(07) Proposal: Make Nuclear Missiles Better

[Zanteogo]

Nuclear missiles are probably one of the most underpowered units compared to their real life counter parts. They have so many things against them that they are way under used. Considering they have shaped the global map of the modern world, we should give them a look.
They take too many resources to build, they take too much production, they have a crazy short range considering they should be able to target most of the world and they can be useless with a few random rolls of the dice due to the nuclear defense building.

Suggestion:
Change their resource requirement to 1 rather than 2
Lessen their production cost by 20%
Increase their range by 100%
Change the nuclear defense building so that if it does block a nuclear missile, it half's all the effects of the missile. *Edited to conform to rules -Z*

 

[Stalker0]

At a minimum, I completely agree with lowering their resource cost to 1.

 

[Delvemor]

I would lessen their production cost even more, it takes way too long to build outside your capital.

 

[nekokon]

Problem with nuke is that they're very strong alpha strike against units with little to no preventative method. You use them to quickly wipe out enemy force and not to take down cities so the issue where they're weak against their countering building is mostly irrelevant.
Moreover if you're using nuke means you don't care about global politic anymore (or can't do anything about it), thus after that point the game turns into a rush of building nuke and nuking everything which is really boring and one-sided (the AI doesn't have a "for future generations" or "preventing mutual destruction" mental like real world, once the lid is open everything goes). The high requirements are meant to prevent spamming nuke in that case to allow more counter play during the nuke downtime.

 

[Recursive]

Change the nuclear defense building so that if it does block a nuclear missile, it just lessens the effect of it, rather than totally stopping it.

I would ordinarily veto this proposal based on the rules, but since we're still learning this system - please specify exactly what you mean by "lessens the effect".

Proposals must explain precisely how you think the mechanics should be changed, with no ambiguity.

 

[Stalker0]

Problem with nuke is that they're very strong alpha strike against units with little to no preventative method. You use them to quickly wipe out enemy force and not to take down cities so the issue where they're weak against their countering building is mostly irrelevant.
Moreover if you're using nuke means you don't care about global politic anymore (or can't do anything about it), thus after that point the game turns into a rush of building nuke and nuking everything which is really boring and one-sided (the AI doesn't have a "for future generations" or "preventing mutual destruction" mental like real world, once the lid is open everything goes). The high requirements are meant to prevent spamming nuke in that case to allow more counter play during the nuke downtime.

The issue with that reasoning is the atomic bomb does almost as much damage, and is far cheaper than the missile. So people can spam nukes…until missiles come out and now they are prohibitively expensive

 

[nekokon]

I was talking about nuke in general. If it's about comparing atomic bomb with nuclear missile then yes nuclear missile is underwhelming. I thought it still has the 80% chance to avoid interception compared to atomic bomb.

 

[Skidizzle]

I'd like to propose an amendment (if that's allowed?) - Have the range of only the nuclear missile scale with map size? If coding that is possible.

 

[Recursive]

I'd like to propose an amendment (if that's allowed?) - Have the range of only the nuclear missile scale with map size? If coding that is possible.

It is allowed, but for the amended version to be valid, exact numbers would need to be provided in the proposal. (i.e., Range in tiles for each map size)

 

[Zanteogo]

I would lessen their production cost even more, it takes way too long to build outside your capital.

20% is pretty large. Considering how percent changes have a greater impact of larger numbers, it's shaving off 3 or 4 turns.

Mind you, I can see increasing the reduction, however with all the other buffs I was suggesting I think 20% is good for a first pass anyways.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by me (in current form).

(This indicates that I am able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well.)

 

[Tekamthi]

I like the resource requirement reduction but I think game would need additional deterrents to their use to balance changes that otherwise make them more available, if we are aiming for some kind of realistic nuclear arms race.

I can't recall where I saw it suggested, and apologies if this is too off topic for this congress proposal format, but there was once an idea floated that nuclear missiles should have longer range but one turn delay before impact, allowing target(s), if sufficiently equipped with radar or w/e, to attempt to mitigate damage by guessing and moving units, and/or retaliating with their own missile launch. Maybe something like this could fit along with some OP suggestions

 

[Recursive]

apologies if this is too off topic for this congress proposal format, but there was once an idea floated

The rules are strict/specific for making the proposal in the original post, not debating them in later posts. Feel free to converse normally as long as it's respectful!

 

[beginner_]

I would argue that the cost is so high because most nations can't actually afford to even build one. Only if you are a superpower, you can afford it or making a huge compromise.

As has been said, nukes are way more useful to decimate AI units than attacking cities. They can also act as a great defensive weapons to vaporize the attackers. if everyone can stockpile nukes and kill half your army in 1 single turn, conquest will basically cease to be feasible unless there is some huge diplomatic downside to using them which will be hard to actually define what is proper usage of them (if I'm friends with someone for 200 turns, I have my army out of positon and then the friend backstabs me, do I still get a diplo penalty for using a nuke on his attack army?).

 

[Hinin]

To me here, a nuclear weapon should cost a lot in term of production and maintenance cost (like irl), but not in term of strategic resource. Once utilized, the diplomatic penalty should be particularly harsh, including with City-States, but in exchange, I do think these weapons should really hurt cities.

All that said, there is an interesting mechanic that I've seen in some strategy games, where the number of overall nuclear weapons usable in the world is limited. Basically, whenever a nuclear weapon is used, a counter increases, and whenever the cap limit is reached, there is a nuclear winter and everybody loses.
In the context of VP, that would mean that the potential cost of starting a nuclear war is higher and higher throughout the game, despite the benefits offered by nuclear missiles when so many new units and defense systems allow players to counter conventional warfare : can you afford the diplomatic and potentially existential cost of using such weapons in that case ? If the AI is made capable of understanding the limitations of nuclear weapons and enter the same mindset as what is present today (namely, the idea that nuclear weapons are mostly use as a last resort against existential threats), while still being able to go launch everything if someone starts going crazy, that would be fun and tense. But that's just a concept at this point.

 

[nekokon]

^ this would be possible with vanilla leader favor (to pump up nuclear hesitance) but the point of VP is to make AIs behave more like human player, aka aiming for a certain victory condition that might sometimes disregard the thematic personality of said leaders (aka piling on player who's closer to victory). I think this is an acceptable sacrifice to make the game more challenge, else everyone would be all buddy with each other forever (which is already one of the reasons why culture victory is so easy to do, as the closer you get to victory, the better your relationship with other civ become, completely opposite of all other victory condition)

 

[Hinin]

Tbh, I do think a modmod about nuclear warfare, with different nuclear weapons (from "tactical nukes" to tsar bomba levels of power) and types of protection (from the simple bunker to the anti-missile shield), more world congress decisions on that topic, and the nuclear winter threat, could be an interesting project. That would require tweaking late game economy and warfare first though, to obtain a satisfying result.

 

[cidk2000]

Stopped building them I can count a handful of times ive built one Late game damage is too low to force peace and unable to target multiple AI cities at this point i find them useless id prefer XCOM units and Giant Death robots for more surgical strikes and by then AI or I have won find em pointess IMO

 

[nekokon]

Humankind also had the same idea with forced mutual destruction/doom clock, but they retracted that back to optional in the latest update due to players feedback.

I think as a mechanic it's ok for multiplayer but not very fun for single player (because of the AI behavior above). Rather than improving nukes I would love to see more tactical combat upgrade with similar but weaker effect (AoE) like napalm bombing (AoE leaving environmental effect on tile) or carpet bombing which does dmg in a line or mirv which does AoE dmg at missile range, etc... Even if the AI can't fully utilize them like human player can it's still pretty effective given the nature of unavoidable doom carpet late game. And it's 100% more fun than juggling balance around nuke. One big bomb/missile to wipe things out isn't very fun to play with no matter how you set it up (for diplomacy or preventative purpose)

 

[Hinin]

Even if the AI can't fully utilize them like human player can it's still pretty effective given the nature of unavoidable doom carpet late game.

That's where you're wrong, I think. The doom carpet can be avoided, it's just that yield and supply overflow is clearly present nowadays in VP. I do think balparmak's supply reduction mod + separate navy supply concept is good, although a bit excessive in execution, and if a good enough balance is found, that could prove great for the future.

I'm currently trying to find that balance, and I'm just waiting for the tactical AI to work again to try to fine tune the values.