Armies

ianinsane · May 31, 2008

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)

NikNaks · May 31, 2008

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

Dabur · Jun 3, 2008

ianinsane said:
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

SoI · Jun 3, 2008

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.

ianinsane · Jun 3, 2008

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

Dabur · Jun 4, 2008

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

RedRalph · Jun 10, 2008

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

Dabur · Jun 10, 2008

RedRalphWiggum said:
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

RedRalph · Jun 12, 2008

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

Dabur · Jun 12, 2008

RedRalphWiggum said:
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:

ijnavy · Jun 12, 2008

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.

ianinsane · Jun 12, 2008

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...

ijnavy said:
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...

ijnavy · Jun 13, 2008

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.

ianinsane · Jun 13, 2008

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 · Jun 13, 2008

ianinsane said:
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:

ijnavy · Jun 13, 2008

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?

ijnavy · Jun 16, 2008

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

zbelg · Jun 21, 2008

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.

ianinsane · Jun 21, 2008

zbelg said:
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.

ijnavy · Jun 21, 2008

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.

Armies

Prince

Deity

Prince

Chieftain

Prince

Prince

Deity

Prince

Deity

Prince

Czar

Prince

Czar

Prince

Prince

Czar

Czar

Warlord

Prince

Czar

Similar threads