Fix Diplomacy

[sir_schwick]

12. Nuclear winter was disproved many years ago. I do not have the links right now, but another, more informed CFCer had many links explaining the exaggerated damage of nuclear weapons. The basic points were this, if I remember right: 1) nukes would be aimed at military targets, not civilian. 2) radiation levels would drop to relatively workable conditions after a few months(workable means a few hours each day).
Using this info, here is a more accurate way of nuke damage.
Nukes cause:
1) All improvements in a city are destroyed.
2) Each population point has 50% of being killed, immediately or soon after from high radiation exposure.
3) Land adjacent to target square cannot be worked for a year. Two tiles away experiences -2 to all production. Three tiles away experiences -1 to all production.
4) Land adjacent to target square -2 to all production in Year 2. Two tiles away expeirences -1 to all production.
5) Land adjacent to target square -1 to all production in Year 3.
6) All improvements in adjacent squares have 80% of being destroyed. All improvements two tiles away have 20% of being destroyed.

 

[dh_epic]

I should have linked to a lot of threads, I guess that's why I wish I took more time to edit. But I linked to the AI thread in particular to show how some AIs would be there to be non-competitive and add to the flavor.

On nuclear winter, despite its realism, at the most difficult level it would be kind of neat. Part of the objective is to win the game while preventing nuclear war. Nuclear disarmamant should be a valuable treaty, for example. And using intelligence to learn who has a nuke. Leveraging sanctions to investigate weapons. Again, only on the most difficult levels would this be necessary, since averting a nuclear disaster and argmageddon would be kind of hard with a bunch of "Type B" AIs who don't care whether they win or lose. (It would be balanced to make it still winnable.)

I'm not one for realism, but you can't deny that everyone's really scared of using a Nuke. They don't know exactly what they'd be starting, and a lot of nations don't really care if they screw things up. It's the "strategy" that defines so much real political interaction these days. If Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons, people are unlikely to just declare war on them.

Anyway, this is the most contraversial idea. By all means, let's talk about this, but let's keep the focus on some of the less contraversial diplomatic factors and forces.

 

[rhialto]

2) radiation levels would drop to relatively workable conditions after a few months(workable means a few hours each day).

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Chernobyl still isn't safe after almost 20 years. Look at the map on that page. 500 roentgens in 5 hours is fatal, and the author notes that offroad areas typically have 4-5 times the levels marked. You can pass through the area if you stick to the roads, but the land is basically unusable.

Although I suspect there was more radioactive material in the core than would be found in a typical nuclear warhead.

 

[sir_schwick]

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Chernobyl still isn't safe after almost 20 years. Look at the map on that page. 500 roentgens in 5 hours is fatal, and the author notes that offroad areas typically have 4-5 times the levels marked. You can pass through the area if you stick to the roads, but the land is basically unusable.

Although I suspect there was more radioactive material in the core than would be found in a typical nuclear warhead.

Like I said, I need to find the thread that originally had these references. I do see your point, but Chernobyl does contain a lot more radioactive material then a nuclear warhead. It was tons of material versus kilograms. Once I find the thread, I'll edit this post.

 

[plastiqe]

I should have linked to a lot of threads, I guess that's why I wish I took more time to edit. But I linked to the AI thread in particular to show how some AIs would be there to be non-competitive and add to the flavor.

Heh, I was just kidding dude.

Even if it isn't called nuclear winter I still really like the idea. I think they would have to change the Manhattan Project wonder because if everyone gets them at the same time, it isn't as much of an advantage. By limiting the number of times you can use nukes, there is no need to give them to everyone at the same time.

 

[dh_epic]

How safe is hiroshima these days?

 

[rhialto]

Hiroshima is quite habitable now, and the ground zero site is a tourist attraction. However, that bomb blast was a piddler copared to anything we have today.

Little Boy, detonated over Hiroshima, was 15 kilotons.
Fat Man, detonated over Nagasaki, was 22 kilotons.

At the height of the pre-mirv era, warheads reached 20 megatons (about 1500 hiroshimas). Modern mirv nukes have warheads of around one megaton (still abou 60 hiroshimas), but acording to [ http://www.fas.org/rlg/102599nw21.htm ], each weapon could have as many as 14 individual warheads, for a total of 850 or so hiroshimas.

This difference in scale (2-3 orders of magnitude in explosive potential) means that Hiroshima isn't really useful as a model of long term effects of radioactivity.

 

[sir_schwick]

Maybe their should be shades of nuclear winter, 20 detonations = level 1, 30 detonations = level 2, 40 detonations = its bad already so you are pretty straight feaked by now. imagine level is - production per square of food, shield, trade.

 

[menwia]

I personally think, that if you use just one of them modern day ICBM's everyone should hate you straight away.

They should be made stronger. A a new unit, a nuke bomb dropped by a B52 could be used before the ICBM or even before tactical nukes.

But once you use the more stronger ICMB version, where it not only takes out a whole city - but i think completly wipes out a 10/10 radius, then everyone will be real angry with you.

They might not declare war if they're scared, but they will do everything else against you that they can.

 

[dh_epic]

Whatever the limit, I think it should be quite difficult at the highest levels. I guess that's the thrust of the decision. Not to stray too far of realism, but to live out a worst case scenario -- that's what it means to play at the hardest level.

If I were to measure the amount of resources too, I'd say resources should be more likely to run out or to have smaller supplies at the highest levels. Just an example.

Anyway, there were other suggestions. Anyone else think More Resources, More Variety of Resources, and Tangible Quantities of Resources might improve diplomacy and create more interdependance? I'm curious what people think about those, because I'd put those above nearly any other diplomatic adjustment.

 

[menwia]

Alot of wars in civ are fought over because of resources. It is one of the most important facts. If there is oil a city away from my borders, and even though I got a huge empire i have none myself.

I usually find myself preparing to go to war to capture that resource. To trade with the AI would be too costly and would give it too much advantage. why trade when you can take.

 

[dh_epic]

True, but many nations DO trade when they can take -- in real life. You need to ask yourself why, and if/how you want to transfer that to Civ 4.

Not saying one option should be elimiated, but that both options should be balanced -- trade and conquest.

I think actually quantifying supplies of resources and increasing the types and varieties of resources would be the first step to making trade more necessary.

 

[menwia]

true, but when does the AI ever make a fair trade except maybe in the early part of the game.

Their silks somehow become worth more then your wines. Or they'd only trade so much for your iron, but you ask them for their iron theri starting bid is twice if not three times more then they would be will to offer. Sometimes, they won't even trade, when any other rational player would.

 

[dh_epic]

I think that's because the AI needs to protect itself from so many gameplay holes and exploits available to the player. I think it can be fixed if there's a system that's fair and unexploitable.

Another option is to create a "free market". There is a price put on the oil that you refine, for example, and it becomes available on the world market. If you need to acquire more oil, you go on the world market and acquire it for the cheapest price -- which might happen to belong to Iraq.

And if you don't want to trade with Iraq, because you don't want to give them money. Or Iraq doesn't want to trade with you, because they don't want to give you oil... they could set up an embargo. All of the sudden oil cannot be purchased from Iraq by America, and America buys from the next highest, which happens to be Venezuela.

So trading is less of something that happens between nations because the leaders say so... and more of something that happens no matter what, unless the leaders actively prevent it.

 

[menwia]

hmm . . .interesting idea . . . of course you know it will have far reaching impact on other aspects of game play.

 

[dh_epic]

I see it only having an impact on trade and resource management. Which would become a much more prominant part of strategy.

No longer could you just get one supply of all the major resources. First of all, one supply might not be enough. Secondly, there would be too many important resources to survive by isolating yourself -- you'd need to trade.

You'd lower the price / flood the market by acquiring a greater abundance of one resource. If you're the world's leading exporter of Iron, you may not even need other resources like Limestone or Spices. ... Just get a lot of money for your Iron, and use that to buy other stuff.

More just food for thought than an idea I'm dying to see. I'd be really happy to see it, don't get me wrong, but there are many ways to improve the floundering trade system, and impact diplomacy.

 

[menwia]

Not only would it effect trade and diplomacy I'm thinking, but also the tactics/strategy side of things.

but that doesn ot neccesarily mean its a bad thing.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, thats a great idea DH_Epic, which of course raises the prospect of a civ using diplomatic pressure to put sanctions on a nation with an iron 'monopoly' as a means of increasing the price of their OWN small source of iron ! Of course, the monopoly power could try to 'ban' the iron trade, then profit from iron smuggling ! Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Whew, now we're getting into interesting territory. I'd love to see stuff like the illegitimate rulers of Afghanistan being the world's supplier of opium to fund its illegitimate activities... which the rest of the world refuses to compete with.

But that is a whole other discussion. I'm not sure if we want to get into the complexities of the war on drugs and particularly as it pertains to the war on terror ... it's fun for discussions, but I think we should keep our mind on the more practical matters of what Civ 4 should have.

 

[TemporalAnomaly]

2) radiation levels would drop to relatively workable conditions after a few months(workable means a few hours each day).

You've obviously never heard of Cobalt-Thorium G.

New wonder idea:
Doomsday machine, kills everyone and all civs lose whenever the owner feels like it. (fun for multiplayer!)