Someone said the actual strength of the individual states' miltary should be represented in a realistic way. I think so, too. How are we going to simulate this? How can we make sure that some countries have better military training than others? XP bonuses through buildings? Or Great Generals as specialists in the cities?

Another important subject are the nuclear arsenals. The starting amount of nuclear weapons should be as ridiculous as it is in reality and should truly resemble the possibility for mankind to destroy the world several times.
This means:
Pakistan: 1 ICBM / India: 1 ICBM / Noth Korea: 1 ICBM / Israel: 4 ICBMs / France: 5 ICBMs / UK: 5 ICBMs / China: 8 ICBMs /USA: 100 ICBMs / Russia: 148 ICBMs
(Source of the armament relations: NTI; "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", FAS; Natural Resources Defense Council; Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science; CEIP)

I think a building would be the best way to go. And the nukes should definitely be like that.

Someone said the actual strength of the individual states' miltary should be represented in a realistic way. I think so, too. How are we going to simulate this? How can we make sure that some countries have better military training than others? XP bonuses through buildings? Or Great Generals as specialists in the cities?

Another important subject are the nuclear arsenals. The starting amount of nuclear weapons should be as ridiculous as it is in reality and should truly resemble the possibility for mankind to destroy the world several times.
This means:
Pakistan: 1 ICBM / India: 1 ICBM / Noth Korea: 1 ICBM / Israel: 4 ICBMs / EU: 5 ICBMs / NATO: 5 ICBMs / China: 8 ICBMs /USA: 100 ICBMs / Russia: 148 ICBMs
(Source of the armament relations: NTI; "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", FAS; Natural Resources Defense Council; Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science; CEIP)


Hi ,

hmmm , those numbers need to be redone , .... maybe a special mod for lower nuke type weapon ?

have a nice day

Yes, Dabur is right, those nukes Pakistani or India have at their disposal just couldn't be compared with Russian or USA nukes in terms of power or speed.

I think that different nukes should have different evasion probability, low-technology nuke shoud be destroyed in most cases while multi-charge warhead nukes with the ability to maneuver should evade SDI rather easily.

Agreed. And I guess the range should be lower. Something like the tactical nukes in Civ3.

morning ,


well anyone remember a WWII scen in civ III inwhere we had small atom bombs that had to be loaded on bombers or jetfighters , then short range nuclear cruise mis and last but not least the almighty ICBM ??


hmmm okay what about nations like south africa , they can have the parts , BUT it takes three months or so to put them together again to use , should those civs be given all the tech but no bombs ?

brazil and japan are widely believed to have each at least one now and at least 4-5 within a short time span , how about this ?


pssst , as far as Israel , increase that number , ..... ;)

Have a safe day :)

Brazil and Japan are not bel;ieved to have nukes by anyone

Brazil and Japan are not bel;ieved to have nukes by anyone

hi ,


both have the pieces , Japan could do it within three months , since they have massive amounts of pluto and ura with the hardware for a trigger its not that hard for them , they have tested triggers especially for nuclear bombs in the last few years , ..... just as a technology knowledge they have claimed

Brazil is believed to have one possibly two bombs in pieces , to be assembled within weeks , they can make a few more in the one year timeframe

Have a nice day :)

Yeah but they dont have them now. Many countries could do it, it dosent mean they have them

Yeah but they dont have them now. Many countries could do it, it dosent mean they have them

Hi ,

the military in brazil was believed to have the triggers and the other parts , only one thing was missing , the high super grade explosives , Japan , has tested the detonators and the timers , and they have a giant stock of material to produce , they have the most breeding reactors anywhere in the world :eek: so given that they have done together with the germans inthe 20's and 30's so much research not to mention that with all the changes in the Japanese weapons program in the last years they will have least have all the componets , on one congress in 98 it was asked in an interview how long it would take , the speaker said ; " a few months to a year to assemble all the parts " and that is scary :nuke:

with north korea next door , intresting enough there did the Japanese nuclear weapons program start , the first cyclo tron and such the Japanese gov has with increase said they can strike back , .... if needed , .... regarding nuclear weapons , ...

Have a nice day :nuke:

How about instead of giving Russia and the US 100 ICBMs their special buildings let them build them 25%-50% faster? Also if you use nuclear weapons there is a 50% chance that some other nations will declare war against you.

Dabur, do you have sources for that? As far as I know neither Japan nor Brazil or Argentina or South Africa do actually have nuclear weapons although each of those states did have a development programme at some time.
I'd suggest that these belong to the states that have researched the tech "Fission" but do not have any ICBMs at game start. But they could immediately start building them...

How about instead of giving Russia and the US 100 ICBMs their special buildings let them build them 25%-50% faster? Also if you use nuclear weapons there is a 50% chance that some other nations will declare war against you.

How about having this additionally to the >100 ICBMs at game start? I would love that! And it wouldn't be unrealistic, since US and Russia both have the most experience in building nuclear weapons so it would only be logic if they could build them faster than anyone else...

That would make them unstoppable (although I would like Russia to be unstoppable). How about like in real life, if you use nuclear weapons, there is a chance that some other countries would declare war on you. Plus some unhappiness in your cities.

or

When you are UN secretary, you can start a resolution asking if you can use nuclear weapons on that civ.

Both good ideas that should be implemented. But, let's be honest, we know this from the Cold War era. When Russia or USA seriously start to go to war with all their nuclear capacity then nobody actually could stop them; not even them each other...with devastating consequences for the whole world.

Dabur, do you have sources for that? As far as I know neither Japan nor Brazil or Argentina or South Africa do actually have nuclear weapons although each of those states did have a development programme at some time.
I'd suggest that these belong to the states that have researched the tech "Fission" but do not have any ICBMs at game start. But they could immediately start building them...



How about having this additionally to the >100 ICBMs at game start? I would love that! And it wouldn't be unrealistic, since US and Russia both have the most experience in building nuclear weapons so it would only be logic if they could build them faster than anyone else...

do a search , ....

south africa has only dismantled its six nuclear weapons , the components are still stored , ... :nuke:

Ok, we give all of the civs their own correct amount of nuclear weapons. If you want to use nuclear weapons against a civ, you have to pass a resolution in the UN for it. If you use them without a resolution, some other civs declare war on you and you get some unhappiness. Can anyone implement them because I'm afraid that I can't?

Here are some military statistics that I found for South America. They are not complete.

Argentina- 41,000, Army 350 tanks, 820 artillery.|||60 ships+ 2 subs, 1 destroyer, 3 transports, |||13,000 air force 315 planes

Brazil- 1,402,000 army 345 tanks, SAM 60, 550 howitzers||| 78 ships+ 1 aircraft carrier, 5 subs, 11 frigates. |||Air force- 70,000 personnel. 700 planes.

Colombia- 280,000 Army. 12 tanks. 135 reconnaissance vehicles. ||| 35,000 marines. 70 ships. 4 subs. |||air force, 7,000. 80 air craft. Including 23 helicopters.

Venezuela- 182,000. 250 tanks. 200 artillery. |||Navy: 18,000. 6 frigates. 2 subs. |||250 aircraft including 31 helicopters.

Since we are not going to find out every military unit of every country that we need, I suggest that every 1 strength= 500 units (army, marines, pilots)
So a unit with 24 strength in the game= 12,000

Realism is a vital aspect but the actual gameplay needs to be kept in mind too, actual representations of how much many nukes the world powers have compared to other nations would just be unfair, unlike in real life the repurcussions to using nukes can't be as severe since it's just a video game and there would be no reason not to just annihilate all of your enemies. Also, if you were to go to war with one of those nations when they're played as the AI, you'd basically be dead in the next turn, which doesn't open up many possibilities. The real world doesn't fit exactly into Civ mechanics and if you tried to reproduce it exactly it just wouldn't be as fun.

I like the idea of more severe diplomatic penalties and the world powers being able to produce nukes faster, that'd be a little more fair and still make the nuclear power of them more formidable.

Also, if you were to go to war with one of those nations when they're played as the AI, you'd basically be dead in the next turn, which doesn't open up many possibilities. The real world doesn't fit exactly into Civ mechanics and if you tried to reproduce it exactly it just wouldn't be as fun.


Well, but this is exactly the reason why no state did go to war with US or Russia/USSR in the last 50 years. If you were a serious threat for them and tried to actually conquer the US in fact you are dead the next turn. So this actually fits into Civ mechanics.
What we need is a mechanism that nuclear bombs are only used against serious threat and not against weak opponents like Iraq or Chechnya. What about this:
A 95% probability of all the world declaring war if you use nuclear weapons in a war of aggression. A 25% probability, if you use it when you were attacked.

How about there is a UN resolution that if gets passed, nuclear weapons can be used against a certain civ for a certain amount of turns.

Great idea! That way you could avoid the 95%/25% probability...

but if we would have a EU country it wouldn't have fit in cause some countries in europe won't accept nukes like sweden (we have never been having nukes) and what about some other countrie would move in nukes to sweden (scandinavia?)?

how do youu mod stuff?

I've mentioned this in Diplomacy thread, but this one is propably better.

I had an idea that experiences of units might adopt the same system as Espionage, that Barracks and such would generate XPs and later on you might use them to quick specialize your army without quite annoying micromanagment. From realistic point of view it's more like XPs are trained officers getting new unit. There surely would be limits how far you can promote one units with there XPs, but anyway.
And, more importandly, XPs might be another tradeable item (propably with Espionage points). You could supply your allies with them, like you're sending them your military advisors.
I think this more like illustrate modern world military budgets; you won't waste even 10% during peacetime, therefore your army is unexperienced and without hi-tech stuff. But when you got to war, you can quickly train officers and equipt your army with better weapons and such. In any way, this leaves (annoying) micromanagment of upgrades of your army.
Any specific number might be given after careful thinking and after careful testing.

It's somewhat similar to Call to Power system, but I see this XPs raizing system as more propper and more fitting into Civ4 system. What do you think?

Nuclear Arsenals could be implemented as Improvements. A Launch Silo Improvement could be like a fort, but would host only missiles (say, 10?). THus, Launch Silos could be scattered across realistically. Also, make the Launch Silo a building. Thus, in small areas like Israel, the Launch Silo wouldn't take up valuable tile space but instead would be part of a city.

Excellent idea!

If you fire more than 8-9 nukes without a resolusion you should get this message

"Your use of unprovoked nuclear arms has the world on the verge of a nuclear war"

If you fire some more you should get

"You have caused a Great Nuclear War. Most humans are dead and the world in un-inhabitable. Nobody Wins"

If you fire more than 8-9 nukes without a resolusion you should get this message

"Your use of unprovoked nuclear arms has the world on the verge of a nuclear war"

If you fire some more you should get

"You have caused a Great Nuclear War. Most humans are dead and the world in un-inhabitable. Nobody Wins"

Sorry but that's pretty lame. There shouldn't be any provoked indirect end of game (Game ends even though you're empire's still standing). However, launching nukes could cause desert to form near cities causing them to loose food and if there isn't any food tiles near a city the city could be lost, once pop. turns to 0, and turn into a town improvement therefor, after all your cities starve, your empire ends. (also note that a farm tower building would save a city from such event)

Iran? That would be interesting no?

right, sorry i missed this one!

Regarding Nukes the Russian Federation and the USA have the ability to wipe out civilization (and possibly Humanity) if either one launched a full scale Nuclear attack. This has to represented ingame or whats the point of striving for realism?

Countries with the ability to build a nuclear weapon but dont have any should have the starting techs but not the weapons.

Types of Nuclear Weapons
Bombs
The US has over 1992 B61 Thermonuclear Bombs in service of which 406 are currently based in Europe, this can be dropped from many common Fighter\Bomber aircraft such as the F-16 and the UK\German Tornado aircraft right up the the B-59 and B-22 bombers. They can have up to 170 kiloton yeilds. The B83 i also in service with a yield of 1.2megatons and with similar versatility in launch platforms.

Range of these should be whatever the range of the aircraft delivering them is, SDI should have a low chance of shooting the bomb down if dropped, a bom is a very small target after all.

Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile
Such as Trident in service with the USA & UK and the M45 in French service. With Ranges of roughly 8000KM in the case of trident. They give the owner the ability to resist a first strike attack and with (in the case of trident and the M45) multiple warheads a good chance of defeating a SDI and to hit targets over a wide geographical area in the megaton ranges.

ICBM's
With ranges from 9000km upward and launched from Landbased launch sites these are the original nuclear missile delivery systems. Most have the ability to shower there targets with multiple warheads from high altitude, thousands are in service across the globe, such as the US Minuteman II & III.

Regarding India, India's ICBM's have a range of 5000-6000km, so still intercontinental.


So, SLBM can launch from anywhere in the globe and hit anywhere in the globe, ICBM's are limited (HA!) by distance from there launch sites.

Effects of a country using a Nuclear strike whilst at peace with target country?
- International diplomacy disaster, automatic war with target country and its allies. 50% chance of allies breaking of there alliance with launching country. Neutral countries angered and dismayed by this threat to stability.

Effects of a country launching a retaliatory Nuclear strike?
- Wholehearted support from Allies. All enemy alliances activated. Rest of the world dismayed at attacks.

Effects of a country using a Nuclear Strike whilst fighting a Defensive war?
- mild disaproval from allies but alliances hold. Disaproval from rest of the world from escalating the conflict Activates target countries alliances .

Effects of a county using a Nuclear Strike whilst fighting an Aggressors war?
- heavy disapproval from allies (25% chance of alliance breaking). All enemy alliances activated. Anger and dismay from rest of the world at your aggression and reckless use of force.

Effects on environment.

If more than say 20 Nukes are launched in the space of 2 Civ turns food tiles across world produce less food around the globe for 8 turns. More than 100 launches, food tiles produce less food consistently for 40 turns to reflect Nuclear Winter and the crop failure that would follow.
More than one Nuclear missile hits on same target area before its decontaminated means that tile becomes wasteland permanently. No improvements can be built.

Effect of ONE ballistic missile strike on a city, population down by 80% immediately, 70% of building destroyed. Major unhappiness and possible rioting.


my thoughts on the matter



EDIT:

Regarding army size, im currently entering date for all the countries were using in the excel spreadsheet. As I recall DVS said once thats done we can figure out size of militaries. Sorry its taking so long, i took abit of a break from civ and the data is sketchy at bet in places.

If you're going to give the US and Russia 100+ nukes, then you have to give them the ability to disable each other's nukes. The reason for building so many nukes in the first place is so that even in the event that the enemy disables half your nukes through espionage, half of the rest are hit by enemy quick strike attacks (e.g. nuclear submarines firing offshore), half of the rest are shot out of the air, some of the remaining malfunction, etc. you still have at the end an arsenal large enough to bring about MAD. So there should be some way for nations to threaten nuclear arsenals (though it shouldn't be easy; it would be lame for the US to take out North Korea's nuke on the first turn of the game, instead it should require a large expenditure of hammers/gold and turns to set up), but at the same time the system should scale so that while it's possible to take out large arsenals, it's also possible (and easier) for your opponent to build larger arsenals. This would mimic the arms race more readily

the problem wasnt espionage covertly taking out your arsenal. It was the fact that with more accurate targeting systems in Ballistic Missiles from the mid 70's onwards the enemy had the ability to target your land based missile silos accurately and knock them out in a first strike.

Interception of modern multi-warhead missiles which contain a number of decoys is also highly unlikely, for example trident can carry up to 8 independant warheads awell as chaff and other distractions.

Defending against nukes, well, I grant you a small minority of the warheads could be shot down during re-entry but most will get through to there targets. Perhaps we should replace the games SDI with units actually available like Patriot Missiles, Arrow ABM & S-300P? That way you can shoot down as many warheads as you have Anti Ballistic Missiles?

Sabotage of Ballistic Missiles seems incredibly outlandish, what with the intense secrecy and heavy protection given to these devastating weapons. Especially considering the hundreds of launch sites a target country would have.

The reason for the Nuclear Arms Race was too have so many Nukes that an enemy first strike wouldnt take them all out and that they would overwhelm any attempts at defence. Not to guard against the mass sabotage of missiles by an adversary. What stopped it was the Arms race were a series of treaties between the USA & USSR (and its successor state the Russian Federation) that have limited the numbers fielded by each side and the number of ABM sites they may have. See here (htthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament#NATO.27s_European_theatrep://)

Hey guys, this thread's gone limp for a month so i don't know if everything's been decided or if activity's down for a bit. I hope my ideas don't come unwanted.

This thread started out about armies and quickly went to nukes, and the reason is simple : nukes are disproportionate weapons compared to conventional ones. The fact is, nukes are a political weapon, not a military one. I don't see how this can be modded into the game, and when I play I try to get the NPT voted at the UN first chance I get because the AI "thinks" nukes are the same as cruise missiles.

The way I see it, there should be a national wonder Manhattan project for every civ that has nukes. A Civ without the project cannot be nuked, and if there's a war between two nations that have the project, and nukes are used, then all "friendly" civs to the victim declare war on the "agressor". The amount of "friendliness" would have to be defined, and also the conditions for building the wonder. The first part is easy, the second much more difficult, I'll think about it and let you guys have a go. Possibly only being able to build in a city with a nuclear plant, all espionage buildings (to create the secrecy around the project)...

This way, the issue of Brazil, Japan, South Korea, South Africa, and a few others, is easier to solve : they have fission, but not the project (though with South Africa it's still difficult, since they had weapons and dismantled them). It also allows for Civs to build nuclear plants with fission, but not being able to build nukes right away (realistically, this is a stretch, since being able to build a reactor is sufficient to having a weapon, but the issue of the vehicle with witch to deliver the weapon is still important).

I hope I'm making sense here, and that these comments are useful. Great work so far on the World 2009 Mod, congratulations to all !

.. A Civ without the project cannot be nuked .. Japan, ..

Well then there's a historical thing, how could Japan have been bombed without it having the project :mischief:

Perhaps if they're used against civs that don't have the techs required, the threshold for declaring war against them should fall (so they'd be attacked by a great deal more people).

Nobodys posted here for a while but according too a recent treaty with Russia each country is only allowed to have 20,000 armed nuclear warhead but you can have many more deactivated ones sored away if we could implement this in the game we could make it more realistic like a new treaty that limits the amount of nukes you can have but you can still build warheads that can be activated and used 1-5 turns after war is declared

I'm going to say this for the last time:

Honestly: Nuclear weapons will NEVER be used, ever. The ONLY reason the USA used it on Japan was because there was NO THREAT of being retaliated against.

In today's world - launching a nuclear weapon is a sure-fire way to LOSE all of your power as a leader of a country. If you launch a nuclear weapon - even IF no one nuclear retaliates on you - you will be invaded by the WORLD and you will lose your place as country leader.

No one will EVER use nuclear weapons ever again - outside of the REMOTE possibility that a terrorist uses them...but that is not going to be the same as a country declaring war and then invading another country.

With that we should just disable nuclear weapons in the game. First of all...the game CANNOT use nuclear weapons correctly.

In EVERY war in the game...if a country has an ICBM/tactical nuke - it automatically uses them in war. Even if its a super power vs. a backward nation with zero military. The game doesn't understand that there is not a need to launch nuclear weapons.

If we DO use them...regardless of realism - we should give the USA/Russia 3-5 max. Because, if not, when a war starts with those countries - even if its a war of USA vs. Pakistan - there will be 200 nuclear weapons dropped and for no reason. That is ridiculous & I know you all can understand that. Just have nukes be a National Unit and have 3 or 5 be a max and make them so ridiculously costly to build that its not even close to worth it.

That would probaly work, and I agree the game wasn't built for modern day warfare. It doesn't know how to use nuclear weapons.

Someone posted before about different types of war: Local War, Total War, World War, Nuclear War. which a war can escalate through as it goes. i think nukes should be disabled in Local and Total Wars but then in a World War enabled, but make the AI realise the threat of launching a nuke so they would only do so if they knew launching a nuke was the only way to not be wiped out in the next few turns or if no enemy or possible enemy had many nukes. As soon as a Nuke was launched the game would jump into a nuclear war where the diplomacy penalty for launching nukes would drop slightly with each nuke launched.

we need to mess with the AI and then when testing evaluate it. I think we would want 1 nuke launched in 5% of games, 2 Nukes Launched in 3% of games, and any more in 1% of games. i would love to be able to start a nuclear war so i would be very dissapointed if nukes were disabled.

EDIT: for now we should just disable nukes though, we can worry about them after we have version 1 out.

Yeah its too much to have to worry about the ai completely anhilating everyone in the first few turns with nukes

I dont want nukes disabled... It is a game afterall...

untill a better use than vanilla nukes is thought of and coded, i think we just can't have them. but this will be one of the top priotities, i think.

I'm going to say this for the last time:

Honestly: Nuclear weapons will NEVER be used, ever. The ONLY reason the USA used it on Japan was because there was NO THREAT of being retaliated against.



That's very good if you say that for the last time. Nevertheless I'll repeat: Let's keep presage, prophecy and prediction out of the mod as far as possible and concentrate on building the world the way it exists.

Honestly: I can see no way to seriously predict the actions of a madman leader like Kim Jong-Il or all the other persons history has shown us.

Until the AI learn to correctly use nukes we can not let them have any it would result in utter anhilation of anyone who plays

Until the AI learn to correctly use nukes we can not let them have any it would result in utter anhilation of anyone who plays

Can't you just give users the option of off or on?

that does sound easy, but it depends if it is easy to do. we should definately test it with nukes before disabling them, it might turn out to be ok. though i doubt it will.

We could try adhesives idea of making them an option
That should work

why don't we make a system where two nations can go to war but if one nation uses nukes that would be like a special defensive pact where nations like US, China, and Russia get involved on the side of the attacked nation. Nuclear Non-profileration violation really and the security council of the UN would get involved. I think the AI is smart enough not to realize if a decision gets them at war with the world.

That would require extensive SDK work that no one knows how to do.

If we had someone who knew how to do it we could do it otherwise we can just use something else to make it work or we don't need to use nukes

The point is we don't. And please use punctuation. I can't understand what you're saying half the time.

Another question about the Armies.

For example:

The USA Army has about 1.09 million troops. But, they also have an extensive amount of vehicles used (tanks, IFV, etc.). How are we going to come to a consensus on the numbers to use? For example: The USA has about 6,000 M1 Abrams tanks in service. Along with numerous other vehicles. How are we going to accurately represent how many combat troops in terms of infantry we actually use? Obviously, not all 1.09 million troops of the army are actual combat troops. Is there a place we can find out this information?

Don't look at an infantry "icon" as just infantry soldiers, but as a complete infantry unit. That includes support elements and vehicles as well.