Question: Razing the City with Manhatten Project...

[davidky5]

The topic is self-explanatory. If you raze the enemy (or disband my) city with Manhatten Project, does that prevent everyone from building a new nuclear weapons?

Just curious, cuz I heard from people that if one razes the city with the U.N., no one can win diplomatically, and cuz I just don't like nuclear weapons.

 

[Speed Bump]

Originally posted by davidky5
The topic is self-explanatory. If you raze the enemy (or disband my) city with Manhatten Project, does that prevent everyone from building a new nuclear weapons?

Just curious, cuz I heard from people that if one razes the city with the U.N., no one can win diplomatically, and cuz I just don't like nuclear weapons.

To the best of my knowledge, once you build the Manhattan Project, you have opened Pandora's Box so to speak and the ability to build nukes will remain even if you destroy the Wonder. I will look into this some more and post again if this is incorrect.

Speedy

 

[Hobbes]

Once you build it there is no putting it back. I had a game where I razed a city that had the Manhattan Project, yet I was still able to build ICBM's.

 

[Hieb]

Uh, i think he means, while the city builds the wonder and you raze it, the wonder is lost for all civs. Am i right?

But how can u hate nukes?
Its a lot of fun to kick a whole civ back in the stoneage with some ICBMs.

 

[Dr HacknSlash]

If you raze a city while it's building the Wonder, the Wonder is still available for anyone to build. So unless you want to run around and destroy every city that ever starts building Manhattan, you have to deal with nukes eventually.

I hate Nukes too, Dave.

 

[Zouave]

The inability to toggle OFF the nuclear option is yet another flaw in this game.

You can always Edit up the cost to the maximum, and increase pollution and Unhappiness in the civ where it is built, while making it a Small Wonder.

Of course the AI is so stupid it might build it anyway!

YOU COULD DO THIS: Edit the Manhattan Project so that you need SETI to build it, and then make its Required Advance "Integrated Defense" or "Superconductor". That way only one civ will be able to build it after they get the very expensive SETI, plus the MP, which you Edited up as I described, will be hugely expensive and a pollution and Unhappiness maker.
Beyond that, by the time that one civ gets that Required Tech Advance the game will likely be over anyway.

BTW, the bigger problem with nukes is there is no response against an enemy first strike. Which is ludicrous.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Zouave
The inability to toggle OFF the nuclear option is yet another flaw in this game.

Oh sure, and why not have an 'off toggle' for gunpowder too? I just hate it when the enemy gets units that can kill mine! Or wait, why not have a "toggle off" for oceans, so my troops can walk on water?

Nuclear weapons are a valid part of the game. I have managed to avoid having nuclear wars in all but one of the 100+ games I have played since last October. Just like in real life, it is a challenge that must be overcome.

 

[Zouave]

I wish some people could toggle off their dopey comments.

Hey, wise guy. Learn a little history.

In REALITY there was NO NUCLEAR WAR because of mutually assured destruction - MAD - between the US and USSR. In otherwords, if THEY launched so would WE. Everybody dead.

In stupid Civ III, one side can launch a complete first strike with the other side unable to respond until AFTER the nukes go off. The lack of the first strike response makes the nuclear option in Civ III stupid, unrealistic, and a pain in the butt. THAT is why we should have the option to toggle it off. By doing what I said with the Man. Project, we, in effect, CAN turn it off.

 

[Chieftess]

Well, this is starting to turn into a suggestions thread, but I think what would be best is if each time you built a nuke, have it targeted at a city (optional), and there should be a "Red Phone" command, where if you use it (and after several "Are you really really sure you want to do this?" prompts), every nuke of yours and the enemy goes off at once (including allies of both). But, there would need to be a special alliance where one civ is the leader (probably the most powerful in that alliance), and that civ gets the "Red Phone".

Each nuke could also bring unhappiness. (not just because of the threat of a nuclear accident, but also because that city will be targeted more).

I can see the cities now..

80% - "NO MORE NUKES!"
20% - "It's just way to crowded."

Also, ICBM's could be the global trigger, and Tact. Nukes would be for local nuclear warfare.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave


In REALITY there was NO NUCLEAR WAR because of mutually assured destruction - MAD - between the US and USSR. In otherwords, if THEY launched so would WE. Everybody dead.

Actually, there has already been one nuclear war. It is often called WWII.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave

In stupid Civ III, one side can launch a complete first strike with the other side unable to respond until AFTER the nukes go off. The lack of the first strike response makes the nuclear option in Civ III stupid, unrealistic, and a pain in the butt. THAT is why we should have the option to toggle it off. By doing what I said with the Man. Project, we, in effect, CAN turn it off.

The first strike is actually represented reasonably well in Civ3. The fear is that the other side can knock out your missile silos by attacking first without time to launch. The solution was to put nukes on subs and hide them, so that you could strike back afterwards at leisure, not counterattacking while the other guy's missiles were in the air.

In other words, no matter what the opponent did, you would always have enough nukes hidden to assure their destruction --and they knew it.

 

[God]

Moderator Action: You are edited. Keep the flaming down to...none. You have been warned...You may be able to kill the first born male child of every Egyptian but I can ban you.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[friedmad]

funny that i shoudl read this thread this evening because i was thinking up new wonders this morning - particularly a Nuclear War Memorial, which would act as either:

1. a global nuclear-free zone, which would prohibit all civs from building nukes and using the ones they already have built;

2. be a global symbol to the deterrant of using nuclear weapons, to the effect that any civ that uses nukes, their cities would instantly be rioting with civil disobedience;

3. some other effect i have to think of....

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Zouave
The inability to toggle OFF the nuclear option is yet another flaw in this game.

You can always Edit up the cost to the maximum, and increase pollution and Unhappiness in the civ where it is built, while making it a Small Wonder.

Of course the AI is so stupid it might build it anyway!

YOU COULD DO THIS: Edit the Manhattan Project so that you need SETI to build it, and then make its Required Advance "Integrated Defense" or "Superconductor". That way only one civ will be able to build it after they get the very expensive SETI, plus the MP, which you Edited up as I described, will be hugely expensive and a pollution and Unhappiness maker.
Beyond that, by the time that one civ gets that Required Tech Advance the game will likely be over anyway.

BTW, the bigger problem with nukes is there is no response against an enemy first strike. Which is ludicrous.

Use the editor to toggle off the "allow ALL civs to build nuclear weapons" flag for the Manhattan Project wonder. Bingo! No more nukes .

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Zouave
I wish some people could toggle off their dopey comments.

Hey, wise guy. Learn a little history.

In REALITY there was NO NUCLEAR WAR because of mutually assured destruction - MAD - between the US and USSR. In otherwords, if THEY launched so would WE. Everybody dead.

In stupid Civ III, one side can launch a complete first strike with the other side unable to respond until AFTER the nukes go off. The lack of the first strike response makes the nuclear option in Civ III stupid, unrealistic, and a pain in the butt. THAT is why we should have the option to toggle it off. By doing what I said with the Man. Project, we, in effect, CAN turn it off.

sparrow is right, this game wasnt made to be 100% realistic, the posibility of a nuclear war was alived in the cold war, that means in this game they give u that posibility too, but because there wasnt a nuclear war it doesnt mean there shouldnt be a nuclear war in civ3, i think u r the one with the dopey comment. sorry.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Zouave


In stupid Civ III, one side can launch a complete first strike with the other side unable to respond until AFTER the nukes go off. The lack of the first strike response makes the nuclear option in Civ III stupid, unrealistic, and a pain in the butt. THAT is why we should have the option to toggle it off. By doing what I said with the Man. Project, we, in effect, CAN turn it off.

if u didnt know if the enemy launch a nuclear weapon against one of your cities with nuclear weapons, none of ur ICBMs gets destroyed, they are ready to be launch in ur turn. For example, if i have 4 ICBMs in Rome and the AI launch 2 ICBMs to Rome, the city loses its size and loses some military units but it will NEVER lose its 4 ICBMs, so you are able to retaliate. I have had nuclear wars before so i know about this. Looking at your comment it seems u havent had a nuclear war and yet u are talking like if u had one.

 

[Razorwing]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Actually, there has already been one nuclear war. It is often called WWII.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't WWII pretty much over by the time the US unleashed weapons of mass destruction on Japanese civilians?

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Razorwing


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't WWII pretty much over by the time the US unleashed weapons of mass destruction on Japanese civilians?

Read this and get an education.

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by Razorwing


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't WWII pretty much over by the time the US unleashed weapons of mass destruction on Japanese civilians?

Yes. and No.

There's a LOT of "what ifs" surrounding the issue, of course. But the basic factors were this:

1) Japan did not want to unoconditionally surrender, and was prepared to fight the US to the last man to avoid it.

2) Japan was prepared for an conditional surrender, and was actively seeking to have Russia broker the deal.

3) The US did not want to keep certain promises made to Russia if Russia entered the Pacific War. (Truman didn't agree with some of the promises FDR made at the Yalta Conference)

4) Russia wanted those promises to hold, so was stringing Japan along so that the war would drag out and Russia could enter.

So, the plan was, the US drops The Bomb, Japan surrenders, Russia gets the shaft. Unfortunately, it didn't work that way. The US dropped The Bomb, Japan ignored it, Russia ignored Japan. The US drops ANOTHER bomb, again Japan ignores it, Russia declares war on Japan. The US prepares for an invasion, Russia gets the concessions for entering the war, and a stunned Japan (who never expected Russia to declare war) resigns itself to an Unconditional Surrender.

So was the pretty much over? maybe...maybe not....Japan woulda fought the US with pitchforks if they had to, but the didn't want to fight both the US and Russia. The US wanted the war over before Russia could get in, but their terms were unacceptable to Japan. Russia wanted to get into the war with Japan before it was over, but wanted to minimize casualties and expected the US to invade, not drop a big bomb.

Pretty wacky stuff all around.

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by Zouave

Hey, wise guy. Learn a little history.

In REALITY there was NO NUCLEAR WAR because of mutually assured destruction - MAD - between the US and USSR. In otherwords, if THEY launched so would WE. Everybody dead.

Uh, not exactly. MAD theory did not hold for the entire Cold War -- it simply wasn't possible for most of it. In the first half of the Cold War neither side had enough nukes to make MAD a possibility. Recall that the only the US had nukes between 1945 and 1949, and had a major superiority in numbers for a good portion of the 1950's.

The fear that prevented nuclear war between 1945 and around 1955 or 1960 was not MAD, it was massive retaliation. The fear was that any small engagement (ie Korea-type, or maybe a Berlin flare-up) would result in an escalation of violence until finally nukes were unleashed and WW3 would ravage the world. No one was prepared for yet ANOTHER world war. Western Europe was terrified of it. And frankly, the USSR had be massively hurt by WW2, far more than they were letting on (its a major reason why they didn't accept the marshall plan for the USSR and the eastern bloc) and couldnt even hope to support a war for many years following WW2.

The brinksmanship exhibited in the 1960s (particularly Cuba) didn't happen in years past because the USSR didn't have the resources to be THAT bold. It wouldn't take huge amounts of nukes to decimate the USSR, just a few well placed ones (considered Massive Retaliation) launched in support of Western Europe, or Japan, or Korea in some minor engagement.

While I agree this is not modeled well in Civ, its such a complex evolution with SO many factors involved that I can't imagine a game ever that has modeled it. I don't even know how it could -- if just a couple of things here or there had happened differently in the early cold war, the world would be a drasticallly different place.

Main point, the fact that there was never a full fledged nuclear war between superpowers was not ALWAYS because of MAD -- in the first part of the Cold War MAD wasn't the reigning philosophy and so nuclear war was averted through other means and because of other philosophies.