The Imperfections of ICBMs

[cgannon64]

I've mentioned this in a few other threads, but I felt like I was thread-jacking, so I decided to make my own.

I think PTW or Civ4 needs major changes in nukes. I think the damage and destruction they cause is perfectly fair, and I have no qualms about it. However, I think the diplomacy effects and the ranges need major overhauls.

First, diplomacy. I think the fact that the user of nukes gets most or all civs to declare war on them is absurd, pointless, and not realistic. First of all, it makes using nukes pretty pointless, because usually (and historically) people use nukes to end wars, not start 7 others. Did anyone else declare war on America after we nuked Japan? No. In fact, I think the diplomacy effects of nukes should be REVERSED. After WW2, we became a superpower, and the Cold War began. Nations came to fear us and our nuclear power. So, I think, in Civ3, nukes should reduce major wars, not instigate them, as is historically. From the 50s to today, there haven't been many---in fact any conflicts near the scale of WW2. Probably because of nukes.

Second: range. I think the range in Civ3 for tacitical nukes and ICBMs is way off. Tacitcal nukes, in most cases (in Civ3) can't hit one city from another. This is very unrealistic. I think their range should be increased, about doubled. The range of ICBMs is also extremely unrealistic. Unliminited range??? Imagine what the Cold War would have been like if ICBMs could hit any spot in the world. An ICBM in North Korea can hit the West Coast of the US---in the game, it could hit anywhere. This magnifies the power of ICBMs to the point where a tiny Civ with 10 could cripple a large Civ's military and economy---also unrealistic. The ICBM's range should be reduced by about 3/5, maybe more. I also think a new category should be added for Nukes: MRBMs. An MRBM in Cuba could hit about anywhere in the US except Washington and Oregon. Overall, I think the ranges of nukes should go not by squares but by fractions of the world.

Does anyone agree? Or did I rant for nothing?

 

[cracker]

You rant for nothing.

More to the point, nukes exist in the game primarily to distract you from winning the game by some form of effective strategy.

There might be some value in building nukes if you happen to be behind in the game, but if you are in the lead then the fact that icbms are limited to being deployed only in your cities (and in you major cities at that) basically makes them a self defeating weapon system in the big picture.

Statements like:

"If you can afford to build them and use them, you don't need them."

seem to keep jumping up to the forefront of this train of thought.

 

[cgannon64]

True, true. Nukes can be extremely destructive and pointless, in real life and the game. However, I haven't seen (and rarely heard of) Cold wars between humans and AIs or AIs and AIs---and by Cold Wars I mean like the real one---thousands and thousands of nukes on each side. I wonder, is this a programming mistake, or does the AI know something we don't?

 

[stalin006]

not really, ive been in cold wars, and i have noticed taht if u dont use ur nukes and invade andother nuclear power, they will not nuke u, it is after u use them they will use every single one in one turn, but w/ the SDI it wont happen, well anyways......in one of my recent games (which is made sure all civs had a somewhat advanced start so that we have like 400 years of modern wars) i was in a cold war w/ persia, and that kept mefrom attacking tehm, they had 19 nukes and ICBMs! now i had around 25 ICBMs but still his deterrant was good.....................

 

[petridish86]

yeah i guess i agree with you. but changing that would make the game easier and less fun. this game is fun because it is challenging and i dunno, i think its pretty fine the way it is.

 

[rbelmont]

I just want the ability to GIVE these suckers away. Could be said with all military units like the way in civ2 you could give others your obsolete units as foreign aid (like in real life).

 

[Yndy]

Originally posted by cgannon64

Imagine what the Cold War would have been like if ICBMs could hit any spot in the world. An ICBM in North Korea can hit the West Coast of the US---in the game, it could hit anywhere. This magnifies the power of ICBMs to the point where a tiny Civ with 10 could cripple a large Civ's military and economy---also unrealistic. The ICBM's range should be reduced by about 3/5, maybe more. I also think a new category should be added for Nukes: MRBMs. An MRBM in Cuba could hit about anywhere in the US except Washington and Oregon.

Well, I'm not american but as far as I know Inter Continental Ballistic Misiles CAN hit virtually every point of the world.

It's only that few nations have them.

I agree that they should either increase the range of the Tac missile or reate an intermedeiary MRBM.

 

[cgannon64]

Yndy---ICBMs have a range of like 2000 miles, I think, which would NOT reach anywhere in the world.

Maybe I should change my sig now that I see Cold Wars are less rare than I thought. Oh well, I thought the AI was smart in at least ONE area...

 

[Panda]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Yndy---ICBMs have a range of like 2000 miles, I think, which would NOT reach anywhere in the world.

Think again, will you? An ICBM with a range of 2000 couldn't cross neither the Pacific nor the Atlantic ocean, leave alone hit targets in central Siberia / USA.

 

[Agamemnus]

Unless there were bases in Turkey and Cuba..

 

[DaDoo]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Second: range. I think the range in Civ3 for tacitical nukes and ICBMs is way off. Tacitcal nukes, in most cases (in Civ3) can't hit one city from another. This is very unrealistic. I think their range should be increased, about doubled. The range of ICBMs is also extremely unrealistic. Unliminited range??? Imagine what the Cold War would have been like if ICBMs could hit any spot in the world. An ICBM in North Korea can hit the West Coast of the US---in the game, it could hit anywhere. This magnifies the power of ICBMs to the point where a tiny Civ with 10 could cripple a large Civ's military and economy---also unrealistic. The ICBM's range should be reduced by about 3/5, maybe more. I also think a new category should be added for Nukes: MRBMs. An MRBM in Cuba could hit about anywhere in the US except Washington and Oregon. Overall, I think the ranges of nukes should go not by squares but by fractions of the world.

Does anyone agree? Or did I rant for nothing?

Rant for nothing

I think the range for the tactical missile in the game is about right. IRL, tactical missiles are launched mostly from either subs or surface ships. So the shorter range makes sense. (not going to even start the thing about why civ3 subs can't carry missiles)

The ICBM's range IS unlimited. They CAN hit anywhere in the world. That's why they're called "Inter-Continental" ballistic missiles.

 

[Tassadar]

ICBM range;

They can hit anywhere in the world, think about it, in the year 60, they were able to put satelite into orbite with laucher, Those laucher are similar to icbm, so once you can reach orbital altitude you can hit anywhere on the world.

But the closer they are, the faster will be the strike.

Edit; ICBM = inter continental balistic missile for those who think i am ignorant.

 

[Agamemnus]

There aren't any missiles in space currently, right?

land-based ICBMs cannot hit anywhere in the world, but it's good enough. China and Russia both have ICBMs that can hit both coasts of the US.

 

[cgannon64]

Yea, I just double checked the tacitcal range, ends up it was longer than I thought. I now have no gripes about the tacitical, its well done. Although I'm still firm on the need for MRBMs and the shorten ICBM range by alot.

OK, I'm not sure exactly how long ICBMs can go in real life, but I am postive that ICBMs can hit the West US from North Korea (Discover, some issue about Missile Defense).

About that Cuba and Turkey remark, that's why I want MRBMs---so we can have a Cuban Missile Crisis happen naturally in the game!

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Agamemnus
There aren't any missiles in space currently, right?

land-based ICBMs cannot hit anywhere in the world, but it's good enough. China and Russia both have ICBMs that can hit both coasts of the US.

No not in space but icbm reach very high altitude ( like satelite launcher) so yes they can hit everywhere in the world, they are INTER CONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE, what do you want more ? inter continental = from america to asia and vice versa.

See it like a satelite laucher ( atlas, titan,arianne or whatever name ) and unsteed of a satelite, it is a nuclear charge, th satelite will stay in orbit while the nuclear charge will fall on ground target( multiple head )

 

[cgannon64]

Tassadar, a Nuke can't hit everywhere in the world, I'm POSITIVE. The meaning inter-continental is that it can go from continent to continent, not all the way around the world. How far across is the Pacific Ocean? I don't have the number in my head right now, but it certainly is not enough range to go anywhere in the world. I think a good range for ICBMs in this game would be maybe half the map. Not only is this more realistic, it adds more to the strategy of nukes, because you would have to place your nukes in strategic areas, not just mass them all in one city deep in your territory, like most people do in Civ3.

Since everyone is arguing on the range aspect of my post, and no one is arguing on my diplomacy changes, i guess everyone agrees with that, right? I think the diplomacy aspect of nukes is absolutely stupid---they were just trying to make nuclear wars rare. I think everyone should be angry with you and fear you when you use nukes---because I know that alot of countries disliked us in the Cold War.

I also think nukes have too short a time span in this game---its only a few techs between ICBMs and SDI---when SDI does not exist now, and based on the way the US's reserach in missile defense is going, won't exist for another 50 years.

 

[cgannon64]

OK, I am officially withdrawing the arguement about ICBMs range from this topic. I just checked a map, and it ends up an ICBM in North Korea to West US (my main example) is latitude 80 to latitude 80---half the world. If an ICBM can hit halfway across the world, that means it can hit anywhere on the world---Firaxis got this one right.


However, I still believe that the diplomacy effects of nukes are flawed and need to be changed, because they don't follow history at all!

I'm sorry to all the people I argued with, I should have checked my stats first...

 

[DaDoo]

If you have powerful enough multistage launcher, you can hit anywhere in the world with a ICBM. You basically launch the nuke warhead like you would launch a satellite and preprogram it to re-enter the Earth atmosphere at a certain spot at a certain time to hit a specific area. (just like how tassadar has been saying) It might be true that currently in real life that only US and Russia have the capability to build sufficiently powerful launchers to hit anywhere in the world doesn't mean you cripple everybody in the game.

I think we do more or less concentrate majority of the US ICBM's somewhere in the dakota's... I can't remember... While you might argue this doesn't make sense strategic wise since the enemy could just nuke your stockpile etc etc. There are early warning systems(on the ground and in space) to detect nuke launches and abilities to launch within a 30 minute timeframe. (I think that's the amount of time for nukes from Russia to reach the US main land? I could be wrong.)

As for the diplomacy aspect. If anybody uses nukes, the world would be outraged, no? For the astrocity and the radioactive pollution it'll eventually generate? The game simulate that by having other civs furious with you. I think that's plenty good enough.

 

[Tassadar]

Sure they can hit everywhere, hey guy wake up, usa send a laucher on the moon in 1968( 69?) SO it mean you can reach any earth target.


Space programm= ICBM devloppement ( like china do actualy and like usa and ussr did )

I bet a 100 virtual dollar on that, if you want me to call general swarrpkoff i will

 

[Panth]

If I follow this correctly, using nukes is supposed to give you a bad rep in the game? Maybe I just got lucky then. I only used them once, but I used a lot of them. Enough to wipe Greece's quite large nation off the map. The US asked me for an alliance against them but I didn't have the kind of troops to spare for it at the time so I just launched the 30 or so ICBMs I had stockpiled, bringing Greece to a rubble of size 1 cities with almost no usable land. Abe marched in and took over within a few turns and a few years later I was elected UN leader. Everybody loved me.

Maybe Greece had just ticked everybody off so much that my assult appeared justified to everybody?

By the way, what would be the advantage of building tacticals over ICBMs? In the games I've played so far, by the time I can build either, my cities are to the point where I can do an ICBM in 3 and a tactical in 2 (or thereabouts). It doesn't seem worth it to me to save the couple turns on production if I have to then spend several turns manuevering the tactical in to postion (plus producing something to move it into position with) when I can just save the hassle and launch anywhere. The tactical just seems completely useless in the game to me when the ICBM seems such a simpler alternative.