Nuke Concepts

[Blackbird_SR-71]

many people want changes to nukes. some say they are underpowered, overpowered, or just right. whatever you think pick one good idea and tell us what you think should be changed about the nuke concept in the game.

i think that we should be able to nuke a city and destroy it. this may bring up the issue about the human player just building up a nuke stockpile and then blowing the place up. one way to deal with this problem is not only making them cost more shields but have the player pay a certain amount of money to build them. this would prevent huge nuclear stockpiles. also you could have to pay a higher GPT to maintain nukes (maybe 3 gpt).

what do you guys think about my idea and post your own ideas.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

In large world maps, people would still be able to afford enough nukes to nuke enemy civs back to the Stone Age. I reckon that nukes should be left as they are although I admit I almost never got the Modern Age in any Civ 3 games because a) the games had already been won/lost, or b) I got bored of the game and started a new one, so I guess I can't really comment beyond. But from the limited experience I did have of them, they seemed balanced adequately.

 

[AA-battery]

Yeah, I think I agree (or moo) with Mongoloid Cow. Nukes are fine as they are. But there is one thing that I disagree (or moo moo) with the Cow. You should stay in the modern era! (Moooooooo!)

 

[douche_bag]

I think the way the ai handles nukes should changed.I was playing against the indians and I declared war on the and they must've launched at least 6 or 7 nukes on me in one turn.WHY WOULD GHANDI LAUNCH A NUKE!? what im saying is they shouldnt just fire off all their nukes at once just cause they have them.Their aggression level should decide wether they launch em or not.Nukes should just be kept as a last defense weapon. I also think each nuke should have a unit cost of 5.

 

[sir_schwick]

Most of this was in my Missle Silo thread, but I will repeat the highlights.

• All nuclear warheads, either those on missles or in Strategic Bombers or submarines, would be pre-targetted.

• With the SDC(Strategic Defense Command) Small Wonder, you could respond to nuclear force with nuclear force at the same moment as the attack was perpetrated.

• The immobile missles would be built into Silos rather than being stored in a city.

• Nuclear strikes destroy all improvements in a city that is hit directly. 80% of the population dies unless you have the Bunker improvement, in which case 40% die. Terrain improvements in the targetted square are destroyed.

• In order to build ICBMs you are required to build a Small Wonder.

• All nukes would be a ton cheaper.

• SDI Shield no longer exists. The only defence against nuclear exchange is the threat of MAD.

• Boomers would carry a lot more missles.

• When the missles finally did start flying you would see the dotted flight paths similair to the kind in Wargames.

 

[Dida]

There is a simple way to implement MAD. That is all nuke strike will have 1 term delay. And everyone is knowledged of the launching nuke. Let say the Russians fired 2 nukes at New York and Toronto. Everybody will get a message saying "The Russians have launched nuclear missles targeting the Americans and the Canadians." immidiately. The next turn the nuke will hit. Bu the americans and canadians do have 1 turn to respond.
SDI is a good wonder, we should certainly keep it, as Mr. Bush is spending zillions on this thing

 

[AA-battery]

One of the points that you have thy archbishop of towels (Tali, I know it's you, and yes I do want to get high) I disagree with is to make nukes cheaper. Than the AIs will stock up and peace victory will be harder to achieve. The game should be more about diplomacy than just fighting. Thats why they made up no-brainer games like Starcraft and stuff.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think that Nuclear weapons should DESTROY cities, but I do think that their longer term effects should be better simulated. This is how I think it could work:

1) Nuclear weapons have a 'power factor' to determine their explosive yield. The earliest bombs would be fairly weak, whilst later ones would be highly destructive.

2) Nuclear weapons would also have a range from 0-2 hexes (0 means it only effects the hex it hits). This might not sound like a lot, but remember how big a hex is !

3) Depending on its power, a single nuclear weapon will destroy around 25-75% (in around 5% increments per power number) of a city's population, and 30-90% of its improvements and wonders (in around 10% increments). It will also destroy around 80-100% of HP of ALL units at ground zero.

4) The power rating of a bomb will decrease by around 1/2 or 1/3 for each square from 'ground zero', out to its maximum range.

5) Nuclear weapons will also cause pollution levels to massively SPIKE in any struck city, and also in your nation generally-which will most likely lead to a gradual 'die-off' in your population due to 'pollution' related sickness, and increased unhappiness amongst survivors-until pollution levels fall back to normal. The pollution spike will also cause ongoing degredation of tiles within your borders.

6) One of the things I like in 'Rise of Nations', and could see working in Civ4, might be the 'Armageddon clock'. Every nuke you or other nations build and/or launch will advance this armageddon clock by one step. If the clock reaches midnight before the game officially ends, then either everyone loses the game OR the game ends prematurely-with the person that caused the game to end suffering a massive point deduction. There would also be ways, though, to push the clock back from the midnight position.

7) I have advanced the idea previously of age advancement being dependant on social, cultural and economic development as well as having tech prerequisites. If you lose any of these prerequisites, you backslide into a previous age-losing all techs gained in the current age in the process. The reason I bring this up is that nuclear attack could be a major way of losing these PR's in the modern age, thus pushing your nation back into the Industrial or, even worse, the Middle ages (think 'Canticle for Liebowitz') Forcing you to catch up on all that lost technology!

Anyway, just some thoughts-I'd like to know what people think !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Thats

 

[Dida]

No, I don't like the clock idea in rise of nation. and i don't like any complicated nuke idea. Nukes are not that important in civ, i don't see why we should make it important in civ4.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Again, if my movement THEN attack model were implemented, then MAD could be adequately simulated. In the movement phase, anyone who wanted to launch nukes could do so. Other players would have a % chance of spotting such launches such that, when it came to their turn, they could launch any of their OWN nukes in turn! Then, when everyone has moved (and launched), nuke hits are resolved-along with normal combats!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Dida]

yeah, i like your movement then attack idea. That's almost like simutaneius move. but only bette.r

 

[sir_schwick]

Mine just states that if someone launches at you, you get a chance to immediately launch back at them. Also, SDI does and cannot exist for Civ purposes. Star Wars could not work because it was the USSR arsenal we were fighting. Wtih that many warheads in the air it is not feasible to stop enough to prevent the main objective of the strike. A missle shield now is designed to fight Korea or Iran or another small nation. China has no desire to launch although that would be destabalizing as well.

 

[Stid]

if u could only build a certain number of nukes with one uranium source this wud really limit nuke cabailties. eg
1 uranium source can has enough for either:
10 tactical nukes (just like they are in civ 3)
2 ICBMs (flatten entire cities)
on top of this it really annoys every other civ. problem solved

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, Stid, that ties in neatly to my feeling that any resource model should be tied, to some degree, to how much you USE it.
In my model, rather than having fixed limits for a single resource, the number of units and improvements you build, per turn, would effect the chance of the resource disappearing.

For instance, if you had ONE source of Uranium-a scarce resource type-it might have a 45-60% chance of disappearing each turn (if it is size=1). However, if you build 6 tac nukes in a turn, then the chance might go up to around 80%!!! Of course, the size of the resource and the specific TYPE of unit(s) you build would also be a factor in resource disappearance, as would the number of nuclear power plants you currently have in your nation!
Hope that makes sense!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.