Missle Silos
- Thread starter sir_schwick
- Start date
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Gelion said:
If I remember correctly, what is ironic about SDI is that in real life SDI just refers to the group that had to figure out how to win a first strike. A missle shield does't currently exist that could adequately defend the US or former USSR from a nuclear exchange.
Yrui2356 said:
If done right, that would be good. The only real problems with movies is apparently they are expensive. That is why the wonders are the lame splash screens. Maybe you could have the Progenitors find the ruins of Earth? Be a nice tie in for a special scenario or SMAC 2.
Ballazic said:
That would be a refreshing change from the boring SDI we have now. Could require the same techs and maybe a couple like, Cybernetics, and Awesomeology.
deleted_scenes
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Messages
- 50
A morbid topic, no doubt, but you guys have certainly come up with some interesting ideas for the sequel. I especially like the ideas of hunting for enemy nukes -- looking for isolated silos and enemy boomers (a la Red October) -- would add a new dimension to things. My only concern is that the whole concept would be much more complex than the rest of the game by comparison.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
If we had to make this concept as simple as possible, here is what needs to be included:
1) Ability to respond immediately(on attackers turn) to nuclear strikes with nuclear force.
2) Nukes destroy all the improvements in a city and kill 1/2 of the population and make the other half abandon it. Units get damaged, but not necessarily destroyed.
This would do the most for the MAD concept with the least amount of complexity. Of course a few more simple features would really add to the utility and ease of use.
3) Nuclear Advisor who warns you about enemy arsenals and shows where your missles are and what they are pointed at. He can also do a calculation on the result of an attacker by someone else on you or vice versa.
4) Pre-targetting for warheads. You can manually target whenever the missles start flying, but pre-targetting will save you the headache.
I do not think those were too bad either. These would add a layer of complexity that would make a comprehensive MAD system. It would probably be better if these options were left a toggle or moddable.
5) Missle Silos that are built whenever an ICBM is made. These could be placed on undeveloped terrain anywhere in your borders. Only a direct and targetted nuclear strike(no guessing) could destroy the missle inside.
6) Strategic bomber wings. These would have a designated target area. They would be considered to be ready to strike 24/7 and would be targetted like any other warhead, although they can strike multiple targets instead of one, but can be shot down.
7) Red-line phone. This would allow you and the potential target to talk if things were heating up.
8) Satellite intel. Could tell you about thermographic variations on suspected test sites(engines warming up). Could also see if enemy seemed to be mobilizing.
9) MIRV ICBMs. MIRV stands for Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles. THese were clustered Fusion weapons that seperated on reentry and could take out multiple cities. They were pretty much outlawed by SALT and SALT II.
10) Special Intelligence Missions to find the enemy nukes.
11) Nuclear Blast Shelters. These would allow 3/4 of your citizens to survive a blast.
This last section is a little idea that was thrown around in another thread.
Whenever the First and Last Nuclear War finishes, its the end of the world as we know it. But humanity will survive, just in a bizarre and harsh land. You have to emerge from your Nuclear Blast Shelters and re-learn how to live. Your technology is mostly useless now and your knowledge of agriculture and earth has to change. You start a new tech tree designed to overcome those challenges. Over the first 100 years citizens will die from radiation poisoning at regular intervals. Over longer times the effects of radiation will lessen as humans adapt to it and radiation levels fall. Eventually civilization will be back on its feet and nukes might even make an appearance(human nature). Also, the histograph time limit is reset to 700 years after the nuclear exchange. Of course if you guys repeat yourselves and fall into a nuclear holocaust again, you start over. This cycle can theorhetically continue at least two to three times before the whole planet is just dead.
1) Ability to respond immediately(on attackers turn) to nuclear strikes with nuclear force.
2) Nukes destroy all the improvements in a city and kill 1/2 of the population and make the other half abandon it. Units get damaged, but not necessarily destroyed.
This would do the most for the MAD concept with the least amount of complexity. Of course a few more simple features would really add to the utility and ease of use.
3) Nuclear Advisor who warns you about enemy arsenals and shows where your missles are and what they are pointed at. He can also do a calculation on the result of an attacker by someone else on you or vice versa.
4) Pre-targetting for warheads. You can manually target whenever the missles start flying, but pre-targetting will save you the headache.
I do not think those were too bad either. These would add a layer of complexity that would make a comprehensive MAD system. It would probably be better if these options were left a toggle or moddable.
5) Missle Silos that are built whenever an ICBM is made. These could be placed on undeveloped terrain anywhere in your borders. Only a direct and targetted nuclear strike(no guessing) could destroy the missle inside.
6) Strategic bomber wings. These would have a designated target area. They would be considered to be ready to strike 24/7 and would be targetted like any other warhead, although they can strike multiple targets instead of one, but can be shot down.
7) Red-line phone. This would allow you and the potential target to talk if things were heating up.
8) Satellite intel. Could tell you about thermographic variations on suspected test sites(engines warming up). Could also see if enemy seemed to be mobilizing.
9) MIRV ICBMs. MIRV stands for Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles. THese were clustered Fusion weapons that seperated on reentry and could take out multiple cities. They were pretty much outlawed by SALT and SALT II.
10) Special Intelligence Missions to find the enemy nukes.
11) Nuclear Blast Shelters. These would allow 3/4 of your citizens to survive a blast.
This last section is a little idea that was thrown around in another thread.
Whenever the First and Last Nuclear War finishes, its the end of the world as we know it. But humanity will survive, just in a bizarre and harsh land. You have to emerge from your Nuclear Blast Shelters and re-learn how to live. Your technology is mostly useless now and your knowledge of agriculture and earth has to change. You start a new tech tree designed to overcome those challenges. Over the first 100 years citizens will die from radiation poisoning at regular intervals. Over longer times the effects of radiation will lessen as humans adapt to it and radiation levels fall. Eventually civilization will be back on its feet and nukes might even make an appearance(human nature). Also, the histograph time limit is reset to 700 years after the nuclear exchange. Of course if you guys repeat yourselves and fall into a nuclear holocaust again, you start over. This cycle can theorhetically continue at least two to three times before the whole planet is just dead.
Gelion
Retired Captain
I like the last idea.
I honestly think that either the game is playable or historically/etc accurate. I would go for the second one, but I think I'm in the minority.
I honestly think that either the game is playable or historically/etc accurate. I would go for the second one, but I think I'm in the minority.
bjblue
Chieftain
Just reading through all your ideas and i think theres some good and some bad!
I dont like the idea that every nuclear exchange is automatically scaled up to a MAD exchange. I think it would be more resonable and add much more tension to the game if we could get a real escalation feel going. For example, your invaded by a superior conventional force and your defences are overrun so you opt for a limited tactical nuke stike against enemy military targets within your own or very near your borders. The enemy could either pull back and seek peace, unwilling to risk further nuclear attacks against troops or worse their cities.
Lets say this time they responded with a like for like attack, striking at your naval forces and reserve ground forces and then push forward with a further conventional attack. Thats leaves you a nasty option, you know your bluff has failed and your in initial strike (inteded to force the enemy to the negotiating table has failed) and your conventional abilities are even more diminished and the enemy have proven thier willingness to go nuclear. You opt for a second strike, hoping that you can obliterate their entire conventional force. you chose not to strike (again) deep into enemy territory for fear of provoking an uncontrolable escalation to full scale stratigic nuclear war. (while this is going on...over a number of turns...you would be talking to allies and enemy alike trying to "turn off" the war.) Your strike is successfull and the enemy forces in your nation are decimated, however a strike against a rear echelon has also managed to destroy one of their cities and they retaliate once again with a similiar attack. ( at this point things would have gotten so close to the MAD exhange that it would be difficult to back away...but still possible...) The enemy target three of your cities and at that point...as your advisor tells you there are missiles inbound you order a full counter strike...thats your MAD attack.
The game play would run as you've all suggested but on a game based turn to turn basis...but you would at any point have the option of the red button you mentioned. As the AI lauched you would be advised of number of launches (given proper tech or preplaced spy) and at all times you would have the option of MAD attack....or you could wait it out...hope for the best and chose to retaliate as you see fit with your own specified targets.
It would also be better if the AI reacted differently to nuke attacks on diffrent targets....less likely to respond with MAD if you nuke a single infantry but working up the scale to thepoint where a multiple city strike is likely to result in MAD.
And the one thing that just got to change...AI's declaring war on you for using nukes. I mean could you imagine if US got involved in a war...had to nuke the other side...and bolivia or canada just declared war.....on a country prepared to use nukes!! i dont think its realistic.
And YES..i recon that nuclear polution should be far more damaging, last far longer and a nuke attack on a city should kill more than half the pop and destroy ALL the improvements.. Its just too easy to recover from at present...and also there should be some flag which stops nuked cites celebrating "we love the king day" coz it just got less crowded...now thats MAD!!
I dont like the idea that every nuclear exchange is automatically scaled up to a MAD exchange. I think it would be more resonable and add much more tension to the game if we could get a real escalation feel going. For example, your invaded by a superior conventional force and your defences are overrun so you opt for a limited tactical nuke stike against enemy military targets within your own or very near your borders. The enemy could either pull back and seek peace, unwilling to risk further nuclear attacks against troops or worse their cities.
Lets say this time they responded with a like for like attack, striking at your naval forces and reserve ground forces and then push forward with a further conventional attack. Thats leaves you a nasty option, you know your bluff has failed and your in initial strike (inteded to force the enemy to the negotiating table has failed) and your conventional abilities are even more diminished and the enemy have proven thier willingness to go nuclear. You opt for a second strike, hoping that you can obliterate their entire conventional force. you chose not to strike (again) deep into enemy territory for fear of provoking an uncontrolable escalation to full scale stratigic nuclear war. (while this is going on...over a number of turns...you would be talking to allies and enemy alike trying to "turn off" the war.) Your strike is successfull and the enemy forces in your nation are decimated, however a strike against a rear echelon has also managed to destroy one of their cities and they retaliate once again with a similiar attack. ( at this point things would have gotten so close to the MAD exhange that it would be difficult to back away...but still possible...) The enemy target three of your cities and at that point...as your advisor tells you there are missiles inbound you order a full counter strike...thats your MAD attack.
The game play would run as you've all suggested but on a game based turn to turn basis...but you would at any point have the option of the red button you mentioned. As the AI lauched you would be advised of number of launches (given proper tech or preplaced spy) and at all times you would have the option of MAD attack....or you could wait it out...hope for the best and chose to retaliate as you see fit with your own specified targets.
It would also be better if the AI reacted differently to nuke attacks on diffrent targets....less likely to respond with MAD if you nuke a single infantry but working up the scale to thepoint where a multiple city strike is likely to result in MAD.
And the one thing that just got to change...AI's declaring war on you for using nukes. I mean could you imagine if US got involved in a war...had to nuke the other side...and bolivia or canada just declared war.....on a country prepared to use nukes!! i dont think its realistic.
And YES..i recon that nuclear polution should be far more damaging, last far longer and a nuke attack on a city should kill more than half the pop and destroy ALL the improvements.. Its just too easy to recover from at present...and also there should be some flag which stops nuked cites celebrating "we love the king day" coz it just got less crowded...now thats MAD!!
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I see what you mean and agree in spirit. However the problem is that conventional conflict occurs in turn based. This is not the major problem, but how AIs usually deal with military escalation. I just od not think they would understand the subtelty of arming a nukes and warming up the engine, and diplomatic postureing. They barely understand the concept of tribute. Other hten that, I agree that escalation rather than Nuclear Apocalypse would be more appropriate and more fun.
Yuri2356
Test Screening
Agreed, you won't go from "hippie peace" to "button mashing" in 60 seconds. Where would the world be if The US and USSR both jumped the button over every little dispute?
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
That's another thing civ really needs more of, proxy conflicts.
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
Well that should depend on the type used. As much as some people like to believe, even if every last nuke worldwide got exploded all at once right now, with the current numbers and powers, there would still be habitable areas, and the radiation WOULD go away eventually. Sure things would be messed up real REAL bad, but people would still survive, and cities would rebuild eventually.
Thats another problem with the current nuke system, there is no way to measure destructive power, a 20 MT bomb in real life does 10 times the damage of a 20 KT bomb, even though they are both very powerful.
MAD does not me mutually assured total destruction, it just means that should you attack, the enemy is going to hurt you very very badly.
CenturionV said:
Wow I have never seen a post that inaccurate. Where to start. One at current nuclear strength the US has the ability to destroy this entire planet 13 times over, as of today the former USSR has the ability to destroy the planet 7 times over, and china and the other could blow it up at least once.
Next most US\Soviet Nukes are alot more powerful the 20MT.
MAD does mean Mutually Assured total destruction, it just doesnt say it. THe only thing that would survive a nuclear war in which all nukes are used are cochrouches
bjblue
Chieftain
I think ive got to agree with centurionV. I think that we should guard against making nukes in Civ OVERpowered but at the moment they are way too underpwered. And there should be a difference between a tactical nuke and a strategic weapon. If i remember correctly a tactical weapon would be of a scale between 10 to 100 kilotons (enough to wreck a a good sized town) while strategic weapons can range upto 50 MEGAtons...which would flatten a city the size of London and then some pretty much on its own.
I also think the "destroy the world" thirteen times over is a bit misguided...it depends on what "world" your discussing....i think that quote was originally intened to imply combatant nations and their allies...basically the northern hemisphere...but since weve (thankfully) never had a full scale nuclear war most of it is just theory. In civ, while the weapons should be more powerful we should still have the ability to play on after even the largest exchange...a post apocoliptic world should be very difficult to survive in but not impossible in the game at least. I would hate the idea that you push that button and all you get is a flash screen "saying" your all dead.
Even given MAD and the entire idea of detterence the nations currently employing nuclear forces as part of their national arsenal have made plans for "after the war". I believe there would be survivors who could eventually manange to rebuild some sort of nation....and what about the non-combatants...who's to say that given the right sort of action by the governments that in a post-nuclear world where the superpowers have been reduced to third world status that other nations not involved in the fighting and distant enough to escape the worst of the Eco-damage would not rise to power.
I also think the "destroy the world" thirteen times over is a bit misguided...it depends on what "world" your discussing....i think that quote was originally intened to imply combatant nations and their allies...basically the northern hemisphere...but since weve (thankfully) never had a full scale nuclear war most of it is just theory. In civ, while the weapons should be more powerful we should still have the ability to play on after even the largest exchange...a post apocoliptic world should be very difficult to survive in but not impossible in the game at least. I would hate the idea that you push that button and all you get is a flash screen "saying" your all dead.
Even given MAD and the entire idea of detterence the nations currently employing nuclear forces as part of their national arsenal have made plans for "after the war". I believe there would be survivors who could eventually manange to rebuild some sort of nation....and what about the non-combatants...who's to say that given the right sort of action by the governments that in a post-nuclear world where the superpowers have been reduced to third world status that other nations not involved in the fighting and distant enough to escape the worst of the Eco-damage would not rise to power.
bjblue
Chieftain
Ohh and i forgot to mention....colonel....while most US/UK/russian/french and chinese misslies can CARRY around 20MT. the actual warheads very rarely reach over 5megatons. its the combined MRVs (mulitple re-entry vehicles) that can carry around 20megatons. Warheads this size are very rarely made...and certainly dont average more than that on a standard basis. The largest ever exploded was a russian 53megaton device...and this proved too heavy and expensive to be used as reliable weapon...until about ten years after it was developed and at that point the cold war was climbing down and the west and east alike were discussing the idea of limited (no city bombing) nuclear strategy.
Gelion
Retired Captain
I never said SDI defends the whole country. IRL "shield" is stretched over Moscow and one US military base according to SALT 2 I think. But never the whole country, however the US might build something like that in the future.sir_schwick said:
MeatWad
Hyperspace Hot Rod
Boy, PETA is going to get me on this one, but have you ever put a cockroach in a microwave? I left one in there on high for over 30 minutes once. It kept crawling around, seemingly oblivious and most certainly did not die. Until I squashed it.Stid said:
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
THere would still be plenty of people left, but all the infrastructure required for modern life would be gone. Any electronics that were not destroyed would be fried. Our satellite networks would sit in orbit, still, unless nukes were launched at them too. The real problem first is radiation in the atmosphere. Humans could only be exposed for extremely short periods for months afterward. For years after that the time would still only be measured in hours. The top several inches of soil would be irradiated, forcing farmers to dig it out. Clean water would be virtually non-existant, except for reserves that exist. Society would eventually recover, but the road is very very long. In civ htis could be super-poor terrain and an alternate tech tree.
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
I'm sorry but you are simply very incorrect. I have studied the subject alot, talked to US military personnel who actually work witht he weapons, and read large amount of online information.
http://www.survival-center.com/nuclear/nwss/s60p766.htm
http://www.surviveanuclearattack.com/NuclearWeaponsFactoids.html
http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/nukes.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/summary.htm
I undertsand how you might be confused, most people are, they have bought into the enviromentalist/anti-nuke activist unsubstantiated claims.
Even a total nuclear war between ALL nations would leave large area of earth still habitable. The atmosphere would not be scorched, radiation would not penetrate everything, fallout or smoke from burning cities would not cause nuclear winter (at worst it would cause a crop killing cooling for a while, with no doubt bad effects) Any decent non-propaganda influenced scientist can tell you that the old Cold war ideas about nuclear war have long been disproved, thats not to say it would not be bad, it would easily be the worst man made disaster ever, however anyone who says that it would make earth uninhabitable, or would result in so much damage that everything everywere would be destroyed, just does not understand nuclear weapons.
Also on a more technical note few 20 MT weapons are still being used, simply because they are not as effective as large amounts of smaller ones. Alot of russian ICBM's now us many smaller 500KT bombs instead of 1 big 1, 5, 20, 50 MT one.
Fallout is overated, nuclear weapons are not. (unless you start saying rediculous stuff like total biospehere destruction and stuff like that)
Similar threads
