Nukes

[Hrvoje193]

Is there any way to ban nukes in game options, except non proliferation treaty?AI would never vote for it, so there is really no way to implement NP treaty.
In modern era there is no fun playing game, it's just nuking and nuking.

 

[Red Ant]

I think the AI needs to be changed to understand the consequences of using nukes. They should be a last ditch measure. At the moment it seems to treat nukes as just another missile unit.

 

[Hrvoje193]

I think the AI needs to be changed to understand the consequences of using nukes. They should be a last ditch measure. At the moment it seems to treat nukes as just another missile unit.

Exactly.I spent hundreds of turn, and in one turn I can loose everything.All AI players nuked each other to oblivion, and not a single one voted for NP treaty.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I plan to change how nukes are used by AI; or at least to make AI more careful when voting UN resolution to ban nukes. Right now, usually AI votes for a nuke ban only if UN is built before anyone has a significant nukes arsenal and the resolution is voted (if nobody has a significant nuke arsenal, everybody agree to ban nukes). There's another option to ban nukes and it's an event: you're tasked to build a strong navy and if you build one strong enough, a reward could be to completely ban nukes. It happened to me a couple of times. Finally, there's an option in C2C to play without nukes but it's no fun to me, and I've not imported it yet. I will so that people hating nukes can play without them, but I prefer finding a different solution.

Edit: in my view nukes add a significant strategic layer; either you need to block other civs from gaining uranium, or you need to be friend with these civs. Or you need to learn how to rebuild your civ from nuclear ashes.

 

[Hrvoje193]

There's an option in C2C to play without nukes but it's no fun to me, and I've not imported it yet. I will so that people hating nukes can play without them, but I prefer finding a different solution.

That would be great.It's no fun watching how all your efforts are canceled in one turn, cause of mass nukes were launched.

 

[Sgtslick]

No nukes is an option in c2c, maybe its easily implemented here idk.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

No nukes is an option in c2c, maybe its easily implemented here idk.

It should be easy enough, I'll update the code after we've switched to AND 2.2 beta1.

 

[Red Ant]

I plan to change how nukes are used by AI; or at least to make AI more careful when voting UN resolution to ban nukes. Right now, usually AI votes for a nuke ban only if UN is built before anyone has a significant nukes arsenal and the resolution is voted (if nobody has a significant nuke arsenal, everybody agree to ban nukes). There's another option to ban nukes and it's an event: you're tasked to build a strong navy and if you build one strong enough, a reward could be to completely ban nukes. It happened to me a couple of times. Finally, there's an option in C2C to play without nukes but it's no fun to me, and I've not imported it yet. I will so that people hating nukes can play without them, but I prefer finding a different solution.

Edit: in my view nukes add a significant strategic layer; either you need to block other civs from gaining uranium, or you need to be friend with these civs. Or you need to learn how to rebuild your civ from nuclear ashes.

But even if they don't use those nukes against you, you'll spend the rest of your game chasing nuclear fallout and watching as forests disappear and farmland turns into desert.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

But even if they don't use those nukes against you, you'll spend the rest of your game chasing nuclear fallout and watching as forests disappear and farmland turns into desert.

Hey, that's how nukes work in real life too
Right now you can only stop AI using nukes by destroying civs using nukes or using spies to deny them access to uranium (taking control of uranium resources should be a priority). Or you can try to pass that UN resolution. Or you can build Nanite Defuser (although nukes can be re-built again). Or you can build SDI and other methods of intercepting nukes. There are ways to avoid a nuclear holocaust. But you can't avoid it always.

 

[Hrvoje193]

Hey, that's how nukes work in real life too
Right now you can only stop AI using nukes by destroying civs using nukes or using spies to deny them access to uranium (taking control of uranium resources should be a priority). Or you can try to pass that UN resolution. Or you can build Nanite Defuser (although nukes can be re-built again). Or you can build SDI and other methods of intercepting nukes. There are ways to avoid a nuclear holocaust. But you can't avoid it always.

I tried UN resolution, of 10 AI 1 vote for, and that was my permanent ally.
SDI intercept maybe 1/3, and that's not very comforting when AI trows 20 every turn.

 

[JosEPh_II]

It should be easy enough, I'll update the code after we've switched to AND 2.2 beta1.

This has my vote as I normally disable Nukes in C2C all the time.

And C2C has 2 Nuke options: Disable (remove from play) and Advanced Nukes (More nuke weapons and choices).

JosEPh

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Advanced Nukes (More nuke weapons and choices).

JosEPh

This is already an option since AND 2.0 beta, perhaps even since 1.75C

 

[JosEPh_II]

I know, but was reminding others. I don't like it so I don't use it. Just like REV.

JosEPh

 

[platyping]

I highlighted a list of problems with advanced nukes codes anyway when zlako wanted to merge into his mod

 

[Sgtslick]

Yeah i'd turn off nukes if I could too.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Yeah i'd turn off nukes if I could too.

Next week you will

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

About the nuke issue, I'm thinking of ways to reduce nuke usage by AI without banning it completely. So here are a few ideas on the code I'm planning to develop:

- if fallout spreads above x% of terrain, civs will be forced (via dll coding) to vote for Non-Proliferation-Treaty
- if there are more than N nukes in the world at the same time, civs will be forced (via dll coding) to vote for Non-Proliferation-Treaty
N is of course mapsize-dependant

Actually I was thinking of making it a bit "scaled"; something like
- if 5% of the land is covered by fallout, civs will have a probability of 75% to vote for NPT; if 10% is covered by fallout, probability will rise to 85% and so on. Numbers are just examples, they'll need testing.
- Same goes for the number of nukes: 100 nukes in the world, civs will have a probability of 75% to vote for NPT; 150 nukes, probability will rise to 85% and so on.

Moreover there would always be a small chance for NPT resolution to fail; I don't want to force anything in the game that could be 100% predictable.

Or I could add something like +1 unhappiness in that civ cities for every 10 nukes they possess, so fewer nukes should be built.

This should make nukes exchanges less destructive or at least they should stop soon.
Any opinion about this idea?

Edit: OR nukes could be made "national units" so that a max number of nukes can be built at the same time.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I've got no opinions on this one. I know some of you want to play without nukes, and that will be an option very soon. But among those playing with nukes, or even among those that don't want nukes in the game, would it be acceptable something like what I've proposed?

 

[BlindKitty]

I mostly like the idea of unhappiness from having too many nukes; but getting AI to vote for non-proliferation treaty is a good idea, too. I don't know how explicit it could be in the game files, but keep in mind that in real world, one demonstration of what nukes can do to a city was pretty much enough to convince most countries that non-proliferation treaty is necessary. While I think that limiting number of missiles by a hard-coded limit is not a good idea, I think that longer range missiles could be more expensive in terms of maintenance - they cost 5 gold per turn as of now, the same amount as tactical nukes, and in my opinion it could be more like 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 depending on range. After all, the nuclear arms race was a part of what destroyed the Soviet Union economically. It should help keep longer range, bigger effect nukes at bay a little...

 

[Red Ant]

About the nuke issue, I'm thinking of ways to reduce nuke usage by AI without banning it completely. So here are a few ideas on the code I'm planning to develop:

- if fallout spreads above x% of terrain, civs will be forced (via dll coding) to vote for Non-Proliferation-Treaty
- if there are more than N nukes in the world at the same time, civs will be forced (via dll coding) to vote for Non-Proliferation-Treaty
N is of course mapsize-dependant

Actually I was thinking of making it a bit "scaled"; something like
- if 5% of the land is covered by fallout, civs will have a probability of 75% to vote for NPT; if 10% is covered by fallout, probability will rise to 85% and so on. Numbers are just examples, they'll need testing.
- Same goes for the number of nukes: 100 nukes in the world, civs will have a probability of 75% to vote for NPT; 150 nukes, probability will rise to 85% and so on.

Moreover there would always be a small chance for NPT resolution to fail; I don't want to force anything in the game that could be 100% predictable.

Or I could add something like +1 unhappiness in that civ cities for every 10 nukes they possess, so fewer nukes should be built.

This should make nukes exchanges less destructive or at least they should stop soon.
Any opinion about this idea?

Edit: OR nukes could be made "national units" so that a max number of nukes can be built at the same time.

Honestly, I would much prefer if the AI could be taught to be more rational in their use of nukes. Also, fallout isn't very realistic at the moment. I believe that presently even a single nuclear detonation will cause fallout to spread randomly throughout the rest of the game. IMO fallout from a nuke should contaminate additional squares for a maximum of 2 years after the detonation, and depending on the size and type of the nuke, it probably shouldn't spread across the whole globe either. I do not believe that fallout from Hiroshima & Nagasaki was much of an issue in downtown London for example.