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

Idea: A nuking player immediately gets a Sanction and Decolonization thrown on them.

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Stalker0, Sep 17, 2018.

  1. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,916
    Just one idea to represent some of the diplomatic and "moral" cost of using Nuclear weapons (as much as we can do with our limited design space).

    A player that uses nuclear weapons gets an automatic and immediate hit with the sanction and decolonization policies. That would give them a pretty big penalty for pulling out the "big stick".
     
    CppMaster likes this.
  2. bigcat88

    bigcat88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    597
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree. I don't remember any penalties on USA...
    And I do not think that the use of nuclear weapons to achieve the highest goal (communism, liberalism, ...) is a crime.
     
  3. Mad Madigan

    Mad Madigan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    350
    I like this idea, but it would probably require new code. Also, would those penalties really dissuade warmongers who are likely pretty close to global conquest by the time nukes enter the playing field? Or is the point only to dissuade non-warmongers from entering the "I'll just start nuking my enemies because why not" game?

    EDIT to say, I don't think Sanctioning makes much sense here as some Civs will still want to remain allies with someone that uses Nukes, especially vassals, but Decolonization makes sense as it prevents those going for Diplomatic victories from relying on Nukes.
     
  4. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    15,634
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    I’ve considered spiking war weariness for both parties to 100% when nukes fly. Should be an end of the war thing, not an alpha strike.

    G
     
  5. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,916
    This is an interesting idea too. And I recognize we can't be completely true to RL here. This came up as I was examining some late game unit reviews, and the truth is nukes are OP. Now you could argue, well of course they are OP that's what nukes are for.

    But the difference is in the real world there are much more intricate drawbacks to using nukes. Global Trade, Global Politics, environmental damage, true threat of reprisal, or the sheer moral factor of killing millions of civilians. Since we can't fully replicate that in the game, some greater penalty for their use would be nice.
     
  6. Mad Madigan

    Mad Madigan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    350
    I would definitely agree that Nukes being one of the only units to have mechanical downsides to their use would be very interesting from a balance and overall gameplay perspective. Automatically raising war weariness to 100% is a mechanical effect that is very felt by a human player, and makes sense given the psychological effect of using such a weapon. My biggest complaint about the current state of nukes is that if you're a warmonger there is essentially no reason not to use them immediately once you research them. In fact you are only doing yourself a disservice by not using them because at that point in the game you shouldn't really care about the diplomatic repercussions of your actions. Everybody else already hates you. War weariness hurts when you've got a big empire, but would it be enough? I've also wondered if maybe each use of a Nuke should give an immediate, permanent -X :c5happy: to your empire to represent internal dissent from using such weapons, but I guess that late in game such penalties are probably meaningless unless they drop you below -20 :c5unhappy:.
     
    CppMaster and LukaSlovenia29 like this.
  7. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,182
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Why would your people become unhappy? They are on the other side of the bomb area, they follow an ideology that does not care about what happens to others.

    Caveats should come in the international relationships, with other nations happily joining in wars against you at the same time.
     
  8. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warmonger

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,568
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    So let me get this straight. I can drop a nuke whenever I want to immediately spike both of our supply caps and make whoever has the bigger army (me if I'm doing it.) have a permanent advantage for the rest of the war as neither person can possibly build a reasonable amount of units at the super high production and food penalties?

    Sounds like a warmonger's dream, and also BEYOND abusable by humans.

    To balance it you'd need to make it worse for the person firing the nuke, which is just extremely unrealistic.

    The people of America didn't get a ton of war weariness when we dropped the bombs. The people who completely collapsed were Japan. It's only recently with the historical revisionism making America the bad guys and Japan the good guys that's made people think there are any negative repercussions for using a nuke. (Not saying either side were the good guys or bad guys, just pointing out that the USA wasn't worse than Japan in WW2. Also I know you know this is your specialty G I'm saying this for other people who're not professors who teach this subject and are probably going to point out something I said is wrong or at least complain about this insane run-on sentence that I'm extending for comedic effect.)

    The fact is that the reasons not to nuke are diplomatic, enviormental and humanitarian.

    We can represent the first by having a negative reputation modifier (none for allies, small for vassals, moderate for people indifferent, large for enemies) as well as a hefty increase in warmonger score.

    I'm not sure if we should go further on the second. Those sorts of penalties hurt the civ you're attacking more than you, even if you take the city.

    The third is hard to deal with. It's largely role-playing. I mean you can Raze cities which is more of less how you represent the Rape of Nanking. That's undeniably worse than nuking a city. It's more personal. Kills more people. Is more methodical. Etc.

    Thinking on how horrific events like the Rape of Nanking were makes me wonder if it's even worth doing anything about nukes is we're not going to make Razing cities have MASSIVE diplomatic hits at later eras.
     
    matlajs, vyyt and lunker like this.
  9. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,916
    This is where gameplay mechanics differ from real life. Real Life we can argue the moral loss with X event.

    But in gameplay terms, a razing occurs because the opponent has already lost. You took the city, you do what you wish to it. Razing doesn't help the warmonger win more per say, it just helps clean up the mess.

    Nukes:

    1) Can destroy an entire army in a single stroke
    2) Can do a mass pillage and make the conditions unusable without cleanup.
    3) Can immediately wreck the population and infrastructure of major enemy cities....without any means of defense (bomb shelters help if you can get to them fast enough, but only weaken the effect).

    In simple terms, Nukes are a military unit without equal. Just like in any game, I expect that if something gives me the most power, than it has to have the most cost. Else.....why would I use anything else?

    Now if I was building a game from scratch, ideally Nukes would be your final military unit. They are the capstone of all military power, and that would make sense gameplay wise. But due to Civs partial modeling of real life, we can't do that. Nukes come earlier because....that's how it works in RL.

    Since we don't have the moral complexities of real life, than we need to use other mechanics to balance it. Either we continue to make it even more expensive than it is now, or find some secondary cost that deters people from just using them at will.

    So all of this ties back into your point/question. Should nukes have a greater diplomatic penalty than a raze? In real life...debatable. In game terms, no question. Nukes are far stronger than a raze, and much harder to defend against. So if we said diplomatic penalties were "the way to balance nukes"....than they clearly should be harsher than a raze.

    Now I'm going to circle back to my original idea. If we all think that diplomatic penalties are a good way to balance....than I think decolonization is a way to really drive that home. This isn't a nebulous penalty that may or may not affect your neighbors. After all, everyone in the world may already hate you. But taking away CS, that takes away power. It can immediately be seen as a diplomatic backlash against your actions. Whether its enough is still debatable, but I think its an existing game mechanic that really helps to drive the "diplomatic penalty" home in a clear way to the player.

    You could take it as steep as you want. Remove any spheres the player has. If they are host, a new election is immediately triggered. They suffer a -5 penalty to votes in the WC for X years (or permanently). But I think if you are really going to put a cost, it should use strong game mechanics. The "diplomatic penalty" is just too weak to do the job.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    Mauro Mezzina and CppMaster like this.
  10. bigcat88

    bigcat88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    597
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe just introduce a temporary happiness penalty to player that use nukes?
     
  11. ashendashin

    ashendashin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    857
    I'd much prefer it if nukes got redone. Is that viable on any terms, such as a complete replacement? I remember G saying that they're too hard-coded.
     
  12. Grabbl

    Grabbl Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    349
    I think this is a better way to go. The problem with the diplomatic penalties in civ is that unlike in real life, you can reach a point where you don't care about relations anymore because you've gotten too strong for the world to win against you (unlike in real world, where no superpower is strong enough to win against all others). So, it seems reasonable to instead mimic the penalty you'd get from your own civil population for being inhumane - unhappiness and unrest.

    For the decolonization, I think it would be too hard and also not effective as it doesn't hit you at all without city state allies and would result in "If I throw one nuke, I should as well nuke the whole world", as applying the penalty twice doesn't change anything. So, from the diplomatic side, I'd prefer an influence hit with all city states (either a percentage or flat influence, e. g. 100).
     
    Bromar1 and CppMaster like this.
  13. lunker

    lunker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    221
    I like the idea of some kind of penalty for using nukes. I don't like the idea of such a large War Weariness penalty for both sides as it seems somewhat exploitable. I'm most partial towards some kind of unhappiness debuff, which would hurt warmongers the most -- the ones who are most likely to abuse them.
     
    Gazebo likes this.
  14. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    15,634
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    I agree, and that's why I chose to use the word 'considered' - it's something I've dabbled with, but I'm left dissatisfied with it mechanically.

    In reality, civ's diplomacy is not complex enough to discourage a player - even with diplo penalties and whatnot.

    The only ways in which I think that nukes could be truly 'balanced' would be to make them absurdly expensive, or to reduce their efficacy greatly.

    G
     
    vyyt likes this.
  15. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warmonger

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,568
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    This is actually such a dumb solution I can't understand why you're suggesting it.

    Does it model real life? No. Not at all. In fact it's the opposite. The invention and proliferation of nukes really solidified alliances along very clear lines. Why not just have the nuke turn every unit it kills into an extra strong angry mutant that attacks civs who've fired nukes if you want some fantasy method of punishing people who use nukes?

    Does it fit into gameplay? No! Not at all! The warmonger's second territory is diplomacy. There's a reason that autocracy has a ton of diplomatic policies in it. Your power projection and reach makes taking city states easier as a larger civ.

    A penality for using the ultimate tool of warmongering that shoots the game-plan of warmongering in the foot is stupid.

    You would literally be better off removing the nuke from the game.

    We can reduce the strength of the nuke if it's so insane you think it needs to be effectively removed from the game. Keep it pretty strong and have smaller counter-measures if needed.

    I play warmonger a lot and rarely have nukes been a relevant factor in my games. I feel like most of this thread is a problem looking for a solution.

    A big problem I'm seeing in these comments is that people are asking for wildly unrealistic solutions for this. The forum practically ripped itself in half when people asked about scouts moving faster in rough terrain than flat because of realism, and here we want to have massively artificial mechanisms that are also unrealistic?
     
  16. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warmonger

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,568
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    I mean raising cost, reducing their power a bit, increasing the diplomatic penalties and then still having them be the most powerful unit of the era seems fine.

    We just had a whole thread about how some units define their era. It's not a balance problem, it's fair and fact. Nukes undeniably define eras. They're a shadow that looms over us even now. If they're scary in game too that's fine I think. They don't seem to imbalance the game much more than knights.
     
  17. ashendashin

    ashendashin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    857
    How creative can you be in that regard? If nukes were weaker but mechanically different, then I'd say it'd be better than the simple big-boom-fun-times we have right now that has to be OP in order to be fun. Controlling a field with a salvo of nukes that vary based on nuke type could be cool, for example(not considering AI capability).
     
  18. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    15,634
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    There are some limitations, buuuut:

    I could reduce the chance and potential of building destruction and pop loss (possibly offsetting it by city defense).
    Bomb shelter could straight-up block nuke damage (or reduce it dramatically).
    Nukes could have insanely high GPT maintenance (50+) so that stockpiling is strongly discouraged.
    Nukes could increase needs in a city (no one wants to live in a city with nukes stored in them!)
    The sheer ownership of a 1+ nukes could result in a diplo penalty with all non-friendly players.

    etc.etc.

    I can't have nukes be intercepted, that's a gfx issue we can't resolve easily.

    Ultimately externally-punitive things like diplo penalties just aren't that effective end-game. Nukes need to be a last-ditch tool to end a war quickly, not something you stockpile and alpha with, IMO.

    G
     
    Asterix Rage and LukaSlovenia29 like this.
  19. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,916
    Come on Elliott, you normally give me a much more reasonable and rationale counter than this.

    If you think my idea is wrong so be it. If the better answer is greater cost and less impact than sounds like a way to go as well. For me, what I have found is that I don't use nukes heavily for role play reasons, which is actually odd as I don't normally roleplay too much else in my civ games. But in the games I have taken the gloves off and said, "lets not look at these like in real life, just look at them as a tool of war". And when I do that, they are devastatingly powerful.

    You made the point about the knight, and as the top contender of its era its a fair comparison. So why do I think the nuke is so much stronger than the knight that I wish to nerf it? The key is defense. Knights do have a counter. With longswords and pikeman I can defend my territory against knights. Now its a struggle, and I will never be able to push out of my defensive posture. But I can hold until tercios and the game dimensions change.

    For nukes there is no defense. The nuke goes down, and I die. I can't stop the army kill, can't stop the pillaging, and can only reduce the population damage. And there is no holding out until the next better counter comes along....nukes will take you to the end game. That is the difference.
     
  20. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,916
    Could also limit their radius to 1 tile (I think its 2 right now). That greatly diminishes the damage and army loss you can do. Could take it one step further and go 1 tile period. It is the ultimate guided missile. It will kill any unit period. It will do good damage to a city. It will pillage that key strategic resource, can't stop it. But....it is the ultimate "throw hammers at the problem to make it go away". Its not efficient by any means, but when you don't care about efficiency, you just want something dead, you go to the nuke.

    Probably a weirder approach that might be effective is have it cost 1 paper, 1 oil, 1 aluminum, and 1 uranium (or make it 1 of everything).

    The aluminum and paper means having nukes reducing (in some way) your ability to impact diplomacy and science victories. And just further reduces other strategic units you can have with it.

    One more idea (not sure how possible this is). Nukes use uranium....permanently. Once deployed the uranium does not come back. So again ultimately guided missile idea, throwing away long term resources for the ultimate right now hit.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop