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

[HalfEmptyMug]

I’ve been thinking about this, and I think that the mechanic I’m going to look at is actually a bit more involved, but it will work. I’m going to let nukes ‘sentry’ - if a nuke is sentried in a city, and the city is struck by a nuke, the nuke immediately launches and hits the city that shot at it. If it was shot from a submarine, then the nuke hits the nearest enemy city.

This solves everything we wanted to solve, and eliminates the value of the alpha strike if you are stationing nukes in targetable cities.

It is easy to check for plot city ownership. And also to tell nukes to go after the best city in range. Etcetc

If I introduce sentry mode I’d also change the range methods of ICBMs. Right now they’re pretty low range because of alpha strike concerns.

It’d be more interesting if ICBMs could target any foreign city, but could only target city tiles themselves and can only be launched from owned non-puppet cities. Thus sentries would be a global deterrent.

What if the nearest enemy city has several neutral territories within 2 tiles of the city (due to citadels or being on an island)? What if there are neutral/friendly units by the city due to an open borders agreement or a secondary front? What if your own units are besieging one of the aggressor's cities and you nuke your own forces (or you coax your enemy into nuking their own units)? What if you use militant colonists to raze your opponent's city and settle the area yourself, avoiding puppet/annexation limitations? what if you'd rather target a "less valuable" city because most of the enemy's forces are stationed there? what if a vassal of the enemy nukes you, but you'd rather retaliate against their master?

There are probably a few other scenarios I'm missing, but there's a lot that can go wrong with this. I get that this is a simple solution for the AI, but I think this introduces far more problems than it solves.
The only incentive I had to alpha strike was to destroy an enemy's stockpile before they had a chance to use it. Now with nukes no longer being destroyed by nukes, that's the incentive not to use them. Is there any way to modify the AI's nuke flavor on a per civ basis, such as Ghandi having a flavor of 1 globally, but +11 toward England for having a smaller stockpile, having multiple vassals, being a warmonger, or other factors?

The change to give ICBMs global range but only target cities isn't necessarily a bad change, but I would very much like to have atomic bombs stay free targeted as they are useful on the defense against units, especially navies.

 

[Udipotah]

Should be civ 3 style where if 1 player first strike using a nuke other
players declare war at nuke the nuking player also

 

[Divsanchez]

Having read through this thread I find it very depressing.

Never have I read such a collection of bad ideas to fix something which doesn't need fixing.

The sentry idea is completely pointless. What is so hard about nuking someone on your next turn?

The whole point of nuclear weapons seems to be completely lost. You can't balance them because of what they are. It is a historical fact that these weapons are a game changer.

Please don't nerf nukes.

 

[Enginseer]

Adding the nuke sentry idea needs to be a promotion-wise where constructing a national wonder like... MAD or having a resolution enacted as MAD. Otherwise the MAD concept would have never been invented until someone actually used a nuke if we're going by history-wise.

 

[Divsanchez]

It is pointless though.

All that is needed is nukes to be nuke immune.

 

[Gazebo]

Having read through this thread I find it very depressing.

Never have I read such a collection of bad ideas to fix something which doesn't need fixing.

The sentry idea is completely pointless. What is so hard about nuking someone on your next turn?

The whole point of nuclear weapons seems to be completely lost. You can't balance them because of what they are. It is a historical fact that these weapons are a game changer.

Please don't nerf nukes.

Welcome to the forums. If you can’t express a view without disparaging others then don’t express your views.

G

 

[Divsanchez]

Welcome to the forums. If you can’t express a view without disparaging others then don’t express your views.

G

Nonsense.

How did I disparage anyone?

I said there was some bad suggestions (including yours) so grow up.

 

[ashendashin]

@Gazebo Will you be testing your proposal? I think showing some results from your implementation would do far more than our speculating on how you might screw up the whole thing.

I said there was some bad suggestions (including yours) so grow up.

Whoa there. He's the one doing the work around here so tone it down

 

[Stalker0]

How did I disparage anyone?

I said there was some bad suggestions (including yours) so grow up.

This would be known as a disparaging comment.

 

[ashendashin]

Adding the nuke sentry idea needs to be a promotion-wise where constructing a national wonder like... MAD or having a resolution enacted as MAD. Otherwise the MAD concept would have never been invented until someone actually used a nuke if we're going by history-wise.

Was MAD an actual military goal or was it a political description of the potential destruction of two superpowers with ever-increasing nuclear capability? I'm pretty sure surviving and removing enemy capability were always huge topics since detection followed by retaliation was a given that constantly changed based on technology and positioning instead of being the sole focus of nuclear arms. Sentries don't strictly have to represent MAD, but since the game lacks depth in this area, it's a potentially solid way to discourage use unless you're sure you'll win.

 

[Gazebo]

Nonsense.

How did I disparage anyone?

I said there was some bad suggestions (including yours) so grow up.

Strike two. Zero tolerance for this kind of behavior.

@Gazebo Will you be testing your proposal? I think showing some results from your implementation would do far more than our speculating on how you might screw up the whole thing.

I haven't started testing, no. I'm not entirely sure I like it, in that I fear that forcing a reaction by the AI will require too much programmatic design. I think I'm going to look at interceptions more, see if I can work around the gfx issues.

G

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Gazebo, would it be possible to code so there would be a limit as to how many times in a game (scaling with map size etc.) you can use a nuke? Perhaps that would somehow reflect how in real life, a nation won't be able to continiously use nukes. And that way, you'd be prevented from constantly using nukes in the game to conquer the world.

 

[Divsanchez]

Gazebo, would it be possible to code so there would be a limit as to how many times in a game (scaling with map size etc.) you can use a nuke? Perhaps that would somehow reflect how in real life, a nation won't be able to continiously use nukes. And that way, you'd be prevented from constantly using nukes in the game to conquer the world.

What exactly is the point of this sort of artificial limitation?

There is no limit in real life to how many times a nation can use nukes if they have them, and the infrastructure to keep producing them.

 

[Stalker0]

What exactly is the point of this sort of artificial limitation?

There is no limit in real life to how many times a nation can use nukes if they have them, and the infrastructure to keep producing them.

Ultimately what we are trying to find is the right balance between realism and gameplay. Your right that there is no limit to how many nukes can be fired in real life. On the other, a weapon's fallout is far more harmful and lasts much longer than it does in the game. Uranium is also a consumed resource, not "indefinite" like it is in the game. And refinement of uranium and plutonium is a much bigger factor than the original supply, etc. These are all things not shown in the game, yet are realistic limitations.

Now the game shouldn't be purely gamist, being a reflection of real life is one of the things that makes Civ fun. But it can't and shouldn't be 100% realistic. Where we draw the line is the key debate point.

 

[Gazebo]

Ultimately what we are trying to find is the right balance between realism and gameplay. Your right that there is no limit to how many nukes can be fired in real life. On the other, a weapon's fallout is far more harmful and lasts much longer than it does in the game. Uranium is also a consumed resource, not "indefinite" like it is in the game. And refinement of uranium and plutonium is a much bigger factor than the original supply, etc. These are all things not shown in the game, yet are realistic limitations.

Now the game shouldn't be purely gamist, being a reflection of real life is one of the things that makes Civ fun. But it can't and shouldn't be 100% realistic. Where we draw the line is the key debate point.

Right. Claims of 'but real life!' falter before the weight of immortal Attila crushing the upstart American Empire led by immortal Washington.

Come, let us retire to the Leaning Tower of Pittsburgh.

G

 

[Divsanchez]

Ultimately what we are trying to find is the right balance between realism and gameplay. Your right that there is no limit to how many nukes can be fired in real life. On the other, a weapon's fallout is far more harmful and lasts much longer than it does in the game. Uranium is also a consumed resource, not "indefinite" like it is in the game. And refinement of uranium and plutonium is a much bigger factor than the original supply, etc. These are all things not shown in the game, yet are realistic limitations.

Now the game shouldn't be purely gamist, being a reflection of real life is one of the things that makes Civ fun. But it can't and shouldn't be 100% realistic. Where we draw the line is the key debate point.

I understand the real life point.

In fact I was merely countering the real life argument brought up by Luka when he said " Perhaps that would somehow reflect how in real life, a nation won't be able to continiously use nukes"

So you see, the 'real life' argument is not mine.

My point of view is the nuclear age being messy is fundamental to the game and shouldn't be overly balanced to make nukes less destructive. Personally, I would prefer to see the destructive power increased.

 

[Stalker0]

My point of view is the nuclear age being messy is fundamental to the game and shouldn't be overly balanced to make nukes less destructive.

I would love if more people piped in if they feel this way. As always I believe the "ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality is the right one for this part of the project as we try to go gold. Obviously I have concerns here, but if most people feel nukes are fine as is than we shouldn't change them.

 

[Mad Madigan]

I don't think anyone is arguing that nukes should be less destructive. If anything, we're trying to expand the mechanical effects of just how powerful and dangerous nukes are. G suggested allowing Nuclear Missiles (currently exactly the same as an Atom Bomb, but with slightly more range and 1 tile more AOE) to have unlimited range at the cost of only being based in cities, and for nuclear missiles stationed in cities to be able to automatically launch in retaliation to their city being nuked. The "flavor" argument is that ICBMs would be launched immediately in retaliation in the case of the detection of a nuclear missile launch, but the mechanical argument is that nukes are currently best used as an alpha strike attack when they should be used with more tactical consideration. The fact that nukes don't destroy other stationed nukes doesn't matter if you drop 6-8 nukes and capture 3 cities in a single turn, wiping out a large swath of your opponents' army and capturing all of the cities their nukes were stationed in. The suggested mechanical changes are trying to make nukes a more effective deterrent to offensive nuke use.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

The thing, in real life, a nation won't be able to continiously use nukes due to the MAD. Its cities will burn, launch sites will be destroyed, uranium will be more and more scarce, military personnel will start to refuse to blast cities with nukes etc. The proposed idea attempts to try to show that in real life, you only might be able to lunch a few nukes before the world is plunged into an all out nuclear war where civilization as we know it is destroyed.

I think this idea coupled with the sentry nukes would bring us quite close to preventing nukes from being used as a "conventional" assault weapon.

 

[Divsanchez]

The thing, in real life, a nation won't be able to continiously use nukes due to the MAD. Its cities will burn, launch sites will be destroyed, uranium will be more and more scarce, military personnel will start to refuse to blast cities with nukes etc. The proposed idea attempts to try to show that in real life, you only might be able to lunch a few nukes before the world is plunged into an all out nuclear war where civilization as we know it is destroyed.

I think this idea coupled with the sentry nukes would bring us quite close to preventing nukes from being used as a "conventional" assault weapon.

With a full nuclear exchange during the nuclear arms race this is true.

What we never experienced (thankfully) was a nuclear war in the early fifties where things might have been different.

Without hydrogen bombs and ICBMs we might well have seen a battlefield dominated with tactical nuclear weapons. Not all nuclear wars are equal.