Sub-Techs and Nukes

[Shackel]

I think that there should be a type of "Sub-Tech". They don't cost as much as normal techs, but do give major improvements. For instance, "Rifles" can turn into "Sub automatic rifles" for a large damage increase, or "Flight" can turn into "Commercial Flight" for happiness, and the airport, and so on. They just give bonuses to whatever you have.

Nukes-

There were MANY, MANY stages of nuclear weaponry after it was created. I think the nuclear bombs should be able to be upgraded on their own, like in my sub-tech idea above.

Fission - Allows "Nuclear Bomb", which takes out 1/5th of the units combined health, includes the destruction of units, but it has to be carried by bombers, and has a 20% chance of destroying buildings.

Then it would go on to a larger nuclear bomb with research(1/3rd units killed, 33% chance of a building's destruction)

Then, it would go on to nuclear artillery

Nuclear subs

Nuclear missiles, which makes our ICBMs we know.

MIRVs, which can hit multiple targets at once, kills all units in a city, but takes quite a few hammers.

Finally, you can get the H-Bomb, which should be able to be reached a bit faster, it completely obliterates a city.

I also think nukes should cause a lot more war weariness too. 2 nukes caused the Japanese to surrender, so why do I have to spend my time on 10 super fission bombs(500KT each for a ICBM, I think) just for them to THINK about it?

 

[Camikaze]

Well, I think this is good idea, going along with the general expansion of the tech tree and units in the game that I reckon would be good.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm all for sub-techs. I even emitted the ideae in another topic. That would be good not only for nukes, but for axemen too, giving a bonus, like an upgrade, or even archers that could turn into longbows. The subtechs would be as long as the main tech to search, to represent the time spent on them. That would be a gameplay choice, or you continue to "normal" techs, or you choose to specialize.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps a separate military tech tree is called for, along with the conventional one. Maybe purely military techs, like military tradition and rifling, can be included in this tree, with prerequisites being both in the conventional tech tree, and in the military tech tree. Each new unit could have its own technology. I think this would greatly increase military specialisation. I'm thinking that you would slit your research up between the military and conventional trees, but the military techs become cheaper the more advanced conventional techs you have. For instance, rifling may be able to be researched 20% quicker if you have Chemistry, or something. This was prohibit all out military research, and provide a strategical consideration in the balance between normal techs, and military techs.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Perhaps a separate military tech tree is called for, along with the conventional one. Maybe purely military techs, like military tradition and rifling, can be included in this tree, with prerequisites being both in the conventional tech tree, and in the military tech tree. Each new unit could have its own technology. I think this would greatly increase military specialisation. I'm thinking that you would slit your research up between the military and conventional trees, but the military techs become cheaper the more advanced conventional techs you have. For instance, rifling may be able to be researched 20% quicker if you have Chemistry, or something. This was prohibit all out military research, and provide a strategical consideration in the balance between normal techs, and military techs.

Another great revolution for Civ5... no, I think a separate tech tree would not be handy at all. Military evolution goes with global tech advance, it would be weird to have Riflemen and no Writing, or a military tech attached by the way with the main one.

 

[Camikaze]

Which is why there would need to be conventional prerequisites for all military technologies, just more loss than they currently are. This could cause a strategical dilemma- do you go for short-term military advantage, at the cost of long term technological advantage, or do you go for sustained technological advancement, at the risk of having a weakened military.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Which is why there would need to be conventional prerequisites for all military technologies, just more loss than they currently are. This could cause a strategical dilemma- do you go for short-term military advantage, at the cost of long term technological advantage, or do you go for sustained technological advancement, at the risk of having a weakened military.

since military techs would be attached with the main tech tree through prerequisites, why not keep only one tech tree? Subtechs should be displayed by clicking on the icon of military techs.

 

[Camikaze]

I suppose, although it would make it more clear and distinguishable if there were two separate trees, seeing as I think there should be research discounts for researching some techs before others.

 

[exhile]

Techs are already categorized into military, social, religion, economics and science.

As for nukes and sub-techs, the rule was as long as one tech is researched, you could research the next succeeding tech. Previously, all pre-requisite techs were required before the succeeding tech could be researched.

2 nuclear bombs have been used in warfare. After that, were tests of more powerful bombs which were never used but held in stockpile as a deterent. There would never be nuclear warfare because it never happened. What occured was the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq war, the Contra Incident and the Iraq war.

I am against the idea of sub-techs.

 

[rysmiel]

2 nuclear bombs have been used in warfare. After that, were tests of more powerful bombs which were never used but held in stockpile as a deterent. There would never be nuclear warfare because it never happened.

Rome never really launched a starship, and Babylon never really conquered the world. "It never happened" is not a reason for leaving things out of Civ that I have any sympathy for.

Now, a mechanism for making nuclear war in Civ cost so much, to all concerned, in terms of consequences that the reasons for not doing it in the real world are reasonably reflected by game mechanics, I could get behind. But not a mechanism that outright prevents it. Do bear in mind it came very close to happening by mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov.

 

[Shackel]

ICBMs were never used in war, either.

I never said sub-techs would HAVE to be used, either.

Do you see Infantry being invented all around you? Maybe you should start investing money into "Sub-Automatic Weapons", which would increase the attack of Riflemen up to 17. Big? No.

Do they have a chance? Yes.

I just find it odd how there are NO plane-dropped nukes, and that there are ONLY InterContinental Ballistic Missiles(and SLBMs) in Civ4.

 

[Camikaze]

It is only as weird as having one type of swordsman, and one type of rifleman. Units have been constricted greatly in the game, and this has meant that less historically important units, such as nukes, have been reduced to one unit. I would like to see this changed, but I understand why it was done.

 

[Shackel]

I see why as well, however, it is still annoying. Heavy and Light swordsmen should exist as well.

Heck, why not have customizable units in the first place. If I have horses and Macemen, guess what I want trampling the Axemen? A Horse Maceman.