SDI defense: cheap and too quickly available?

[Exavier]

LMFAO i should of expected ppl would take my comment and get very tecnical

I have done alot the research... It seems the world preferres the MAD defence over an SDI system any day of the week... basicly "If we are gona die, lets take them with us" way of thinking.

Though if you want to get tecnical about it I am a strong believer that one of 2 things will happen, probobly very soon.
1) We will just outright nuke all life off this planet.
2) Someone will come up with a defence aginst this system that is perfect enough to really make nukes useless

And if its option 2 that happens it will be followed imediatly by another weapon of war... then again War brings out alot of new technology too... Its amazing our world functions sometimes

 

[karadoc]

I agree that SDI is too cheap and too easy to aquire. I know this game isn't so much about realism, but I think it's interesting to note that no one has managed to build anything like the SDI in real life. They have tried, and failed. There is currently no technology that is effective against ICBM. But in CivIV, the SDI comes with relatively unadvanced tech, and it very cheap to build. Cheaper than even one ICBM.
I agree that it is too cheap and too early. There should be a period in the game with nukes and no SDI.

 

[BaneBlade]

Bombshelters should protect troops only, atm it seems like u can bury a whole city beneath a kilometre of concrete/lead for the cost of what? An tankbattalion or so, dunno... Maybe there could be a nationalwonder like the bunkers now, bury your city in caves etc. (didn't the americans thought about something like that in the '70s, as a refugee for their elite to survive WW3??), but even with this limitation it should cost much more.

 

[Exavier]

well the bomb shelters were never really ment to protect the garrison... actually thats pretty well protected because of the movement penalties for fallout... if they survive.

What the shelters provided is a reduction in 1 of the most devistating effects of a nuke... the ability to fry the population of a city which basicly kills its functionality for many turns...

Granted its just another way for them to completely make nukes useless... Personaly I don't target cities (never did in Civ3) I have found it more crippling to just target the landscape and erase 100+ turns of improvements that support multiple citys (especially if the cities might overlap a little). Its more crippling imo then frying the city and the 8 squares around it imo

 

[BaneBlade]

Thats why i target a tile on the far side of the city of my armor/mechinf-stack, so they can ride in, mob-up, raze.

 

[Exavier]

hmm i never thought about that... usually if i nuke the place thats the last turn your getting as a civilization anyway because I will glass your territory 100% in one turn (even with SDI intervention).

Last game i did that on was with a cpl friends... I was producing 4000 gold a turn into my treasury (i had all techs research and instead of doing future techs i dropped research to 0%). I then proceeded to rush nukes at 2 a turn... the Universal Sufferage of a full turn rushed nuke is ~2000 gold at least in my games. 30 turns later when my friends realized what i was doing it was already beyond 2 late to save them

 

[Roland Ehnström]

I agree SDI is way too cheap and comes way too early.

In my current Emperor game I was falling behind in techs and the English started building their space-ship. There was no way I was going to catch up peacefully, so I went all-out for Tanks and ICBM's for one massive surprise attack against their core. The plan was to nuke York and London, and then send in an insane number of Tanks (think I had 25 or 30 of them, on a standard map) to mop up the remaining defences.

After having built 5 ICBM's I attacked. Every single one of them was shot down! I still managed to take and raze York, but it cost me a great number of Tanks (the English had Mech. Inf.), and in the next few turns my remaining Tanks were killed by English Gunships before even reaching London. During those turns I sent three more ICBM's against London, and they were all shot down too.

All-in-all a complete waste of 8 ICBM's (4000 hammers), only because they built a National Wonder that costs 250 hammers with Aluminium. Bah!

-- Roland

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well said Roland.
That's the real balance issue.

I hope developers could revise this for future patch.

 

[Jass]

Can't you destroy the city that has SDI?

btw in my current game, Isabella (AI) built the manhattan project, as well as SDI before me, and it's pretty intense to have an annoyed AI doing this and having no way to stop it.

I'm building my own SDI right now, but there are 2 turns left before I have it so she could definatly screw me over. She really hates me.

this is on prince level standard size with 14 opponents with spacerace disabled. I don't want to think what would happen if one nation started to throw nukes.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Actually, it's a project, so it's not stationed in any city.
And thus can't be destroyed.

 

[Bob1475]

Amen - SDI is way too cheap and available too early. Should have been addressed in the patch and now should be addressed in the next patch.

 

[BomberEscort]

I am not able to find SDI or the Manhattan Project in CIV4BuildingInfos.xml to modify them (appears that all other buildings and wonders are in there). Does anyone know where the build info on these buildings are located?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think the developers wanted to counter nukes but forgot the Real way nukes are countered..more nukes =MAD

The best way to do it
1. Make nukes Cheap
2. Make Manhattan Project require a tech AFTER the Tech that nukes require
3. For realism Sake include 3 types of nuke 1.. Fission based Nuclear bombers..one square damage, air units, rebased, limited range..chance of interception (although a reduced chance), and 2..Fusion based ICBMs as they exist, but cheaper say 2-300 hammers.. Possibly a 3rd as well, short range...doing as much damage as type 1, but less interceptable and not based just in cities, ie the tac nuke)
4. Bombshelters protect population and troops..not as much as they do now but say 80% pop protected, 70% of troops protected but are very expensive (say 500-1000 hammers) and of course no city improvements would be protected.
5. SDI similar to SMAC (actually adding a new part to the game...space warfare..early sats can provide bonuses to your troops, later sats kill sats, later sats can also stop nukes, and even later sats can attack ground units...buildings in cities could also shoot down sats.... Some Sats could also provide research/Space Race Bonuses)

 

[EdwardTking]

I wonder if Sid ran short of dosh to develop Civ4 so he
took a contributoin from the US welfare research PR budget.

In my latest game, the AIs surprised me by all voting for non
proliferation, so maybe Sid took a contribution from Kofi too.

 

[marioh]

Bring back the tactical nuke, and make it immune or alot less chance for SDI to intercept.
Also agree SDI comes way too early. Should be a future tech.

edit: there also should be a limit as to the amount of ICBM's that SDI can intercept in any one turn. you should be able to overwhelm it with alot of ICBM launches in one turn. maybe a 25 limit per turn (25 enemy ICBM launches, not intercepts).

 

[Hobelhouse]

Bombshelters should protect troops only, atm it seems like u can bury a whole city beneath a kilometre of concrete/lead for the cost of what? An tankbattalion or so, dunno... Maybe there could be a nationalwonder like the bunkers now, bury your city in caves etc. (didn't the americans thought about something like that in the '70s, as a refugee for their elite to survive WW3??), but even with this limitation it should cost much more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain

This was actually a military base not 'a refuge for the american elite.'

But yeah, troops only.

 

[BaneBlade]

@Hobelhouse: I didn't thought of this NORAD which i'm aware of , and capalities of some thousand men isn't what i would call underground city. Thought i read sometimes about such a designstudy/project in the USA, can't google anything right now
@Exavier: I did a similar nukerush strategy like you, after getting so disappointed through SDI/shelters. Was an MP game, i was way back from Nr.1 who was on another continent. Additionally to what you described i had 4 Spies and Kremlin(-50% hurry production cost) ready, so the first round after Manhattan finished he had to eat 6 nukes, then 2-3 for the next 20 rounds or so
Victory! I conquered all of his citys with 4 Mechs!

 

[Traxis]

I am not able to find SDI or the Manhattan Project in CIV4BuildingInfos.xml to modify them (appears that all other buildings and wonders are in there). Does anyone know where the build info on these buildings are located?

It is in CIV4ProjectInfo.xml in the GameInfo folder. What would be a cost for it? Changing the tech requirement might be a good idea, too. Or lower the effectiveness to 50% from 75%.

 

[Eigenvector]

I wouldn't be too sure about the functionality of the missle defence shield, I doubt the military advertises its operational status. But that's pure speculation on our part - and there won't be any real answers from this board considering the non-US presence.

As to whether an SDI is cheaper than a nuke in real life. I would almost guarentee that a missle is more expensive. While the satellites are generally autonomous, a missle field would require people manning it, maintenance crews caring for it, fuel trucks ready (and rocket fuel is not a stable compound like diesel), the cost to develop and man the tracking stations, and then there's the cost to produce the nukes in the first place. I bet the cost to develop nuclear weapons is somewhere in the 100's of billions. We're not talking about a truck bomb, but rather an ICBM.

 

[Kilroy]

Yes, but an SDI would have been useless against those types of bombs anyhow. The SDI is/will be/would have been(whatever) useful only against the long range ICBMs. Shorter range Nuclear Weapons like the Atomic Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, or even nuclear cruise missiles would be able to slip in underneath the SDI systems and do their thing.

Well, I'm pretty sure with the current state of military technology in the US they could detect and destroy an aircraft like the Enola Gay before it got anywhere near a major US city. As for cruise missiles, we've had systems in place to protect CVBGs from those since I think the sixties, and we've got something similar covering Seoul and probably a few other hot spots as well. Putting them over US cities wouldn't be too difficult.

But yeah, SDI comes to early. The other thing though, is that ICBMs are only one third of what's called the nuclear triad: ICBMs, SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missles), and of course bombers. Just because you've found a way to protect yourself against ICBM attacks (or, just because you've bombed your opponent into the stone age and removed the threat of an ICBM attack) does not mean you've eliminated the nuclear threat and the game ought to incorporate that. Hopefully in an expansion they'll put those things back in (they've been in every other Civ game IIRC), along with dirty bombs, biological weapons, and other assorted wartime horrors.