuclear war should be more costly in terms of shields and political cost. I like the idea of Manhattan being a major wonder that each civ would need to research....makes the threshold a little higher. It seems that ai civs use nukes as easily as they do jets or tanks...its just another military option.

Has anyone seen a situation where the ai civ had nukes but did not use them in a war?

johncmcleod · July 15, 2003, 22:15

Quote:

Has anyone seen a situation where the ai civ had nukes but did not use them in a war?

Yes.

I agree, nukes aren't nearly powerful enough and they're used way too often. If a city got nuked by an ICBM the area would be uninhabitable for a very long time.

Mad Bomber · July 15, 2003, 22:19

I typically find that the AI will refrain from using nukes until I take a few of their cities that have ICBMS, after they lose a few of them they start flinging them around like a mad banshee.

Then they get nuked.

vmxa1 · July 15, 2003, 22:27

I do not have all that many games that the AI gets nukes, but when they do, if I have a bunch they are a bit slower to use them. They will use them though.

TheArsenal · July 15, 2003, 23:15

I’ve only had the AI initiate nukes against me once. I was fighting an MPP inspired war with India as an ally against the Iroquois and we were systematically taking every Iroquois city. Once the AI launched, its choice of cities seemed near random – one that I had recently taken from it, still full of its citizen, and highly unproductive. India in turned launched and – IIRC, this game was some months ago – they went back and forth for a turn or two and the Iroquois left me out of the subsequent fire storm.

I have fought destructive wars (for them) against AIs which have had nukes, but no other AI has used them on me.

johncmcleod · July 15, 2003, 23:40

I've heard from everyone that the AI uses its nukes poorly, but from my experience the AI seems ok at using them. But then again, I don't fight many nuclear wars. There is nothing worse in civ3 than seeing your favorite city, especially when it has a high pop and is very productive, get flattened.

GePap · July 15, 2003, 23:47

I think a few simple acts would make nukes far more realistic.

One: Cities under 4 should disappear when nuked. Cities should suffer 75% causlties when nuked. If you whish to offset the pop loss, a number of "refugees" could be formed (in the form of a settler or more).

Two: introduce a new type of pollution, "fallout", that appears only with respect to nukes or nucelar meltdowns. Make it 500% more time consuming than normal pollution to clean up.

Three: all major buildings in a city should be destroyed by a nuke. A simple way to measure this would be to automatically take out anything that needs more than 2 gold for upkeep. This means cities that are nuked can not be brought back to worthiwhile production very quickly, as it is possible now.

Perhaps a difference in power should be introduced: tactical nueks should be weaker than ICBM's in their effects.

GePap · July 15, 2003, 23:48

Also, fallout should not contribute to Global warming. If one whishes to introduce a "nuclear winter effect" once enough fallout is out there, it would be interesting.

pollyworth · July 16, 2003, 00:15

If a nuclear war breaks out between two countries, I think it should have a devestating effect on the entire world, not just pollution-wise. I think a nuclear war should spiral all countries into recession, making it a very non-feasible option by all--a very last choice by all (except terrorist supporting countries who--if they can get their hands on one--can use it with little ill effect on their own country... one of the benefits of using terrorism.)

johncmcleod · July 16, 2003, 01:29

I really like GePap's ideas. I was going to mention the one about cities under a certain size being wiped out by nukes, but I decided not to because at first I thought any city should be razed by a nuke. I mean, if New York got nuked I think no one would live there anymore. They'd all die or the people at the outer edges of the city who didn't suffer immediate damage from radiation would move out of the city. Radiation would cover the whole city, and radiation greatly multiplies the chance of getting cancer. So I don't think anyone would live there. But now I think the best way to do it is all buildings with an upkeep above 2 gpt (what Gepap said) should be destroyed, no food or commerce within the city radius can be produced, all towns 6 and under should be razed, and the population should be lowered to one. I decided on the last because a large city getting nuked would still be there, even if hardly anyone was there.

And how about if one civs fires off any nukes, all civs will nuke that civ immediately unless they have a military alliance with the civ that fired the nuke against the civ that got hit by it.

Shogun Gunner · July 16, 2003, 05:08

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Two: introduce a new type of pollution, "fallout", that appears only with respect to nukes or nucelar meltdowns. Make it 500% more time consuming than normal pollution to clean up.

Very interesting. I've always hated that "fallout" counted against global warming. I guess I always thought of that as "different" pollution.

Good idea.