Missle Silos

[Zild]

I agree with you on making missiles less accurate, paticularly those launched from mobile platforms and those of earlier technology (perhaps add a tech, or include as part of an existing tech, something that makes all missiles ore accurate).

Regarding sub-launched missiles, would you have it so that these are specially-built for subs, or that any SRBM/IRBM can be placed in a sub, ala the current system? Or would you even include them as part of the sub at construction? Eek!

I'm not entirely sure as to whether or not the game should be constricted by events from our history such as SALT and SALT2. Or, at least, I'm not sure these things should be included by default...

How about something like a SALT great wonder? Once the SALT great wonder is built, certain techs (for example MIRV) become forbidden - either the units simply cannot be built, or if the units are built and the rest of the global community discovers this, the building civ faces a very tough diplomatic penalty of some kind...

This would be useful in that smaller or more peaceful civs who fear nuclear attack could build the SALT great wonder to restrict their neighbours' nuclear ability - it might also be a more realistic way of achieving the "the first nuke is okay" kind of principle from my previous post...

Of course, if the SALT great wonder was destroyed

On that, a quick question, actually - in Civ3, how much damage do nukes do to buildings in a city, and do they ever damage wonders? I assume the answer to the second part of that is no... Is this unreasonable? Do we want our ancient Pyramids to be immune to the effects of nuclear missiles? Or is this a good decision, from a gameplay perspective?

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

I would have the SLBMs be a separate weapon, loadable and launchable only from subs. IRL they are a very different weapon. This will cause the player to focus more on what particular form of nuclear deterrent he/she wants, which would make things more interesting. They should be fairly expensive, and the boomers they go in should be fairly expensive also.

Another option not heavily discussed would be the nuclear tipped cruise missile. This could cost around 300 shields or so, and be loaded on to AEGIS cruisers. Each AEGIS could carry one missile. The missile would have a chance of being shot down if the enemy city has jet fighters stationed in it.
I would disallow these on battleships, and perhaps take other measures to make battleships obsolete later in the game, for realism's sake, for example, give the AEGIS a powerul lethal sea bombard, and allow it an automatic bombard attack against an incoming battleship before actual combat begins, this would be more realistic. Give the AEGIS maybe a 4 tile bombard range, and make it more expensive, and later navies would be more like real life navies.

I would not have a wonder for any nuclear treaties, this is best done through diplomacy. Have it as an option on the diplomacy screen, and if the other leader agrees to talks, have a pop up box where you can enter in the number of nukes you think both they and you should have. The military or diplo advisor could sit up in the corner and advise you as he does for trade deals, i.e. "They would never accept such a deal", and so on.

Once an agreement is reached, you have one turn to disband your excess missiles, to get back the production. If you do not comply, the other civ becomes very angry, and cancels any other trade deals with you. The deal may also be cancelled in the future if you exceed the nuke number again, or perhaps commit some other outrage elsewhere, like ROP rape, or unwarranted nuking of a weak civ.

 

[sir_schwick]

I always intended for SLBMs to be seperate weapons. The SRBM and IRBM comparisons were comparisons of performance, not source. I do agree with the assessment of Nuclear Cruise Missles. AEGIS and Attack Subs should each have a cruise missle bombardment(12/4/3) that is built into the unit.

I do not like the wonder idea for treaties, but most of SALT was reduction of warheads, which was most easily accomplished by eliminating MIRV warhead systems. Missles are expensive compared to the warheads they carry. Most disarmament is still occuring, so I would say its more of a 'you said you would, you better or i'll do x'.

 

[brinko]

i go with it

 

[Synergy67]

> I like this idea but what about after a mass nuclear war then what the game is
> over, as most likely there would be massive global warming, unbearable
> poultion, and so.

Nuclear winter might be more likely (or at least more fun) with all the massive atmospheric debris...sun blocked, crops die, climates grow colder for 20 turns.

Also, AI civs should be strongly motivated to be reluctant to commit to using nukes. It should take some pretty extreme conditions to provoke an actual nuclear war. Nuked city centers (the city tile itself) should drop to zero population for 100-200 years. The city might have to be abandoned and could be rebuilt either later after waiting for radiation (automatic, not cleanable, like pollution0 to subside, or you could build nearby and have some tiles be dead for a while. If enough cities get nuked, it is almost like starting the game over. Not sure how fun that would be ultimately but it would be fun to watch unfold initially.

Doug

 

[searcheagle]

No to nuclear winter. Naturally the A-Bomb was not that drastic.

I would like to have the consquence be more severe cause right now for the AI there is no reprecusions. Something should be done to make a nuke war a bigger deal.

 

[sir_schwick]

Well, MAD is the reason the US and USSR never committed to a nuclear exchange. It makes sense and is easily modeled.

PS: Thank you for reviving this dead horse.