1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

A Look at Nukes

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, Feb 8, 2018.

  1. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,761
    Dude there were 700,000 casualties in the battle of Kiev. You're beyond naive if you think 100,000 casualties wasn't lower than a land invasion by a factor of 10 or more. We could have easily ended up killing 10 million or more people before we could force a surrender.

    Seriously. what would you have done?
     
    vyyt likes this.
  2. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,920
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    *9
    And this is what I meant. You are talking about immediate effects (stopping a war). By the time, nobody knew about the fallout effects. If they were, probably there would have been a stronger citizen reaction against the use of nuclear bombs. So it makes no sense that there's a mechanic giving unhappiness for having nuclear weapons, or for the first dropped bombs. You may claim that killing people in this fashing is justified. Then, why are there so many people around the world so against the use of nuclear weapons? We've witnessed the horrors, we don't want that to happen again. Even to our foes.

    If ever, for civs not going Autocracy, there could be a stronger desire to enact 'Ban nuclear weapons', after the first bomb is dropped. But I guess it's game over by then.
     
  3. DarkZero

    DarkZero Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    242
    If you think the nuke was an act of mercy, you're beyond naive, while its true that japanese culture, governant, and religion, made them prefer death to surrender, the nukes where calculated tactical blows on cities whit no army, hell, no ******* mans other than the elderly, mostly woman and children, the wives and sons of some of the soldiers who where still alive, the nukes did much more than kill, they destroyed the country itself, proving to the japanese that even if they died in battle, the usa had a weapon capable of destroying their country and their families, what they where dying for to begin whit.
    Not even defending Japan here, they proved themselves to be quite evil in some actions they took in the past, but to paint the usa as good guys, wen they drop a ******* nuke on innocent civilians, a nuke they knew would make those who did not die in the blast, wish they did, and make they land unlivable for many decades, is naive nationalism.
     
  4. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,845
    Well thanks all for turning an earnest balance discussion into a “who is more evil” competition.

    For shame.
     
    vyyt and Tantro like this.
  5. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    14,018
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    ElliotS, history is what a do for a living, specifically Modern Imperial History. I...have a few issues with your arguments. I don’t want to clutter this with off topic talk but, in essence, the nukes were an anti-soviet power play. The fire bombings of Tokyo etc were going quite well- they were doing as much damage as the nukes did in the end. We nuked to accelerate the end of the war to keep the Soviets from claiming territory. That doesn’t justify our actions - thousands of lives were lost to prevent Soviet expansion - but it does explain them.

    #1 rule of history is that morality is defined by the victor. Is Japan had somehow won the war after Hiroshima, MacArthur, Truman, and Eisenhower would have been on trial for war crimes.

    Eisenhower’s personal aversion to the MIC should be clear enough evidence of his own frustration and guilt with the outcome of the war.

    G
     
    vyyt likes this.
  6. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    14,018
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    Anyways, back to Civ: as I said, nuke behavior is hard coded. It’s not possible to make them interceptible, not without breaking the animation.

    G
     
  7. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,761
    In the interest of avoiding further derailing the thread I'll take this to PMs.
     
  8. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    260
    Other than a "first person to use them wins" issue in MP, has anyone actually identified a problem with nukes? Am I the only one who thinks they are fine?

    I don't see them abused in my games and their power seems about right to me. The diplomatic repercussions of using them seem right to me- often the civ using them is a hated civ to begin with or the victim of them is hated and those relationships seem to matter more than the act of using the nukes. That seems in-line with history.

    I think the fallout and city destruction is a decent deterrent to using them, as the city and land becomes much less useful to the conqueror.

    To me this thread seems like tweaking for the sake of tweaking rather than addressing real problems. If the only issue is in MP then perhaps a gentleman's agreement on how nukes can be used is in order there?
     
  9. LukaSlovenia29

    LukaSlovenia29 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2016
    Messages:
    924
    I hope this post will be considered to be "on topic", if not, I apologize.

    I really do think that in VP there isn't enough deterrence/drawbacks to being the (first) ones to use nukes, which makes nuclear warfare a much more common occurrence and a much more feasible/wortwhile tactic in VP than it "should" be.

    There's a reason why, unlike other weapons in VP, use of nuclear weapons is commonly considered to be a violation of international law (because of its indiscriminate effects, excessive suffering off targets etc.) and why the International Court of Justice only allowed the hint of possibility of it being legal in very very very dire circumstances of a last resort ( http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/95 ), "in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

    Again, the treaty(ies) of nuclear non-proliferation (which is in the VP as a WC resolution) applies foremost to building nuclear weapons, not using them. Using weapons that are indiscriminate and cause "undue" suffering on its targets has been forbidden by international law well before nuclear weapons entered the stage, and such a proscription has been in the past applied to napalm, war gases etc. IIRC, we don't even have napalm and war gases as "units" in the game.

    So that's why I think the VP should do more to reflect this "last resort" nature of nuclear weapons. It really should balance on one hand the (only?) potential option to turn around a game that's been all but lost (like loading a bunch of nukes on submarines, sailing to surpise DoW against the runaway and then nuke its capital and surroundings,...) and on the other hand the extreme negative consequences of violating international law. Without the extreme negative consequences, it is be "too easy" to decide (too soon) to use nukes as a last resort against a runaway threatening to win the game, and in fact too easy to decide to use nukes in a "common" war (not a "last resort" war) for the mere purpose of gaining land etc.

    I'll admit the possibility of a certain personal bias in the question of nuclear weapons leading me too see problems in VP that aren't really there, but that's been my experience both with humans and AIs. The decision to use nukes comes too easy and too early in most games.
     
  10. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    14,018
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    Nukes became a violation of international law after the fact, not before it. I don't think that adding a punishment for using them makes any sense - that's the point of the non-proliferation WC resolution.

    G
     
    vyyt likes this.
  11. LukaSlovenia29

    LukaSlovenia29 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2016
    Messages:
    924
    Thanks for the reply. To not further take this thread off-topic, it's best we agree to disagree on this matter. Thanks again for your reply.
     
  12. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    14,018
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    I think it is a perfect candidate for a modmod, if others so desire. If needed I can add a lua hook for nuke drops (if one does not already exist) so others can play with this.

    G
     
  13. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    260
    Maybe the thing that isn't captured accurately enough in VP is brinkmanship. Maybe all that needs to be changed is for nuclear missiles to survive a first strike from the enemy so that if your enemy has nuclear missiles as well then using them becomes self defeating. That's the main thing that kept them from being used in the cold war - the knowledge that you probably couldn't stop the other side from retaliating.

    The other deterrents in the game in the form of negative diplo modifiers and the WC resolution seem accurate and well balanced to me. I mean, historically the US is disliked for using them in WW2 but we aren't exactly a pariah because of it- we still have good relations in general with much of the world, including the people we used those nukes on. Seems pretty in line with VP, no?
     
  14. phantomaxl1207

    phantomaxl1207 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    445
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indiana
    Would it be possible to have Citadels protect Units from Nukes?

    I am surprised I have never used Nukes in Civ. Their stronger use to me is wiping out a stack of Planes / other Nukes.
     
  15. LukaSlovenia29

    LukaSlovenia29 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2016
    Messages:
    924
    I too would be very much in favour of planes and nukes surviving nuclear strikes, to represent how in the real world, nukes and planes are spread across airfields and missile sites across the country, ready to strike back once incoming missiles are detected. If that's possible to code, it'd be great! But perhaps this falls under what Gazebo said was hard-coded nuke behaviour...
     
  16. ashendashin

    ashendashin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    583
    Those are all targeted in the real world though...
    If anything you seem to want more spots to hold nukes on.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  17. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    802
    Well, having nukes destroyed by other nukes is kind of unrealistic, and the "first to attack win" is completely out of the reality.
    Even if you consider that the bunker containing the nuke is not protected enough, the attacked civ can retaliate by launching its nukes before being striked.

    If you use a nuke against a civ that have nuclear weapons, you have no easy way (in the real world) to prevent them from retaliating. That's why it is a dissuasion weapon. If it was just a question of international diplomatic relations, and public support, the US army would probably have nuke far more cities.
    Its not as if they don't already use methods and weapons that are against some international agreements, and against public will...
     
    LukaSlovenia29 likes this.
  18. LukaSlovenia29

    LukaSlovenia29 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2016
    Messages:
    924
    Ashendashin -> I agree with what Moi Magnus said. I don't see a MAD situation possible in the current VP mechanics, whereas it's a crucial part of today's world with multiple nuclear powers.

    @Gazebo , you said that nukes are coded as melee units. Would that mean that it would be possible to grant nukes and planes a special promotion that would give a huuuuuge defensive bonus against an attack by nuke type melee units? That way nukes and planes wouldn't be any stronger offensively, but would withstand many attacks by nukes, thus enabling a retaliation attack in the following turn(s) and by that simulation the brinkmanship/dissuasion/MAD situation.
     
  19. ashendashin

    ashendashin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    583
    Ehh nukes are still nukes. I'm sure they'll at least cause severe damage to launch zones. I think more options to spread out nukes would help with retaliation. It's kinda weird that you literally store tons of WMDs inside your population centers.

    Edit:
    Right and for the whole FIRE EVERYTHING as soon as the missiles pop out, well why would you waste everything on the first strike? I suppose it is an issue with civ though since you know where everything is and the events of the next few turns.

    Edit 2:
    And the small size of the game compared to nuke AOE...
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
    vyyt likes this.
  20. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,920
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Like the modmod that builds a spaceship launch site in some tiles outside the city. But keep it simple with current mechanics. Higher defense against nuclear blasts might do the trick.
     

Share This Page