Nuclear war is too simple, a few suggestions

[migkillertwo]

That would be realy weird for a turn based stratigy game to have 1 scene for the very end of the game when it goes into realy time stratigy. You could make an entire game like that, to be frank here some of these ideas are just a little complex, civ to me is best like a board game, lets not turn it into total war

Honestly, A civilization-total war game would kick unlimited amounts of ass. It could only work up until the napoleonic era. Starting in the 20th century though, it would be unworkable. Battles often spanned hundreds of miles involving orders of magnitude more soldiers.

But an RTS system of strategic nuclear war here is probably the best idea. Nuclear war really does take place in minutes instead of months.

 

[Camikaze]

I agree with some of the OP, but perhaps not the essence of it. TMIT is absolutely spot on in saying that nuclear warfare is already given too much attention in the game. But I can certainly understand improvements within the system so long as it doesn't become a more dominant feature. I like the idea of attack plans (or, more to the point, response plans), to be honest. They do make sense. The real issue with this is how the AI would deal with them. How would they make a plan against you when they cannot predict an attack from you accurately? Your friend would not have their arsenal pointed in your direction, but you'd still attack them if it were to your advantage. I'm not sure that issue is reconcilable.

 

[dexters]

The way AI handles them is fine. They are used as economic weapons. AI with access to nukes will routinely carpet nuke the core of a rival. It's far more potent than the Nukes in previous games because it is always a threat.

I like how even Nukes (missiles) have a limited range , it makes deploying them and securing key cities with them more important.

This is the most balanced deployment of nukes in a Civ game to date in terms of it being a real 'threat' in games. Civ3 and 4 retained deep diplomatic consequences for using them, though Civs do still use it, it is a rarer thing but it makes sense as both games have ICBMs that make nuking easy as they can reach anywhere on the map. The limited range / 1upt provides the right incentive to use them as tactical and strategic weapons.

 

[Camikaze]

There needs to be a balance between it being a real threat and it being an overused over-important feature. I don't like the idea of AIs routinely carpet bombing your core, because it's just not realistic. The threat is present, but the deterrent value is not, which makes it quite an unrealistic representation.

 

[dexters]

This is an interesting AI question, but the cases where I've seen the AI use nukes is when it perceives itself to have overwhelming advantage (one could argue the Americans might have used nukes during the cold war had the russians not have them or not have them in overwhelming numbers)

Game 1
Ghengis Nukes my frontlines and invades
I had 0 nukes on DoW, 2 were in production. Ghengis had 8

Game 2
Isabella Nukes Darius (AI to AI)
Darius did not have uranium resource

Game 2
Isabelle Nukes Montezuma
Monty has access but did not appear to have any bombs ready. Radioactive plumes is seem around Monty's cities but no plumes seem on Isabellas until later when 1 bomb is dropped near Cordoba

Game 3
India nukes my frontier cities in a war,
I had already wrapped up a diplo win and was just playing the war for fun. I had not brought the atomic bomb online before I was nuked.

There are other games where nukes aren't used on me because I usually try to build a few for deterrance, or at least I think it is deterrance.

My very unscientific analysis appears to be there is a deterrant element to this. Granted the AI would have to be cheating to know if you have nukes as you can't tell what 'aircraft' is stationed in cities.

 

[Camikaze]

Even if that is the case, it's really only an arbitrary deterrent. The AI failing to use its nukes is a bad decision for it; you are going to nuke them regardless of what they do. The deterrent in the game actually has to be real, i.e. they should actually have some incentive to not nuke you, rather than just not doing so because that's how they're programmed.

 

[KLHII]

I love the ideas with the nukes, but would be more interested in the repercussions and the added diplomacy that could also added.

For example, nuclear peace treaties, aerial photos (either by satellite or air), mutual nuclear buildups and reductions (each sides matching the other), and nuclear testing prior to getting the Atom Bomb in the tech tree (which announces to other civs u have the bomb)

The above would add a new atmosphere, later into the game.

 

[dexters]

Even if that is the case, it's really only an arbitrary deterrent. The AI failing to use its nukes is a bad decision for it; you are going to nuke them regardless of what they do. The deterrent in the game actually has to be real, i.e. they should actually have some incentive to not nuke you, rather than just not doing so because that's how they're programmed.

I think you need to turn the question around and say, the player should have some incentive to not nuke the AI.

And really it's two sides of the same coin. In previous games, the deep diplomatic penalties for using a Nuke is also player centric. But it likely had the practical reason of deterring players from using nukes to wipe out AI stacks.


The move to UPT means nukes aren't so overpowered and I'm fine with the freer use of Nukes. Granted not all AI civs will build them, and the limited range/tactical nature of nukes this time around nicely balances it out.

I see it as two valid approaches.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, nukes are less powerful now, but I don't think that's really an adequate trade-off for no disincentives. Massive diplomatic penalty and global warming were very annoying, but at least they left you with a decision about whether or not you should use the nukes. As it is now, you have direct incentive to use the nukes as soon as possible, both in terms of the obvious benefits and so you can free up uranium to build more.

 

[dexters]

i'd welcome some sort of diplomatic option where civs with nukes collectively disarm SOME or ALL nukes.

This should be part of a package of diplomatic options that have positive benefits to players, to counterbalance the current ease with which players can offend/aggreive the AI.

This may be part of the recommended UN, it would be interesting and a more nuanced approach to Civ4's blanket NPT agreements, whereby we work more on START levels of agreements (with a carrot/stick approach) where the idea is to reduce stockpiles; assumption being players would have built nukes already and may not want to give them all up and leave some for strategic deterrance.

 

[Drawmeus]

I view warfare in Civ as epochal - from early warrior/swordsman/spearman/horseman/archer, to later riflemen/cannons/cavalry, to even later infantry/fighters/bombers/tanks/artillery, etc.

Without spending too much time on the details of the proposal, I would seriously enjoy having an epoch of Civ in which nuclear proliferation and special forces actions dominated and in which M.A.D., terrorism and counter-terrorism, and cold wars (complete with proxy wars) dominate the action. I dont think it needs to break the turn-based paradigm in any meaningful way; it's fine if your response to a nuclear first-strike comes on your turn after they've had an entire salvo of nukes launched, as long as the game mechanics don't let the first-striking civ automatically win unless they have a grossly stronger military complex.

 

[roguepro92]

there should be a way to "intercept" nukes as in let them "fly" for 2?3-5?turns depending on distance. if within those fly turns it is well protected in the air by your planes it'll hit. just one turn instant nukes are bit unrealistic because in the real world. if someone sends nukes at us, we'll send nukes back or intercept or both LONG before theirs hit us.
as drawmeus mentioned. dont let the first-striking civ automatically win. if i get nuke before everyone else. damn right ill be spamming it. lol. the few turns after i get a nuke im guaranteed a win.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I think nuclear weapons shouldn't be destroyed by nuke explosions, thus the deterrent value remains in having such an arsenal. They could even code in the concept of MAD to the AI to start nuking you next turn.

SDI needs to be returned, along with the Non-proliferation UN policy. Maybe even Bomb Shelters.

Given how close in the tech tree Nuclear Missiles are to Atomic Bombs, I would prefer the former to not just be a stronger version of the latter. Atomic Bombs should have a one-tile radius and destroy any units caught in the blast. Nuclear Missiles should do more damage to cities and retain the two-tile radius but only damage units caught in the blast. Tactical vs nuclear warfare. When you want to kill military units you go for the ground detonation while damaging civilian cities is best done with an airburst.