The Imperfections of ICBMs

[cgannon64]

Ok, ok, I'm sorry! I never thought of it in that way (and in fact never knew that ICBMs used similar launchers as space program). But you are right, China is trying to send people to the moon---seriously! They call them taikonauts (sp?) and they are hoping to land on the moon by 2010 or something like that.

Imagine if they tear down the US flag? That would be such a funny internation al incident!

 

[DaDoo]

the advantage of tactical nuke vs ICBM is tactical can lurk somewhere just outside of enemy territory and not being inside any city. When another civ launch a first strike with their nuke on your cities, there's a possibility that they could nuke all your ICBM stockpile into nothingness since they have to be in cities. Having tactical lurking around allows you to strike back. Although if they could nuke all your ICBM stockpile... chances are you are going to be fighting a very tough uphill battle from then on...

 

[kb2tvl]

Panth, Greece may have used nukes already or they have war mongered and the other civs disliked him....

Also, taticals before mfg plants save a bunch of turns. This is especially true if your producing a lot of them.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by 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.

Dadoo ty for you support, i dont know about timeframe but for sure the closer the better .

 

[cgannon64]

Yes, I think ICBMs cost should be double that of taciticals, so taciticals actually have a purpose. DaDoo said it well, it's a comfort for me to have a few taciticals roaming the seas...almost like a renegade force to do a little justice if I nuked to the ground...

Who's with me on the SDI problem? What's the exact number of techs between ICBMs and SDI? I think its like 4 or 5---thats twenty turns for a good Civ. That gives ICBMs a twenty turn window to be effective! That's pointless---which is why sometimes I don't even bother to build them. In real life, it's been about 60 years since nukes were developed, and missile defense is about 40-60 years in the future! I think SDI shouldn't even be in the game---it currently doesn't exist, it's just a huge waste of money Bush thinks is useful...

 

[alexander dumas]

Off topic, but...

In the GOTM I nuked everybody I could right before I won the Space Race,

and a few months ago I saw the trail of a Minuteman Missile launch in the sky. Very distinctive. It didn't dissipate like a normal jet trail, and was very colorful (I guess because of all the harmful chemicals in it).

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Drats, I read this thread too late to get into the argument. If I remembered my school training correctly, a SLBM launched from the USA's east coast would reach Chicago in 7 minutes, and an ICBM launched from the Urals would reach Chicago in under 15 minutes. Tactical nucs are slower and a smaller yield. I made all nuc units extremely expensive and made the SDI tech very expensive. Also the SDI requires 8 SAMs. What I really want are the neutron bombs. Kills all the people but leaves the buildings. Low yield radiation supposedly left the city habitable.

 

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by 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.

Perhaps your allies don't get angry when you use nukes... That would make more sense. I've never got in a nuclear war like that so I wouldn't know.

Lots of people from Seattle around here, it seems...

 

[Emerald Knight]

If you have an Alliance with another civ vs the bad guy, if you bomb the bad guy, the other civ won't be pissed with you.

So forming alliances with all other civs vs that one civ, then nukes are okay.
(except for the victim of course haha)

 

[bbaws]

Every game that I've not won b4 the nuclear age has seen me with tactical nukes in subs near all my enemis' capitals long b4 I get ICBM building acapacity.Suppose the window for tac nukes depends how you race up the tech tree.

 

[hzm]

Originally posted by Kilroy
Lots of people from Seattle around here, it seems...

Seattle is one of the top couple internet available cities in America.

 

[etj4Eagle]

The problem with tactical nukes in the game is that they are in a way too strong. I believe they currently do damage to the tiles that surround where they hit as well (has been a while since I used one). A tactical nuke is a small yield device designed to be used against a specific target. In game terms, they are best designed for destroying an enemy stack. (remember the US had in its arsenal battlefield nukes to be launched on the front lines).

An advantage of a cruise missile with a tactical nuke payload (the kind currently modeled in the game) such as the original tomohawk missiles is that it is a low flying weapon that likely would be immuned from an SDI system and could be used as a first strike instrument.

ICBMs take long enough that a response could be launched before they hit there target. Of course their silos are also designed to withstand surface blasts as well.


On the diplomacy front, I find the kind to be reasonable. Your example of Japan and the end of WWII is flawed. As in that example the world is allied with the US, so hence in game terms there is no civ left that is not involved in the war. As only neuteral civs will declare war on you for using nukes, you will still maintain your allies. So the game does allow you to have a WWII type finish and also a nuclear Iraq situation.

 

[cgannon64]

Good point etj, I liked what you said about tacitals and SDI---maybe SDI won't work with tacitals, giving them a purpose?

Also, as you said, ICBMs take long enough in the air to allow a response---that got me thinking---what if ICBMs take a turn to reach their target---so the civ being nuked has a chance to respond? That would make for some interesting scenarios. Maybe a Small Wonder would allow the nation that built it to be aware of who launched a nuke and where it is heading---we here in America (and I think in other countries) have the exact thing---if an enemy launched a nuke, we would have about 20 minutes to decide how to respond. This could make interesting games---Country A launches their nukes, Country B finds out, Country B launches their nukes, both nukes hit---and we have "mutually assured destruction". Maybe a new wonder isn't even necessary---maybe this ability could just be grouped in with SDI.

This would make nukes both more realistic and more dangerous---your enemy has a chance to counter-attack.

 

[cgannon64]

Oh sorry one more thing---etj is right about the diplomacy---I was thinking of the USSR as an enemy at that time, even though they were still our ally.

 

[spamscaffidi]

1. ICBM's can go anywhere in the world in real life. The stages of an ICBM only differ slightly from the stages used to launch satellites. Satellites can go over the whole world, so nucs can land anywhere in the world. (I went grad school in astrophysics; I know what I'm talking about.)

2. If China or the USSR launched an ICBM at the US, it wouldn't go over the Pacific. It would go over the Arctic--it's shorter, generally speaking. ICBM's travel what's called a "great circle," the shortest path on a globe. The Civ maps are "Mercator projections" of the world, which means that they don't accurately represent all distances, particularly those near the Arctic.

3. Furthermore, Civ doesn't let us move pieces over the planetary poles. Maybe it would have been a hassle to implement that functionality.

For these three reasons, I think it's fine that Civ ICBM pieces can hit anywhere in the world.

But here's my question: when you get nuc'ed, does it hurt much? I've never been nuc'ed before, but I suspect that in another 15 turns or so, I will be.

Can anybody concisely lay out the consequences of an ICBM's impact, and compare and contrast it with the consequences of a tactical nuc's impact?

Thanks in advance.

(PS: in real life, tactical nucs are good for taking out hundreds of units at one time. But you couldn't, for instance, wipe out all units within 50 miles with one tac nuc)

 

[CurtSibling]

Nuclear warfare in CIV3 IS unrealistic.

But show me something in CIV3 that is actually realistic?

 

[Hellfire]

Okay, for all you people arguing of an ICBM can hit any target in the world....

Presently, ICBMs in the former soviet Union and in the United States can hit any target in the other's territory, bar none. I'm not talking military bases, just the homeland (50 states, etc.)

Why is this? Because ICBMs go OVER THE NORTH POLE. It's not practical to send airplanes over the north pole, but missiles, especially when they get into space, work fine. This can give the appearance that ICBMs are pretty far reaching. They are, because people who designed the strategic systems understood they aren't looking at a flat map like you are in Civ3

As for the absolute range of an ICBM, i have a link I found on google (remember, google knows all!):

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile

If you click on the links for the different types of missiles, at least one missile gives a range of about 4600 miles (7300 km). That's the range of a missile that was recently phased out in the late 90s (The Trident).

Now, before anyone continues in the flame war, go to google and look up some information and provide more links

 

[cgannon64]

Whoa, who revived this thread? This one is pretty old...

Thanks Hellfire for the info. I was basing my conclusion on simple algebra and a world map, which isn't always accurate.

CG

 

[Zcylen]

AFAIK there are cold wars in the game.in many cases some nations sign trade embargoes against me but never move a single unit to attack me, that sounds like a cold war to me.