migkillertwo
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 404
As it stands, Civ V's portrayal of nuclear warfare is incredibly unrealistic, and grossly simplified and doesn't do justice to the sort of intricacies involved in planning for a nuclear exchange. Civ IV's system was a lot better, but far from perfect. I want to make a few suggestions (not like any of these will come to fruition, but a man can dream right? perhaps there's some ambitious modder out there who feels my pain)
1: There needs to be a fundamental asymmetry between tactical nuclear warfare and strategic nuclear warfare. Tactical nukes are like any other unit, to be used on the battlefield against an enemy's conventional forces. They're basically super-powerful artillery pieces.
Strategic nuclear warfare, on the other hand, is much more complicated (and, players would find, interesting). Strategic nuclear warfare is the sort that involves destroying an enemy's nuclear arsenal and, if necessary, destroying an enemy's whole civilization. Strategic nuclear warfare needs to be almost completely separate from the normal turn-based strategy of Civ V. Whereas in the current system, if two civs know where eachother's nukes are, the attacker has the advantage because he could destroy the defender's nukes in a single first strike.
Nuclear exchanges last for minutes, at most for a few hours. I want to make two suggestions for this
1: Allow players to launch nukes in the same turn the enemy does. Perhaps a few nukes would be destroyed first depending on how advanced the first-striking nation's arsenal is, but it shouldn't be possible for one force of ICBMs to destroy another's no matter what
2: Let players create "attack plans" to be executed with the push of one button. Perhaps the AI could assist them depending on what they are doing. Perhaps the player only wants to hit the enemy's nuclear forces, in which only cities and forts with nukes would be targeted, or the player wants to unleash total annihilation on the enemy, where the player or AI would target nuclear weapons in such a manner where the most people would die, cities destroyed, or production destroyed. The former would be employed in a preemptive first strike, or the latter would be used in a retaliatory strike.
Now, my other big suggestion is the creation of more delivery systems. They would be bombers, fighters (tactical only), silo-launched ICBMs, road-vehicle launched ICBMs, Submarine launched ballistic missiles, and submarines. Let's discuss the pros and cons of each system. Bomber-based and fighter-based nuclear bombs could be managed like "atomic bombs" are in Civ 5, the bomb is basically a disposable bomber or fighter.
Bombers: The two advantages are cost and explosive power. An aerial dropped nuclear weapon is considerably cheaper than a similarly-powerful weapon placed atop an ICBM. Furthermore, a bomber could carry a far more powerful weapon than an ICBM. A B-52 has the capability of carrying 4 25-mt nuclear weapons. It could easily carry just one 60-75mt nuclear weapon. To reflect this in the game, every unit within 2 hexes of a bomber-dropped nuclear bomb will be destroyed, and every unit in one or 2 hexes beyond that would suffer some damage. Further, if it is directly dropped upon a city or fort, that city or fort will always be destroyed (and half or 2/3 of any nuclear missile silos on that base). This makes sense because the total destructive radius of the Tsar Bomba is 21 miles, which is longer than most modern artillery pieces.
The disadvantage is that they are extremely vulnerable, on the offense and defense. Bomber runways cannot be hidden from recon satellites, so a first strike involving ICBMs and SLBMs will very likely destroy any bomber forces.
I say this should be allowed to be mitigated by having bomber forces "patrol", making them immune to a first strike, but not to fighter interception or SAM shoot down. There should be some tradeoff. perhaps the maintenance costs on a bomber would be considerably higher the turn that they patrol. the air defense vulnerability might be mitigated by a very expensive "stealth atom bomb", which is basically a nuclear-armed stealth bomber. But why build a 2 billion dollar bomber when, for the same price, you can build dozens, perhaps hundreds, of silo-based nuclear weapons?
Silo-based ICBMs: The advantage of this and other ballistic missiles is that they are immune from interception by enemy air defenses. Further, they are considerably cheaper than submarine launched ballistic missiles.
The main disadvantage is that they are somewhat vulnerable to a first strike. If an enemy has determined which forts and cities have nuclear missile silos, they could entirely destroy them, or destroy most of them, in a first strike involving SLBMs and cruise missiles. Further, they are more expensive, per unit, than bomber-based weapons, and are slightly less powerful.
I think the way they are deployed needs to be different than Civ V or Civ IV. How about make it so that silos are actually buildings. Cities could build them inside the city, or they could be in a fort near the city. For forts too far away from cities, perhaps a worker can build them instead (albeit at a potentially slower pace than if a city were to build them).
Submarine launched ballistic missiles: These are basically ICBMs aboard nuclear submarines. These have numerous advantages over bombers and land based missiles. First, they are practically impossible to destroy in a first strike. Unless the enemy navy is constantly tracking your subs, they will survive any first strike. A sizeable force of SLBMs would make the ultimate nuclear deterrent. Furthermore, SLBMs are potent first-strike weapons. SLBMs, having shorter travel times, can strike an enemy's land-based force before leaders know of the impending strike and are able to launch their own missiles
The disadvantage is cost. SLBMs and their platforms are extremely expensive. a Minumteman missile costs about 7 million, plus another million for the silo. By contrast, an Ohio Class nuclear missile submarine costs 2 billion per unit, and their Trident missiles cost another 30 million per unit.
Mobile-launched ballistic missiles: These are ICBMs atop trains and/or trucks. The main advantage is that it is difficult for an enemy nation's recon satellites to locate these weapons. Hence, they could not be destroyed in a first strike and make a credible deterrent against a first strike. Furthermore, their cost is comparable to a silo-based ICBM. The main disadvantage of this platform, however, is that they are not as accurate. To reliably hit a target with precision, missiles have to know where they are. This is easy enough with a silo, but difficult with an SLBM or a mobile ICBM. To reflect this, they should require far more mobile ICBMs than silo ICBMs to destroy an enemy's ICBM base (or silos in a city)
Cruise missiles: These are basically nuclear armed cruise missiles. They can be said to be the ultimate first strike weapons because they are so stealthy. Flying at tree-top levels, they cannot be detected by ground radar because, for too long, they are either over the horizon, or are obscured by terrain deformations. furthermore, they are considerably cheaper than all the other platforms.
The disadvantage is explosive power. These things are not very powerful compared to SLBMs or ICBMs, let alone nuclear bombers. To reflect this, they should have a smaller explosive radius, plus require far more cruise missiles to destroy the land based stock of an enemy
That's my rant.
1: There needs to be a fundamental asymmetry between tactical nuclear warfare and strategic nuclear warfare. Tactical nukes are like any other unit, to be used on the battlefield against an enemy's conventional forces. They're basically super-powerful artillery pieces.
Strategic nuclear warfare, on the other hand, is much more complicated (and, players would find, interesting). Strategic nuclear warfare is the sort that involves destroying an enemy's nuclear arsenal and, if necessary, destroying an enemy's whole civilization. Strategic nuclear warfare needs to be almost completely separate from the normal turn-based strategy of Civ V. Whereas in the current system, if two civs know where eachother's nukes are, the attacker has the advantage because he could destroy the defender's nukes in a single first strike.
Nuclear exchanges last for minutes, at most for a few hours. I want to make two suggestions for this
1: Allow players to launch nukes in the same turn the enemy does. Perhaps a few nukes would be destroyed first depending on how advanced the first-striking nation's arsenal is, but it shouldn't be possible for one force of ICBMs to destroy another's no matter what
2: Let players create "attack plans" to be executed with the push of one button. Perhaps the AI could assist them depending on what they are doing. Perhaps the player only wants to hit the enemy's nuclear forces, in which only cities and forts with nukes would be targeted, or the player wants to unleash total annihilation on the enemy, where the player or AI would target nuclear weapons in such a manner where the most people would die, cities destroyed, or production destroyed. The former would be employed in a preemptive first strike, or the latter would be used in a retaliatory strike.
Now, my other big suggestion is the creation of more delivery systems. They would be bombers, fighters (tactical only), silo-launched ICBMs, road-vehicle launched ICBMs, Submarine launched ballistic missiles, and submarines. Let's discuss the pros and cons of each system. Bomber-based and fighter-based nuclear bombs could be managed like "atomic bombs" are in Civ 5, the bomb is basically a disposable bomber or fighter.
Bombers: The two advantages are cost and explosive power. An aerial dropped nuclear weapon is considerably cheaper than a similarly-powerful weapon placed atop an ICBM. Furthermore, a bomber could carry a far more powerful weapon than an ICBM. A B-52 has the capability of carrying 4 25-mt nuclear weapons. It could easily carry just one 60-75mt nuclear weapon. To reflect this in the game, every unit within 2 hexes of a bomber-dropped nuclear bomb will be destroyed, and every unit in one or 2 hexes beyond that would suffer some damage. Further, if it is directly dropped upon a city or fort, that city or fort will always be destroyed (and half or 2/3 of any nuclear missile silos on that base). This makes sense because the total destructive radius of the Tsar Bomba is 21 miles, which is longer than most modern artillery pieces.
The disadvantage is that they are extremely vulnerable, on the offense and defense. Bomber runways cannot be hidden from recon satellites, so a first strike involving ICBMs and SLBMs will very likely destroy any bomber forces.
I say this should be allowed to be mitigated by having bomber forces "patrol", making them immune to a first strike, but not to fighter interception or SAM shoot down. There should be some tradeoff. perhaps the maintenance costs on a bomber would be considerably higher the turn that they patrol. the air defense vulnerability might be mitigated by a very expensive "stealth atom bomb", which is basically a nuclear-armed stealth bomber. But why build a 2 billion dollar bomber when, for the same price, you can build dozens, perhaps hundreds, of silo-based nuclear weapons?
Silo-based ICBMs: The advantage of this and other ballistic missiles is that they are immune from interception by enemy air defenses. Further, they are considerably cheaper than submarine launched ballistic missiles.
The main disadvantage is that they are somewhat vulnerable to a first strike. If an enemy has determined which forts and cities have nuclear missile silos, they could entirely destroy them, or destroy most of them, in a first strike involving SLBMs and cruise missiles. Further, they are more expensive, per unit, than bomber-based weapons, and are slightly less powerful.
I think the way they are deployed needs to be different than Civ V or Civ IV. How about make it so that silos are actually buildings. Cities could build them inside the city, or they could be in a fort near the city. For forts too far away from cities, perhaps a worker can build them instead (albeit at a potentially slower pace than if a city were to build them).
Submarine launched ballistic missiles: These are basically ICBMs aboard nuclear submarines. These have numerous advantages over bombers and land based missiles. First, they are practically impossible to destroy in a first strike. Unless the enemy navy is constantly tracking your subs, they will survive any first strike. A sizeable force of SLBMs would make the ultimate nuclear deterrent. Furthermore, SLBMs are potent first-strike weapons. SLBMs, having shorter travel times, can strike an enemy's land-based force before leaders know of the impending strike and are able to launch their own missiles
The disadvantage is cost. SLBMs and their platforms are extremely expensive. a Minumteman missile costs about 7 million, plus another million for the silo. By contrast, an Ohio Class nuclear missile submarine costs 2 billion per unit, and their Trident missiles cost another 30 million per unit.
Mobile-launched ballistic missiles: These are ICBMs atop trains and/or trucks. The main advantage is that it is difficult for an enemy nation's recon satellites to locate these weapons. Hence, they could not be destroyed in a first strike and make a credible deterrent against a first strike. Furthermore, their cost is comparable to a silo-based ICBM. The main disadvantage of this platform, however, is that they are not as accurate. To reliably hit a target with precision, missiles have to know where they are. This is easy enough with a silo, but difficult with an SLBM or a mobile ICBM. To reflect this, they should require far more mobile ICBMs than silo ICBMs to destroy an enemy's ICBM base (or silos in a city)
Cruise missiles: These are basically nuclear armed cruise missiles. They can be said to be the ultimate first strike weapons because they are so stealthy. Flying at tree-top levels, they cannot be detected by ground radar because, for too long, they are either over the horizon, or are obscured by terrain deformations. furthermore, they are considerably cheaper than all the other platforms.
The disadvantage is explosive power. These things are not very powerful compared to SLBMs or ICBMs, let alone nuclear bombers. To reflect this, they should have a smaller explosive radius, plus require far more cruise missiles to destroy the land based stock of an enemy
That's my rant.
), choose one of my cities as the target it wanted nuked, and then fire away. Each test indicated certain behavioural criteria...
