Shutting SDI off

[Maverick667]

Is there any way to shut SDI off. Make it not buildable anymore, cause I find it unrealistic, since no such system currently exist...

 

[Stylesrj]

I think you have to look at some of the XML files and look at SDI. You can also reduce bomb shelters to be more realistic (I mean, how does a bomb shelter prevent building damage from nukes? Population yes, but infrastructure!? What are the people going to be returning to?)
I personally like to keep the SDI. I play the game as is and because of my pansiness (Settler, Cheiftan) SDI and bomb shelters are no worries

Anyway, look at the XML files of your game to disable SDI

 

[Maverick667]

Hehe I don't play on high lvl either... I'm not that interested in the whole micromanaging stuff so chieftain it is.

But does someone here know what xml part I have to change to get the SDI away?

 

[Stylesrj]

I dunno where the XML files are or at least not at this moment. I could go searching, but then again, asking questions is a good idea.

If you hate micromanagement, don't play Final Frontier. You have to manage each and every world in those star systems! GAH!

 

[MrCynical]

You need to alter the Civ4ProjectInfo XML file (it's in the GameInfo subfolder). Find the SDI entry in there, and you can alter the requirements for building it, or edit the properties so SDI doesn't actually do anything.

 

[Stylesrj]

Hmm, or the SDI could be modified to intercept other things or it could be a superhighway, like I did to the one I had in Call to Power... it provides commerce, but not a single nuke is intercepted

 

[Jedoc]

In case you're not familiar with editing XML folders...

beyond the sword\assets\xml\gameinfo\civ4projectinfo.xml

Copy civ4projectinfo.xml and paste it into the beyond the sword\CustomAssets\xml\gameinfo folder. That way, if something gets screwed up, you can just delete this file and everything will go back to normal.

Open the file in the CustomAssets folder with your favorite text editor. Find PROJECT_SDI (on page two, by my count) and the tag <iMaxGlobalInstances>. The value should be -1, indicating that there is no upper limit on how many SDIs can be built. Change this to 0.

Or, if you're going for realism, just change <iNukeInterception> to 1. That's a bit optimistic, but I'm not sure how XML reacts to negative scientific notation.

 

[Evil Twin]

You can also reduce bomb shelters to be more realistic (I mean, how does a bomb shelter prevent building damage from nukes? Population yes, but infrastructure!? What are the people going to be returning to?)[

Ever seen those old puppet series like Stingray and Thunderbirds with the buildings that go into shelters in big elevators without the people having to leave?
That's how.

 

[Stylesrj]

Nuke Interception being 1%? Come on, we know the Patriot Missile would definitely make it 0.01%! 1% is just too high

Ever seen those old puppet series like Stingray and Thunderbirds with the buildings that go into shelters in big elevators without the people having to leave?
That's how.

Riiiighht.... But still, how does it protect the improvements (does a bomb shelter save improvements?)
Maybe to be more realistic, bunkers and shelters cause unhealthiness, because of the the masses of people gathered together in one room

 

[Evil Twin]

Oh the way nukes work in Civ IV is unrealistic anyway. Drop a nuke on a city, population comes out of shelters and is happily off to business as usual while workers scrub fallout? Whatever.
Those cities should be levelled, like in Broken Star. Only with better "ruins" graphics, that still count as a very very very small and limited city maybe. And your population only survives if you build big expensive shelters called Vaults.

 

[Stylesrj]

Nukes are definitely unrealistic. You can nuke a civ's city and then take them out with ground forces. I think also nuking a city takes out their nuclear stockpile (or if it does not, realism is working there at least) and the other guy has to wait until its their turn before they can turn the key. That's unrealistic, because once you've launched one nuke, ALL nukes of the enemy would launch and it'd be a full-scale nuclear war. Not this "One nukes the enemy" "Enemy wait" "Enemy retaliates"

 

[Evil Twin]

I think ICBMs are subject to the same damage rolls as any other unite when a nuke drops. Even if not.. since when does anyone keep nuclear missiles in cities? That's what silos are for. I hope they at least implement silos in Civ V.

 

[Stylesrj]

Well the ICBMs in the cities that survive are the ones in silos. Others could be stacked on SCUD launchers (or big launchers for the nukes) or on their way to a silo or being transported from one to another and a nuke hits them...

I know my brother made ICBM's with 1 movement point, so they can be stored on a hill in one location, so they can be easily fired and managed better... now that's realism, the ICBM in a hill, in a "silo" of sorts

 

[LiberiGlacialis]

To OP: Hey, you can vote "Yes" on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation proposal during a UN vote. If that passes, ICBMs, Tactical Nukes, and all the enabling/defensive buildings can't be build.

...I know this because I did it once...>>

 

[Stylesrj]

But if you vote Never!

The vote fails and nukes are still left in. AIs don't care about unhappiness from defying it. I wanted everyone to be Free Religion, but my ungrateful vassal said Never! and the resolution failed, even though I had more than 50% of the vote and everyone else voted Yes.

So why does one voting Never! make the resolution fail? It makes no sense. The person voting Never! shouldn't be benefiting from it, while the resolution passes, which is better.

Anyway, I keep the SDI. Easier and the enemy isn't at nukes before my Modern Armour and Mech Infantry and Gunships wipe em out

 

[Larklight]

That's unrealistic, because once you've launched one nuke, ALL nukes of the enemy would launch and it'd be a full-scale nuclear war. Not this "One nukes the enemy" "Enemy wait" "Enemy retaliates"

Actually, a policy of 'wait for dust to clear' 'respond' is what is likely to happen. A actual policy of massive retaliation isn't used by the US or anyone else of note because it is too risky. Both sides have had malfunctures, which would have dire consequences if a response was launched.

Instead, the actual policy the US run (I don't know about anyone else) is to wait out the attack, and then see what options remain. A tit-for-tat response is quite likely.

 

[Maverick667]

Seems logical, mass retaliation solves nothing. Just as mass nuclear attack. It only brings the end of the world.

Really 92% of the teens listen to rap music? Better change my sig

 

[Larklight]

Apparantly, I'm only a blind passer on of the message (but I did edit it, as there are other options. I changed it to alt-rock, so had to put the '<' in to accomadate classical listeners and other types of rock. Also jazz.

Indeed- even after a mass attack, you still have little to gain from destroying them too. After a smaller one, well, a mass atck would ensure they wiped you out with the counter-counter.

 

[Khai]

Errr...no. The entire policy of deterrence is based off the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The idea is that everything is based on a hair trigger, if they launch, we launch...and we all die. If the enemy first strike option had any chance of working or there was a possibility that the other side wouldn't respond then the attack would be more likely. Our strategic posture is based off the idea that we will respond with all of our arsenal if anyone dares to attack us...the use of submarine launched missiles is to ensure that even if our nation is wiped off the map completely...theirs will be also. Russia also potentially has a 'dead hand' strategic posture that dictates ICBMs firing if the Russian leadership is wiped out or fails to respond to certain unknown queues within a period of time.

At any moment in time...we are only 45 minutes away from the end of mankind.

 

[Larklight]

At any moment in time...we are only 45 minutes away from the end of mankind.

What can I say but no? This is not true, the United States doesn't follow this policy, because it would place the world in extreme risk. It is also extremely inflexible, allowing for nothing more than massive response.

AS a further safeguard, they have to be on DEFCON 1- I'm not sure what they're on at the moment, but it isn't higher than 4, and I expect it's 5.

A policy of smaller, flexible responses, so admired by, Kenedy I think, Reagen too possibly, allows for reactions in situations where a full strike isn't suitible. It is much safer and more manoeuvreable, and so is doctrine.

WE are not 45 minutes away from the end of mankind, and a massive retaliation would not end mankind anyway.