Missle Silos

[sir_schwick]

Definitely. Attack Subs should be specialized taking down Boomers(Missle Subs). Maybe Attack Subs should have no missles(really good combat) or 1. Boomers should have 5 or 6 at least. A major priority would be making sure you knew where the enemy Boomers were(no spy to help you either). Same targetting system should be used for any of the major delivery systesm(Subs, Ballistic Missles, and Bombers). This would also mean they would need to include a SOSUS net of some kind. Maybe special Sea Worker could build the SOSUS sensors.

 

[Colonel]

Good idea with the SOSUS net but how would it be defended or would it not need to but it retains its nationality no matter what and stays, but with this idea it would negate Subs for the most part in that area

 

[Bibor]

What are you guys talking about?
You want to go realistic?
Okay!
Here it is: One nations wicked leader drops a nuke. The other one responds.

Next (and probably last) thing we know is that the whole world is filled with radiation.

Game over.

There's nothing smart, tactical, ingenious or humane about being armed with nuclear weapons.

Remember that scene from Hiroshima? The cat is trying to get its paws out of boiling asphalt!

 

[Colonel]

Um what we are talking about is giving more nuclear options if it comes to that, even you can see that the game is severly lacking in nuclear warfare

I swear everytime you post here its like your saying can we please not look at the bad parts of our history well ITS THERE DEAL WITH IT

 

[Bibor]

Nuclear weapons are not weapons.
They are devices of mass destruction and ultimate atrocity.

Nukes cannot be used or explained as "weapons targeting military installations". When you drop a nuke, it does not kill only soldiers. It kills everybody and everything in a huge radius.

Hey, maybe they could implement deadly viruses too. Like, you spread a virus and it kills every second person on planet. Cool, huh?
It could be a great wonder "Killer virus", effects: drops population in every city by half. 7 culture points per turn. It may become a tourist attraction.

EDIT: There's plenty non-implemented modern age warfare. And yes, I put my personal feelings into this. I, personally, don't agree with nukes at all.

 

[Bibor]

Um what we are talking about is giving more nuclear options if it comes to that, even you can see that the game is severly lacking in nuclear warfare

I swear everytime you post here its like your saying can we please not look at the bad parts of our history well ITS THERE DEAL WITH IT

This is a game, not a simulation of Earth history. And, yes, from an educational view on the game, I don't think that it is wise to tell the kids that "nukes are cool". Say what you want, though.

 

[Colonel]

Um this is game that simulates Earth and its history, so what if a nuke is bad it happened quit tryin to cover that up just a game remember so its not like most people playing it are going to grow up and go nuke everybody

 

[Mewtarthio]

What are you guys talking about?
You want to go realistic?
Okay!
Here it is: One nations wicked leader drops a nuke. The other one responds.

Next (and probably last) thing we know is that the whole world is filled with radiation.

Game over.

There's nothing smart, tactical, ingenious or humane about being armed with nuclear weapons.

Remember that scene from Hiroshima? The cat is trying to get its paws out of boiling asphalt!

It's call Mutually Assured Destruction (aptly acronymed "MAD"). The idea is that if enough people have nukes, nobody will ever use them because it would result in the destruction of the world. The inclusion of the "Nuclear Advisor" who can pre-target nukes and fire them instantly in retaliation would do just that. As of right now, if everybody in the world has a thousand nukes, whoever launches first wins the game. In the new system, whoever launches first gets one sneak attack before both target and attacker are obliterated (which is bad for the attacker).

 

[Colonel]

exactly Mewtharthio has the point, and as for the extra ways to use Nukes ie Subs and bombers are just cool add on's that are easy to add into the game besides the easy realism it adds

 

[sir_schwick]

Bibor, if you want to complain, the real travesty is how lightly Nukes are treated in Civ 3. They are just treated as tactical weapons and the pollution is marginal(cleaned with workers).

By upgrading the nuclear war section of the game, you could force a new era of peace, as Nukes were the weapon that made military war too costly to be profitable. Now in Civ 3, countries with nukes regularily duke it out. MAD is completely lost.

As for the Killer Virus idea, I think that a bio-war aspect should be added in. Maybe it could be treated as an 'atrocity' similair to the SMAC system. You could lead to a Dr. Strangelove ending to the game with an ultimate virus, which all other players would have to cooperate to stop.

 

[Bibor]

I agree.

But if the holocaust was dropped, if the inqusition was dropped, and all other inhuman political/religious atrocities were removed from game with the exception of "whipping" population (and some Conquests), then MAD should be removed also.

But, if we want to go realistic, and include MAD, as you said, the arms race would have a new meaning. Unfortunately, as you can see, MAD didn't help to stop wars. Okay, the superpowers don't attack each other. Yay. So the smaller countries suffer now, from Superpowers' constant meddling.

However, if we want MAD then some other things should be changed for MAD to work:
- More countries. MAD requires cold-war wars outside the borders of superpowers (Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea etc.)
- Number of nukes kept secret. As they can be seen from the "investigate city", and a planted spy.
- Improved sattelites and "fog of war". Spy sattelites should have a dominant role in MAD.
- Improved diplomacy.
- Terrorist attacks.
- More "scientific" technologies that don't overlap with "military research". The space race suffered because of MAD. Yes, it overlapped at first, and then funding went to ICBMs instead.

So, its not merely a question of "more nuke subs" and "nuke planes".

 

[sir_schwick]

But if the holocaust was dropped, if the inqusition was dropped, and all other inhuman political/religious atrocities were removed from game with the exception of "whipping" population (and some Conquests), then MAD should be removed also.

I think the big reasons an accurate genocide/religious atrocity model wasn't included were these: (1) Some people would find the simulation of such things too offensive. (2) The ethnicity and religious models just aren't designed to cover such things.

MAD is not such an evil thing. It has increased global trade, reduced the number of people who participate in war. Proxy conflicts still existed, but superpowers and industrialized nations could no longer fight each other directly. Its reduced overall conflict rather than added to it. Nuclear weapons have also produced a ton of academic and somtimes commercial useful applications.

I agree wtih all the points required to make a MAD model that works. The main reason I would like to see it included are: (1) Nuclear weapons can't be wished out of history. (2) Currently, they are just a really big artilllery shell.

 

[Colonel]

- Number of nukes kept secret. As they can be seen from the "investigate city", and a planted spy.

No you couldnt because they would be built outside citiy range but still inside your borders you would need spy planes or satelites

Another Couple Minor Ideas for Nuclear Warfare.

-First-If you are being attacked-regular nonnuclear attack-and you are not the aggressor you do NOT take a rep hit-if you use nukes
-Next-Order of technolgy\units discovered-You would get Bombers first then tactical short range- then a third tech would give you ICBM's
THats All for Now

 

[Me-262]

i think it`s a good idea to use missle silos.The nuclear sub should carry more than 1 missle.

 

[sir_schwick]

-First-If you are being attacked-regular nonnuclear attack-and you are not the aggressor you do NOT take a rep hit-if you use nukes

I have to disagree with that. This would encourage completely the wrong behavior. Conventional attacks can only be answered with conventional counter-attacks.

-Next-Order of technolgy\units discovered-You would get Bombers first then tactical short range- then a third tech would give you ICBM's

I do agree with this sentiment.

 

[Colonel]

I have to disagree with that. This would encourage completely the wrong behavior. Conventional attacks can only be answered with conventional counter-attacks.

ok mainly i want not so much of the defender being able to use nukes but not the other side but i want a way where you dont take a rep hit---say for example a world war two type climate where you were sneak attacked you could use SOME nuclear retailation----i didnt mean one side could go into total nuclear war without consequence-sort of how it came out though

Maybe if a certian group of things were triggered like if you got sneak attacked and lost X number of cities plus one more requirement and you could use X number of nukes-nukes include bombers and subs nukes

 

[sir_schwick]

Its an interesting concept. The only thing to remember is that a luanch by one side, even in defense, is likely to cause a full nuclear exchange. Of course this may not be the case when it is just smaller nukes in few numbers, or the defender alone has nukes. It would also make having nuclear arms a greater deterrent to attack if a more powerful conventional military threatens you. After examining it, the threat of MAD alone is enouhg of a balancing force to justify defensive nuclear strikes against enemy troops and possibly cities. Thank you Colonel.

 

[Mewtarthio]

I disagree. The use of any nuclear weapons at all runs the risk of a full-scale nuclear war which could draw in the entire world, resulting in a large, dead, radioactive rock orbiting our sun. The only possible way nukes could ever be condoned would be if the other side doesn't have a known nuclear project and it quickly ends a long war with plenty of War Weariness.

 

[sir_schwick]

What you just described was MAD. Its the reason nukes will either be talked down quickly, or game over. Having sole nuclear parity could lead to some nasty arms races, which I like a lot. Imagine more Cuban Missle Crises.

 

[sir_schwick]

BTW, I completely agree with your conclusions Mewtarthio.