Tall empires are extremely vulnerable from nuclear weapon. Disbalance?

[cccv]

in real life, you get... a 6 min warning if you're lucky. The only 'defense' is having nukes and MADD. So why should the game be any different?

MAD doesn't exist in the game (I assume you meant MAD, because I'm pretty sure the Mothers Against Drunk Driving are very little protection against nukes =) ), which is most of the problem.

The only real defense is nuking the AI's uranium, but that requires you to preemptively nuke everyone who has it on a regular basis to ensure that they won't DoW on you in the future, since the AI can go from friendly to hostile or war very suddenly (or see if they'll sell it all to you, but if they're willing to DoW on you, chances are no).

The whole point of the thread is the imbalance here. "realism" aside, if you have 3-5 tall cities and you're DoW'd then nuked in one fell swoop, it's basically game over with no warning and really nothing you could have done except that ridiculous example I gave.

The good news is I have not experienced this because I play continents and not pangaea, and by the time the modern era rolls around the threats on my continent have been eliminated. From what I've read though almost everyone else here likes pangaea, so I can see how that would be a problem.

 

[markusbeutel]

In the vanilla game, there is no way to stop a nuke attack.

In certain mods, such as my own, there is. (See my sig for a link to my mod.)

You see, the game allows for <NukeInterception> variables in Project declarations... but then doesn't DO anything with them. I don't just mean that there are no projects that use that variable, I mean that even if you made one that did, it wouldn't actually intercept anything. It's a relic from Civ4, but what's strange is, it DOES count it; there are Lua functions to return each civ's chance of interception, so it's already handling all of the variable storage for you.

But there's a trick... use the RunCombatSim Lua event, which triggers at the start of every combat (unless you're in Strategic View or using the Quick Combat option), check to see if the attacker is a nuke, and if so, use the interception chances from the functions I mentioned above. Do a random draw, and if it succeeds, use the Units:Kill() function to destroy the nuke before the combat begins. Voila, intercepted nuke! (Also, give a text message when this happens.)

The only headache is that while RunCombatSim normally includes information about the defender, Nukes don't HAVE a "defender", because you target a hex and not a unit/city. So you can't just use the interception chance of the intended victim; at best, you can use the interception chances of all civs currently at war with the attacker.

In my own mod, which includes a bunch of future content, it works like this:
> At an early future-era tech, the SDI project unlocks. It provides a 60% chance of intercepting an Atomic Bomb, a 40% chance of intercepting a Nuclear Missile, and a 20% chance of intercepting a Planet Buster. (Future mod inspired by SMAC, just go with it. PBs are basically Nuclear Missiles with infinite range and less chance of interception; they also don't use Uranium.)
> Further down the line tech-wise are the Orbital Defense Pods: 3%/2%/1% each, but you can build 10. (They also help in other ways, like reducing the damage dealt by all orbital weapons. Yes, I have orbital weapons.) So a full set, combined with SDI, is 90/60/30%.
> If the nuking civ is at war with 1 major civ (and any number of city-states), just use the interception chance of that civ. If they're at war with 2 major civs, multiply each civ's chance by 3/4 and then add them together. 3 civs multiply by 2/3, 4 by 5/8, 5 by 3/5, and so on. That's (N+1) / (2*N), for those playing at home.
> Cap it on both ends: an Atomic Bomb always has at least a 30% chance of interception and at most an 83% chance. A Nuclear Missile is 20-66%, a Planet Buster 10-50%. The minima mainly are there to help city-states, who can't build Projects and so would have no way to defend themselves. These minima also represent the chance of random other defenses stopping the attack; maybe a fighter shoots down the Enola Gay before it drops the bomb, maybe James Bond sabotages the nuclear missile launch controls, maybe the missile goes off-target and hits an empty field in the middle of nowhere.
The maxima, on the other hand, are so that if an AI is at war with four other civs it won't have 0 chance of getting through, since the AI won't really understand why its missiles aren't getting through. So no matter how stacked the defenses are, 1 in 6 atomic bombs and 1 in 3 nuclear missiles ALWAYS get through.

It's worked beautifully in practice. Depending on the phase of the game you're in, maybe half the nukes will still get through, and yes, this'd still gut a "Tall" empire if you were unlucky. Which is where the next change came in:
> Buildings can be given a Nuke damage reduction ability. In my mod, the Military Base reduces nuke damage by 20% in addition to its other benefits, as do several future-era buildings. The Gravity Shield reduces nuke damage by 100%, but that one's not cheap and actually LOWERS your Happiness. (People in the city don't like living in a bubble, people outside the cities feel left out...)

The point is, while the core game might not use this sort of functionality, and have basically made Nukes undefendable, there are mods that solve this.

You should release this feature, (including the buildings - albeit moved around to vanilla techs), as a standalone mod download - if that's possible. It would probably encourage scores of new players to download your AC mod. Nice work.

 

[Spatzimaus]

You should release this feature, (including the buildings - albeit moved around to vanilla techs), as a standalone mod download - if that's possible.

I'd have to do some heavy rearrangement, like making a new icon atlas, but it's possible; I'm just a bit busy preparing a new version of my main mod right now.

A couple months back I posted all of the code necessary to insert this feature into any other mod in this thread, although that was a very stripped-down version (no message printed, for instance) and it's a little out-of-date by now. You could always download my mod and look at the actual file I use (SpatzUnit.lua, in the Content mod) to see the latest version.

It's been fully functional for about three months now, so I'd say that it's been adequately tested. The only headache, as I mentioned above, is that you can't use Strategic View or Quick Combat.

 

[MasterMishi]

A happiness penalty for nuking that recovers might work and reflect war weariness.

The A bomb is very strong for it's cost and can turn the tide. Beeline nukes and start saving up gold early.

 

[MadDjinn]

The whole point of the thread is the imbalance here. "realism" aside, if you have 3-5 tall cities and you're DoW'd then nuked in one fell swoop, it's basically game over with no warning and really nothing you could have done except that ridiculous example I gave.

there is no imbalance and there very much is warning.

Going 'tall' is a strategic choice. You know that there's downsides, so you make that choice and prevent that which will hurt you.

Nukes are meant to be nasty, and someone has to build the Manhattan Project, which everyone gets told about, as well as getting other techs.

Should those techs cost more? Should the nukes take more to build? maybe. Even at high production right now, it can take 14 turns to build.

If you know the AI can nuke you, do something about it.

 

[Camikaze]

in real life, you get... a 6 min warning if you're lucky. The only 'defense' is having nukes and MADD. So why should the game be any different?

As cccv points out, there is no MAD in the game. It makes sense for nukes to be powerful, and very powerful, but the restraints on that power (i.e. MAD) are not also in place, which creates a bit of a problem. I, for one, have no issue with nukes being very powerful, but it'd be nice if there were more drawbacks for using them.

 

[Sonereal]

As cccv points out, there is no MAD in the game. It makes sense for nukes to be powerful, and very powerful, but the restraints on that power (i.e. MAD) are not also in place, which creates a bit of a problem. I, for one, have no issue with nukes being very powerful, but it'd be nice if there were more drawbacks for using them.

Maybe if the AI counted atomic/nuclear weapons separately from military power, there wouldn't be such a major hangup. The AIs can't seem to grasp that a nuclear missile capable of leveling a moderate-sized city weighs more in negotiations than four or five tanks on the border. Maybe a quick and dirty solution would be to make it so the AI won't fire nuclear weapons unless fired upon or unless it feels as if it's losing the war in a big way. It seems that the AI is able to tell when it's losing so that helps. After that quick solution is thrown it, all that needs to be done is to revamp diplomacy for it and to give modifiers to the AI to make it A.) Capable of launching fire strikes and B.) Know which targets are most important when it comes to first strikes (air bases and other missiles) and C.) Most importantly, know when a first strike won't work.

This will prevent the need to nerf what should be powerful weapons. Most importantly, Atomic Bombers should be able to be intercepted by at least SAMs and Jets with a lesser chance by Fighters and AA Guns.

 

[Keejus]

How about it taking a turn or two after a nuke is launched before it actually hits? Maybe they could do more damage to make up for it, but it'd certainly be a way to implement MAD.

 

[Sonereal]

How about it taking a turn or two after a nuke is launched before it actually hits? Maybe they could do more damage to make up for it, but it'd certainly be a way to implement MAD.

Because you don't get a two-year warning between the time a missile is launched and the time the missile hits. That's a bad solution that players will easily abuse by moving units/selling buildings/rebasing air assets. Things that should've be done BEFORE the war broke out. A key part of MAD revolves around the power of first and second strike capability. A two-turn detonation mitigates the power of a first strike and makes a second strike come way too late to matter and the response time overall would be so fast it would be like they launched at the same time.

 

[cccv]

If you know the AI can nuke you, do something about it.

It would be nice to be able to play the game as someone other than george bush though, right?

 

[Danik]

It would be nice to be able to play the game as someone other than george bush though, right?

Awesome!

 

[Thalassicus]

From a gameplay perspective it's a bit too powerful against cities, which is why I added a nuclear-defense bonus to the Military Base in TBC. It reduces damage to the city from nuclear detonations.

So that's what balance is about, providing bonuses so the awful things in the game don't hurt as much?

Yes, that is the definition of balance. If something is "awful" (too powerful), and you give a bonus to something that opposes it, then the weaker item becomes better and the more-powerful item weaker.

 

[Buccaneer]

But the end result of "balance" should not be to make everything regressed toward a mean, esp. inthe context of human players vs. AI opponents. Atomic weapon seems to be a good neutralizer as is for the AI against the human player. This could force the human player to radically shift their strategy instead playing along in a sandbox that too many like the game to be. Having a Tall empire is a strategic choice (my preference, byw) that comes with dire consequences (risk of having a quick collapse). "Balancing" as you believe, means to reduce the risks for the human player and thus, gaining even more of an advantage over the AI. Ugh.

 

[MadDjinn]

Yes, that is the definition of balance. If something is "awful" (too powerful), and you give a bonus to something that opposes it, then the weaker item becomes better and the more-powerful item weaker.

no it's not.

That's the definition of 'bland gaming'. If there's no risk-reward system, then there's no 'balance'. This is a strategy game, not a FPS game, so 'balance' needs to exist in a different fashion.

It should be closer to: "State in which long-term and short-term (or high risk and low risk) elements, factors, or objectives are judiciously combined to achieve a desired level of equilibrium."

You 'balance' high science output vs. economic output or production output. You balance costs of war vs. ability to get along with others. (and of course, empire building) You 'balance' the victory conditions so that one isn't so obviously easier than the others, and you can actually have options. (science vs. diplo vs. culture vs. domination)

You don't 'bland' everything out until even a monkey can press random buttons and still win as no choice would be any more or less 'risky' than others.

(and yes, I'm well aware that some parts of the above do need more work to get into 'balance')

 

[Thalassicus]

I didn't explain well, let me rephrase.

What I feel is important is to improve and enhance the strategic decision-making opportunities available to us. Civ is a strategy game, and I find it most interesting if we have multiple viable strategies to choose from - each with advantages and disadvantages - instead of one dominant strategy. Making the game more complex, interesting, and challenging is the goal. There's been a good track record here in the past half year.

I think we can agree there are three main playstyles in Civ:

• Tall peaceful (6-7 high pop cities)
• Wide peaceful (8+ smaller cities)
• Conquest

Playstyle is a matter of personal preference, and I do not feel people should be penalized just because they like playing a particular way. I think tall, wide, and conquest should all be equally strong.

Civ 5 has traditionally favored 1) conquest 2) wide empires 3) tall empires, to the extent ICS was a prominent strategy in the first few months after release. This is why I added things like Aqueducts, the happiness and gold NWs, and localized resource bonuses on the Granary and Stable. These and other changes in my balance mod improve tall empires, which is likely why they were included in the core game - to improve balance between the three playstyles.

However, these changes were mainly in the early game. It does make sense to balance the early game first since not all games last to the modern era. It doesn't mean late game vanilla is balanced yet, though. Where nukes are involved, wide is clearly better since nukes affect city population on a percentage basis. I feel the disadvantage of a tall empire outweigh that of wide/conquest one a bit too much here. A reduction in nuke damage to city population seems like the most direct and simple way to help improve late game tall empires. Tall players are still vulnerable to nukes and direct assault, but their cities can't be wiped out in two shots - it takes four.

The change affects tall empires more because Military Bases are rather high up in the defensive tier levels, so it's more likely for a tall player to get them than a wide player.

AI vs human balance is better achieved by actually changing the AI, not by limiting the game's overall strategic depth.

 

[MadDjinn]

I didn't explain well, let me rephrase.

What I feel is important is to improve and enhance the strategic decision-making opportunities available to us. Civ is a strategy game, and I find it most interesting if we have multiple viable strategies to choose from - each with advantages and disadvantages - instead of one dominant strategy. Making the game more complex, interesting, and challenging is the goal. There's been a good track record here in the past half year.

I think we can agree there are three main playstyles in Civ:


Civ 5 has traditionally favored 1) conquest 2) wide empires 3) tall empires, to the extent ICS was a prominent strategy in the first few months after release. This is why I added things like Aqueducts, the happiness and gold NWs, and localized resource bonuses on the Granary and Stable. These and other changes in my balance mod improve tall empires, which is likely why they were included in the core game - to improve balance between the three playstyles.

However, these changes were mainly in the early game. Tall players are still vulnerable to nukes and direct assault, but their cities can't be wiped out in two shots - it takes four.

AI vs human balance is better achieved by actually changing the AI, not by limiting the game's overall strategic depth.

Actually, I disagree with the '3 styles', there's only two basic styles to empire builds, with four VCs that will provide differing 'looks' of them. But each has 'variants' available within the style.

You can achieve all four victory conditions with a 'tall' civ or 'wide' civ. Though, wide will provide advantages for domination and diplomacy, while tall will provide advantages for culture and science VCs. That doesn't mean you can't go 'wide and cultural' but that's somewhat a lot harder to do, similar to OCC and domination.

Puppet vs. Annexed vs. Expansion choices on the 'wide' side has it's own balance issues, irrespective of tall vs wide, which may need a bit of work to ensure it stays within the 'wide' framework and not provide 'wide' an out to overpower 'tall'. (to at least allow for one or the other to work, bugs notwithstanding)

edit: and to be totally fair, a TALL empire made of Capitals (puppet vs. Annexed choices) with every other cities razed, is an option. So we have to be careful not to paint 'puppet vs annex vs expansion' as an entirely 'wide' thing.

Though, I'd classify 6-8 cities as 'semi-wide' rather than tall, given the happiness system; which now has to be reworked to get it back to an actual happiness system rather than nearly all global happiness; which favours pure ICS again, not balanced between tall and wide.

When taken to the 'extremes' Tall->OCC, wide->ICS. both have to be minimally balanced or 'prevented' depending on what is needed. (ICS more than OCC since OCC is an advanced option and should be at least very hard, but doable)

Oh sure, the dev borrowed directly from your mod. Some things were ok, others not so much. Just because you hit on a decent idea a few times, (some should have been there from the beginning since Civ 4 had it, which means they dropped the ball, not you making something new for 'balance') doesn't mean everything in your mod is good for this version of the game (replicating everything from Civ 4 is bad), especially on this topic.

Abombs getting intercepted (bomber delivery system) by fighters/AA etc is likely the best method to 'balance' them (but not Nuclear Missiles). There's supposed to be an 'evasion' score for the Abombs, so it makes sense if that got 'fixed'. The owner of the nuke can then use fighters to Air sweep before dropping the bomb. That makes it a lot fairer and provides an ingame counter with a counter-counter.

Reducing their damage or anything else 'just because Tall empires are at more risk' is not a good plan. Especially since it seems those people who want that are more interested in their own sandbox game, ignoring that the AI isn't just there for their amusement, rather than allowing the WHOLE game to exist. You don't 'balance' this factor, ever.

Playing by yourself in a corner (builder) is just as ignorant of the game mechanics as going 'all war' and complaining about happiness and culture. These are 'extremes' of player choices, but neither is considering the Actual game mechanics.

Tall has it's risk-reward issues. Tall can get to higher techs a lot faster if you go specialist GS production/Rationalism. Which means you really shouldn't have the AI having nukes available so far ahead of you that you can't do anything about it.
Tall loses a city and therefore loses a lot of the % culture/production/science/gold of the empire. You have to ACTIVELY prevent that within the system, not be passive and hope the AI ignores you or think that you should do anything you want without consequences.

wide has the same risk reward issues. National wonders are harder to achieve, if ever, but if you lose 1 city you lose less than a tall civ losing one city. Wide empires end up with less wonders built (less concentrated production) and you get less SPs, so policies are harder to come by. Your GP generation isn't going to catch up with a tall civ, given that you need the SPs and some wonders to make it happen. Wide can get more gold->RAs than Tall though, but with RAs now more 'in balance' that's a bit less powerful than it was before.

That (was) an important factor. If both the Tall and wide empires can have the same SP setups, then what's the point of 'tall'?

 

[Thalassicus]

I think I'm not wording things very well today.

I didn't intend to imply I prefer a bland game, nor that all the methods used are ideal solutions. They're just the best options with the tools we have available (lua, xml, sql). More is clearly possible with the c++ Firaxis has access to.

The thing is... we can play a fun, balanced, and strategically deep game right now. There's no reason to complain and wait months for the devs to fix things, when we have clear problems and simple, accessible solutions for an enjoyable gaming experience.

 

[MadDjinn]

I think I'm not wording things very well today.

I didn't intend to imply I prefer a bland game, nor that all the methods used in TBC are the best options. They're just decently good options with the tools we have available. More is possible with the c++ Firaxis has access to.

It's ok. Your mod is fine for those who don't like Civ 5, but want something slightly different. That's fine, modding the game has produced some interesting things in the past, but it's modded not 'balanced'.

It's an option, but Civ 5 has the basis of a good game somewhere in there. We need to keep the Devs from taking too many 'suggested gameplay changes' from the forums, since very few of them come from a point of actually understanding the game and wanting a 'balanced' core game, sans mods.

Right now though, it's even worse since Firaxis seems to lack a solid Creative Director for Civ 5. (They also lack decent management, but that's a different issue) If they had a good CD, they'd be able to work the balance changes without constantly making big changes that cause new balance issues.

Ie, look at the happiness system. It was almost balanced, though had some annoying bugs. (India) Now it's almost entirely global happiness which means ICS wins and Tall is painful. That's pretty much back to the original game, which seems like a waste of 8 months of post-release development.

 

[stealth_nsk]

As far as I now, devs wanted tall empire to be a reasonable choice. Right now it's slightly weaker, and th nuke problem makes it even worse.

I believe, the best way is to make the nuclear defense in the way more favorable for tall empires (balancing nuclear weapons to counter this, surely, by lowering their price, increasing the amount of Uranium, etc.). Something like this:
- SDI defense. Building. Allows fighters from this city to intercept nuclear bombers. The building could require Uranium, just for fun and favoring small empires more.
- National missile defense. National wonder, requires SDI defense in all cities. Allows fighters to intercept nuclear missiles.
Both should be visible to opponents so they'll know whether they need to clear the sky to attack or not.

This way we'll have:
- Problem for tall empires solved.
- Wide empires don't get the same bonus.

That's just an example, but I think that's the right direction.

 

[Inspector Javert]

As cccv points out, there is no MAD in the game. It makes sense for nukes to be powerful, and very powerful, but the restraints on that power (i.e. MAD) are not also in place, which creates a bit of a problem. I, for one, have no issue with nukes being very powerful, but it'd be nice if there were more drawbacks for using them.

I haven't gotten into the late game yet but from the way it sounds nukes are bad gris gris. They should be of course, one of the top complaints in previous Civ iterations was that nukes were too weak. I like the way nukes have been powered up.

The solution I think is simliar to an old mod for Civ IV by "The Lopez" he made a mod that incorporated MAD where you could point your nukes at enemy cities and if they launched a nuke on you the nukes you had would automatically launch on their cities. That would be a great way to make the AI think twice before nuking you.