Getting Started

[Ahriman]

There's no reason to believe it has to be true in a game that also includes GDR's.

I think its sensible to have a super-powerful end-game military tech so that you can finish up a Conquest win; the game is really dragging by that stage.

Having said that, you have a fair point in that GDRs could fulfill that role at least as well as Nukes.

But it certainly feels very weird to be able to intercept a nuclear missile.

I guess it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a laser-defense building that required, say, Lasers and Satellites, or Particle Physics. But regular SAMs or AA guns or fighters? No way.

I dislike the idea of artificially preventing the AI from using nukes if it has them. I think you should be very afraid of nuke-wielding AIs in the late-game.

If people think nukes are too available I'd rather increase their cost (or cost of Manhatten Project) than to prevent a player from using them - particularly if they have nukes and you don't. What's the point of an AI building the Manhatten Project, acquiring Uranium, getting the nuclear techs and building up nukes (not exactly a low-cost combination) if they aren't pretty devastating?

 

[Txurce]

I guess it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a laser-defense building that required, say, Lasers and Satellites, or Particle Physics. But regular SAMs or AA guns or fighters? No way.

If people think nukes are too available I'd rather increase their cost (or cost of Manhatten Project) than to prevent a player from using them - particularly if they have nukes and you don't. What's the point of an AI building the Manhatten Project, acquiring Uranium, getting the nuclear techs and building up nukes (not exactly a low-cost combination) if they aren't pretty devastating?

Agreed on both points in your first paragraph.

If I had to choose between the AI using nukes and not, I would choose "use." I just wish they had the sort of self-control they did in earlier versions of Civ. But that's probably beyond the present reach of a mod.

 

[doktorstick]

To repeat myself, this is seemingly true in RL. There's no reason to believe it has to be true in a game that also includes GDR's. As far back as Civ 3, there were techs to defend against nukes. These were techs that came in "the future," so realism wasn't particularly threatened.

If it is a problem to be solved, and you don't want a new unit, make GDRs the counter. They are hard to build, and you can't use them offensively if you are using them to counter nukes.

The AI likely wouldn't understand it though and waste nukes, and then you can go on a GDR rampage...

 

[rhammer640]

if you had a late game intercept for them i think it should be a low percent like 10% or so chance so that they are still really powerful but you at least have a chance. I dont really feel strongly either way though.

 

[Thalassicus]

It doesn't matter whether ChrisTheMean gets rifling or not, since as far as I know all units are damaged equally by nukes regardless of how advanced they are. One thing that does make a difference is for a smaller empire, a nuke proportionally hits more of the empire's surface area.

My personal favorite system for dealing with nukes was Alpha Centauri's anti-plant-buster orbital missile pods. They're built by cities and launched into space, and each pod can intercept a single nuke. I like this deterministic and finite approach better than a project you build for a high random chance to intercept all nukes indefinitely.

Sadly we can't do something like that right now.

Which is something that is ridiculous. Replaceable parts should require Rifling (and ideally Electronics should require Combustion). You should not be able to make 7-tech-tier beelines.

I don't see it as a bad thing. The player does forfeit defensive capability if they do the space race beeline, so there's a built-in disadvantage.

I guess it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a laser-defense building that required, say, Lasers and Satellites, or Particle Physics.

There are "AirModifier" and "NukeModifier" attributes in the Buildings table. If it actually does anything I suspect it's to create a "bomb shelter" type building for cities that reduces damage to population and units within the city.

If I could get it to work, what would opinions be of a building like this on say... the Computers technology? It would be individually built in each city and provide a passive damage reduction defense against nukes.

 

[Txurce]

There are "AirModifier" and "NukeModifier" attributes in the Buildings table. If it actually does anything I suspect it's to create a "bomb shelter" type building for cities that reduces damage to population and units within the city.

If I could get it to work, what would opinions be of a building like this on say... the Computers technology? It would be individually built in each city and provide a passive damage reduction defense against nukes.

This would be a variation on other missile defense systems in earlier versions of Civ. I'm all for it, since we are talking about a realistic present day/near future tech. If it's a tech that can only be built in a city (as opposed to a civ-wide system), then Computers (or Rocketry or Lasers) seem apropos, and not too early to me.

 

[Ahriman]

It doesn't matter whether ChrisTheMean gets rifling or not, since as far as I know all units are damaged equally by nukes regardless of how advanced they are.

Sure, but if you had a decent military and spread it out, then a couple of nukes on your cities aren't going to make it easy for the enemy to conquer you.

I don't see it as a bad thing. The player does forfeit defensive capability if they do the space race beeline, so there's a built-in disadvantage.

I disagree. The player can still get Mechanized infantry, bombers and rocket artillery, without ever getting Rifling, Fertilizer, Dynamite, Combustion, etc.
The player doesn't forfeit any long-run defensive capability by doing a space-race beeline. They miss artillery and rifles, but they get Infantry, all naval units, etc.

I don't think you should be able to build battleships or rocket artillery without artillery (dynamite), mech inf without combustion, infantry without rifling.

create a "bomb shelter" type building for cities that reduces damage to population and units within the city.

If I could get it to work, what would opinions be of a building like this on say... the Computers technology? It would be individually built in each city and provide a passive damage reduction defense against nukes.

Seems reasonable. I think protecting cities from damage from nukes is much more reasonable than being able to intercept nuclear missiles.

* * *
On a separate issue (but related to tech trees); now that steam power and dynamite boost non-freshwater improvements, fertilizer is left looking rather weak.
Is there anything sensible we could create there or move there?

 

[Txurce]

I don't think you should be able to build battleships or rocket artillery without artillery (dynamite), mech inf without combustion, infantry without rifling.

On a separate issue (but related to tech trees); now that steam power and dynamite boost non-freshwater improvements, fertilizer is left looking rather weak.
Is there anything sensible we could create there or move there?

I've always agreed with the first point just on common sense. But of course this leads to a perhaps too-large conversation on ideal tech tree progression. My preference is to cut down on beelining as a rule, mainly to slow down the tech progress in the late stages.

Regarding Fertilizer, you would think that its name alone would make it kickass with regard to food production.

 

[Ahriman]

But of course this leads to a perhaps too-large conversation on ideal tech tree progression.

I think without too much difficulty that you could have Replaceable Parts require Rifling.
You could swap Mass media and Electronics and make Electronics require Combustion, or do *something* around there at least.

Regarding Fertilizer, you would think that its name alone would make it kickass with regard to food production.

Well, +1 food to nonfreshwater farms *is* a big deal for food production.
But I wonder if there's anything else we could move there too.

It seems far weaker than Economics, Steam Power, Dynamite.
Is there a Wonder we could move there, at least? Or a National Wonder that required Smokehouses everywhere? I dunno.

 

[Txurce]

Or a National Wonder that required Smokehouses everywhere? I dunno.

McDonalds!

 

[Ahriman]

McDonalds!

Heh.
Sadly, fast food would never have happened without motorcars, so it would be anachronistic.

We're still pre-industrial era here.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's difficult to ensure historically-accurate unit progression in Civ 5 without creating a tech tree so intertwined beelines are nearly gone (I don't want to eliminate beelines because it reduces choices for the player and would be a rather significant departure for the Civ series). This difficulty with the tech tree is due to the developer's decision to only have tech links that can be visually displayed on the tree without overlapping links. Changing the tree to allow "skips" in prereqs (like civ 1-4 and SMAC) would be a major rewrite of Civ 5's fundamental design, so it's not a significant priority for me. I just focus on local tech-tree balance changes, like the extra prereq chain making mech infantry more difficult to get.

It does require all intermediate steps to be able to upgrade units though, so skipping a stage does have a downside.

 

[Txurce]

It's difficult to ensure historically-accurate unit progression in Civ 5 without creating a tech tree so intertwined beelines are nearly gone (I don't want to eliminate beelines because it reduces choices for the player and would be a rather significant departure for the Civ series). This difficulty with the tech tree is due to the developer's decision to only have tech links that can be visually displayed on the tree without overlapping links. Changing the tree to allow "skips" in prereqs (like civ 1-4 and SMAC) would be a major rewrite of Civ 5's fundamental design, so it's not a significant priority for me. I just focus on local tech-tree balance changes, like the extra prereq chain making mech infantry more difficult to get.

It does require all intermediate steps to be able to upgrade units though, so skipping a stage does have a downside.

That's the essence of what I meant in saying it was a too-large conversation.

 

[Thalassicus]

Fertilizer does only have one thing on it, but it's a highly useful thing. I'd say it's a more desirable tech than Metallurgy.

The fact it's a rather empty tech is one reason I originally extended the farm bonus there. I wonder what sort of national wonder we could add to it?

 

[Sneaks]

Thanksgiving

+2 in all cities.
Requires Smokehouses in 75% of cities?

All I got.

 

[Ahriman]

It's difficult to ensure historically-accurate unit progression in Civ 5 without creating a tech tree so intertwined beelines are nearly gone

How hard would Replaceable Parts requires Rifling be?
Or Rocketry requires Combustion?

Its perfectly possible to add a few extra requirements without eliminating any beelining or allowing "skips" in pre-reqs.

There is no fundamental design change there, just slightly reducing some beeline depth and adding some logical connections.

Fertilizer does only have one thing on it, but it's a highly useful thing. I'd say it's a more desirable tech than Metallurgy.

Metallurgy is one of the most useless techs in the game, so its not a good point of comparison.

The relevant comparison techs should be Economics (+1 gold to nonfreshwater TP, windmill, Big Ben) Steam Power (+1 hammer to nonfreshwater lumbermills, factory, Ironclad, multiple other buffs) and Dynamite (+1 hammer to nonfreshwater mines, artillery).

Could we move some of the great person improvement boosts to fertilizer?

Anyway, its not that big a deal.

 

[Thalassicus]

I considered moving some GP improvements though I'm not sure what would fit... they all seem to make sense:

• Science on scientific theory
• Gold on economics
• Military on military science
• Production on steam power
• Landmarks on archaeology

Infantry don't require Rifling, so the point to insert a link would be there. However, I don't see a way to link those or electronics-combustion without overlap... unless we remove links elsewhere.

 

[Ahriman]

So let the links cross each other.
I don't understand why visual elegance is more important than gameplay and realism.

You could swap Metallurgy/Chemistry and Fertilizer/Rifling if that would make it easier.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's more than just visual elegance. Lines on top of one another can make it difficult to even tell what's going where. For example, look at the area around Acoustics in vanilla... all the overlap makes the user interface frustrating. I like the UI to present information in the clearest, least ambiguous manner possible.

 

[Ahriman]

It's more than just visual elegance. Lines on top of one another can make it difficult to even tell what's going where. For example, look at the area around Acoustics in vanilla... all the overlap makes the user interface frustrating. I like the UI to present information in the clearest, least ambiguous manner possible.

I agree, but I think that gameplay and (to a lesser extent) realism are important too, and that UI can't drive everything.

And it wouldn't be that ugly; if you swapped rifling/fertilizer (and metallurgy/chemistry, so metallurgy was a requirement for military science) then you could do something like in the attached picture.