M.A.D.

[Sc805]

From Civ5 it seemed that nukes dominated end game warfare. While it seems reasonable, being a turn based strategy game seems to diminish the reality of having 2 nuclear armed nations. As it is currently whoever DOWs first wins. What about setting up a MAD(mutually assured destruction) option where if one civ launches nukes against another, nukes from the previous civ are automatically launched against the aggressor?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The way I could see MAD working

1. Nukes are (largely) immune to nukes
2. Nukes don't require a strategic resource/nuke. (Instead only build nukes at a special nuclear facility... The facility requires U, the nukes don't)
3. Give nukes a long range (either as bombers or ICBMs)

To balance MAD
-Nukes don't kill units (just weaken them) instead nukes kill cities (builders can help with this if fallout requires a builder charge)...basically a nuked city should be worthless..but only cities and districts can be nuked.

 

[dexters]

As I understood it, Nukes were scaled back to Hiroshima level bombs (at best) for balance.
M.A.D would require game-ending scenarios which I think it very high stakes and very difficult to achieve.

Perhaps they can add hydrogen bombs and 1 of them would be equivalent of a wonder build.
And only a few civs would have it and there could be game theory applied to it in terms of when the AI might use it.

I just think it will be challenging as a mechanic as well. Imagine an AI getting the H.Bomb and shutting down any possibility of a war with that AI as going to war with them would inevitably mean H. bomb raining down on your cities. It also tends to enhance runaways and reward technologically advanced and high production Civs.

 

[migkillertwo]

The way I could see MAD working

1. Nukes are (largely) immune to nukes
2. Nukes don't require a strategic resource/nuke. (Instead only build nukes at a special nuclear facility... The facility requires U, the nukes don't)
3. Give nukes a long range (either as bombers or ICBMs)

To balance MAD
-Nukes don't kill units (just weaken them) instead nukes kill cities (builders can help with this if fallout requires a builder charge)...basically a nuked city should be worthless..but only cities and districts can be nuked.

I *really* like this idea. In real life, nuclear strategy generally has two goals: counter-force and counter-value. Counter-force focuses on striking an enemy's conventional and nuclear forces, whereas counter-value targets are those that are economically important: cities, industrial centers, etc.

Counter-value strategies can be achieved with a modest number of nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom and France individually, for instance, do not possess enough nuclear weapons (150-250 warheads) to launch a first-strike against Russian nuclear forces. They can, however, *retaliate* against Russia by attacking her cities, and the comparatively tiny arsenal of France or Russia would still be enough to obliterate Russia's cities.

We've gotten a glimpse of how buildings and districts work in Civ VI and I think nukes are easily amenable to it.

Since many buildings require a district (and are in fact inside that district), I propose a new type of building: the missile silo. The civilization can build nuclear missiles and place them like an ordinary unit. However, a player would have the option to garrison nuclear missiles inside the silo, where once placed they become very hardened to other nuclear missiles; once placed inside a nuclear silo, nuclear missiles can only be destroyed by a direct hit, and one attacking nuclear missile will only destroy a single garrisoned nuclear missile.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Perhaps instead of a silo building, a silo district...you would place nukes there, with a building that increased the capacity of the silo district from 5 to 25, as well as "missile command" buildings to increase range to unlimited, and finally the SDI to achieve first strike. (Nukes attacking in range of the SDI have high chance of being shot down)

 

[dino_yoshi13]

Somehow I thought this would be a thread about how MadDjinn should to a Civ 6 LP when it releases, but I thought wrong...

 

[migkillertwo]

Perhaps instead of a silo building, a silo district...you would place nukes there, with a building that increased the capacity of the silo district from 5 to 25, as well as "missile command" buildings to increase range to unlimited, and finally the SDI to achieve first strike. (Nukes attacking in range of the SDI have high chance of being shot down)

I feel like that purpose would be too narrow to use a whole tile.

 

[qwerty25]

Perhaps instead of a silo building, a silo district...you would place nukes there, with a building that increased the capacity of the silo district from 5 to 25, as well as "missile command" buildings to increase range to unlimited, and finally the SDI to achieve first strike. (Nukes attacking in range of the SDI have high chance of being shot down)

I add the propostion to your nuclear silo district that it should be invisible to the ememy player. Unless discovered by spies. And mostly immune to nuclesr strikes unless hit directly.

That way there could be a real MAD as player A cant kill player B's nukes .... Unless he has spies figure out where the nuclear silos are. So this gives a chance on the next turn to shoot back while not making them invincible.


Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[migkillertwo]

I add the propostion to your nuclear silo district that it should be invisible to the ememy player. Unless discovered by spies. And mostly immune to nuclesr strikes unless hit directly.

That way there could be a real MAD as player A cant kill player B's nukes .... Unless he has spies figure out where the nuclear silos are. So this gives a chance on the next turn to shoot back while not making them invincible.


Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

I can second the notion of making them immune except to a direct hit because, in real life, a missile silo really can withstand anything less than a direct hit.

However, the silos shouldn't be invisible and are not invisible: Far from it actually because satellites can easily see missile silos. We know exactly where all of Russia's missile silos are, and they know exactly where all of our silos are. You can look at Minot AFB on google earth and see exactly where our ICBMs are.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I can second the notion of making them immune except to a direct hit because, in real life, a missile silo really can withstand anything less than a direct hit.

However, the silos shouldn't be invisible and are not invisible: Far from it actually because satellites can easily see missile silos. We know exactly where all of Russia's missile silos are, and they know exactly where all of our silos are. You can look at Minot AFB on google earth and see exactly where our ICBMs are.

And the silo district should only lose 1 nuke per 2 direct hits or so (possibly less to allow for normal second strike... ie to neutralize someone you need say 2x the nukes they have...as well as knowledge of all their nuclear subs)

 

[qwerty25]

I can second the notion of making them immune except to a direct hit because, in real life, a missile silo really can withstand anything less than a direct hit.

However, the silos shouldn't be invisible and are not invisible: Far from it actually because satellites can easily see missile silos. We know exactly where all of Russia's missile silos are, and they know exactly where all of our silos are. You can look at Minot AFB on google earth and see exactly where our ICBMs are.

True.... Can we at least make the nucleae missiles inside be invisible?
So you still wouldnt know where exsctly the nuclear missile is. I mean it could be a fake missile even if you stare at satelitte pictures.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[migkillertwo]

And the silo district should only lose 1 nuke per 2 direct hits or so (possibly less to allow for normal second strike... ie to neutralize someone you need say 2x the nukes they have...as well as knowledge of all their nuclear subs)

2 nukes per silo might be a good idea. It gives the first-strike party an advantage, but not an overwhelming one. I gave a suggestion in another thread along the lines of turning nuclear combat into a "3 turns in one" system.

In the first turn, the attacking party can hit a certain amount of targets in the enemy civ: the amount of targets they can hit rises as the enemy civ has more land, but falls as the civ builds more airports, radar stations, etc.

In the second turn, the defending party can launch, but not hit, as many nukes as she wants. In the third turn, the attacking party may follow through with as many launches as she wants. At the end of the third turn, the defending and follow-up attacking nukes will hit their targets.

 

[qwerty25]

2 nukes per silo might be a good idea. It gives the first-strike party an advantage, but not an overwhelming one. I gave a suggestion in another thread along the lines of turning nuclear combat into a "3 turns in one" system.

In the first turn, the attacking party can hit a certain amount of targets in the enemy civ: the amount of targets they can hit rises as the enemy civ has more land, but falls as the civ builds more airports, radar stations, etc.

In the second turn, the defending party can launch, but not hit, as many nukes as she wants. In the third turn, the attacking party may follow through with as many launches as she wants. At the end of the third turn, the defending and follow-up attacking nukes will hit their targets.

I love the idea of semi limiting how many nukes you can launch. And then increasing it as you have more buildings like command centers and other stuff.

I dont like the idea of having specialized turns. I mean i undersdtand the time frame doesnt fit but i think its too specialized for civ.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[migkillertwo]

I love the idea of semi limiting how many nukes you can launch. And then increasing it as you have more buildings like command centers and other stuff.

I dont like the idea of having specialized turns. I mean i undersdtand the time frame doesnt fit but i think its too specialized for civ.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

It's very specialized, sure, but we're talking about a nuclear exchange between two great powers. Any nuclear exchange, even a small one, between great powers would make both world wars look like peanuts.

If Civ is going to put players in the middle of such a war, it deserves quite a bit of specialization.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

2 nukes per silo might be a good idea. It gives the first-strike party an advantage, but not an overwhelming one. I gave a suggestion in another thread along the lines of turning nuclear combat into a "3 turns in one" system.

In the first turn, the attacking party can hit a certain amount of targets in the enemy civ: the amount of targets they can hit rises as the enemy civ has more land, but falls as the civ builds more airports, radar stations, etc.

In the second turn, the defending party can launch, but not hit, as many nukes as she wants. In the third turn, the attacking party may follow through with as many launches as she wants. At the end of the third turn, the defending and follow-up attacking nukes will hit their targets.

If the Silo is a district, I'd suggest between 5 and 20 nukes per silo, and requiring 2 direct hits to kill a nuke in the silo.
(I'd change them to range 1 damage, but more thorough damage..ie hit a district and the city center loses pop)

Basically in an OCC I should still be able to destroy all the other civs in the world

 

[Erudain]

Another good idea would be for the AI to actually use the nuclear subs as a launch platform and maybe scuds launchers on ground for some medium range mssiles.
In Civ4/5 I've never seen the AI use a sub/missile cruiser to launch anything other than normal cruise missiles.

M.A.D also works because even if a satellite can spot the silos for you to attack, it can't spot subs or mobile small launchers like scuds and you'd suffer the counter-attack from those nukes.

 

[migkillertwo]

Another good idea would be for the AI to actually use the nuclear subs as a launch platform and maybe scuds launchers on ground for some medium range mssiles.
In Civ4/5 I've never seen the AI use a sub/missile cruiser to launch anything other than normal cruise missiles.

M.A.D also works because even if a satellite can spot the silos for you to attack, it can't spot subs or mobile small launchers like scuds and you'd suffer the counter-attack from those nukes.

IIRC, nukes in Civ 5 could move around like any unit and didn't have to be based in a city. That already does everything a mobile launcher mechanic does with one less layer of complexity.