Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

[Ajuga]

While nuclear weapons are nice, there is absolutely no way of preventing civilizations from producing and using them.
So how about something like that treaty being in the game? (You should know about it, if not there is always google to help you out.)

What would you think about it? Should something like a non-nuclear weapons treaty be in the game?




Personally I would translate the treaty to Civilization V in this way:

- A 'wonder' that's build just like the Manhattan project and can only be build after the Manhattan project.
- Once build it will trigger a vote akin to that of the united nations but only once.
- It disables civilizations that have not yet finished researching the Manhattan project from finishing it.
- Civilizations that enter the treaty can only have a limited amount of nuclear weapons and can not use them in wars unless they are attacked by a nuclear weapon first (and only use them against the civilization that attacked them.)
- Civilizations that sign it will get a huge positive diplomatic modifier towards each other and a huge negative diplomatic modifier against those that don't.
- A civilization that uses nuclear weapons while having signed that treaty will receive a diplomatic hit with the same severity as that of not signing it plus one for using nuclear weapons.

That's how I think it should be done. What do you think about a treaty against nuclear weapons?

 

[smallfish]

I don't really like the wonder aspect of this. Instead, it should go under the UN "vote", where instead of just voting for diplo victory (which also involves major civs liking you, thereby giving you more incentives to cultivate extremely good relations with everyone if beelining for that vic), you'd vote for a variety of issues like preventing usage of nuclear weapons. Civilizations with warmongering characteristics would be less likely to vote for them, unless its too advantageous for them to do so (ie. just before a player commences his Domination spree nuclear barrage).

 

[Ajuga]

I don't really like the wonder aspect of this. Instead, it should go under the UN "vote", where instead of just voting for diplo victory (which also involves major civs liking you, thereby giving you more incentives to cultivate extremely good relations with everyone if beelining for that vic), you'd vote for a variety of issues like preventing usage of nuclear weapons. Civilizations with warmongering characteristics would be less likely to vote for them, unless its too advantageous for them to do so (ie. just before a player commences his Domination spree nuclear barrage).

While the United Nations was signed in 1945 and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was enforced in 1970 I don't see how it could work as a diplomatic vote.
Not only does the technology of Globalization come later than Atomic Theory. Once the UN 'vote' is started a civ has most likely won anyway. Destroying any future purpose of a non-nuclear weapons treaty.

Unless you intend on having a different diplomatic victory?

 

[prince_caspian]

Yeah there should be a binding non-nuclear proliferation treaty in game. One of my greatest dissatisfaction with the game is the first civ that gets nukes can almost always ruin your VC and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

I feel this treaty could be something like, once a civ researches a certain tech, I'm thinking Ecology, then that civ could propose such a treaty and all civs could then vote whether to support or oppose it. If treaty gets a majority, the civ(s) that did not sign it will be imposed with an economic sanctions of sorts, like being unable to trade or getting a penalty to trade routes. Of course they can still build nukes but if they use them then all civs which signed the treaty will auto DOW the offender.

But this treaty is not irrevocable. Civs may choose to pull out after 30 turns for example, but if there is still a majority then they will still be penalized as above. If treaty does not get a majority then nothing happens, the civs which signed will not have nukes but they are free to pull out.

The twist in civ 5 is uranium is also used to build GDRs, so this treaty would automatically exclude them.

Hope this gets implemented, somehow...

 

[smallfish]

While the United Nations was signed in 1945 and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was enforced in 1970 I don't see how it could work as a diplomatic vote.
Not only does the technology of Globalization come later than Atomic Theory. Once the UN 'vote' is started a civ has most likely won anyway. Destroying any future purpose of a non-nuclear weapons treaty.

Unless you intend on having a different diplomatic victory?

Well, I was more having in mind on games after One More Turn, but yes that was also what was in mind by having an expanded role for the UN.

More options for UN votes:

1) Wrangling strategic trade routes (benefits of being recipient: boosted hammer/gold/food)

2) Choosing who should get a "Nobel Prize" winner (Great Person) every 20/30 turns

3) Forum to actually discuss hot topic issues such as when a spy is caught by another civ, no more simple warring, this can now lead to either a diplomatic deadlocking stalemate or a Coalition of the Willing police action

feel free to add more

 

[buchengshi]

While nuclear weapons are nice, there is absolutely no way of preventing civilizations from producing and using them.

Which, annoying as they are, is the the way it should be.

So how about something like that treaty being in the game? (You should know about it, if not there is always google to help you out.)

Yes, why not? Which leads to the question of why your NNPT would not work anything like the real one.

What would you think about it? Should something like a non-nuclear weapons treaty be in the game?

Personally, no. Something that made it so that nobody could have nukes, perhaps.

Personally I would translate the treaty to Civilization V in this way:

So many of these aren't the way the real one works, so why would it work this way in game?

- A 'wonder' that's build just like the Manhattan project and can only be build after the Manhattan project.
- Once build it will trigger a vote akin to that of the united nations but only once.

No actual comment on these. (Included for complteness.)

- It disables civilizations that have not yet finished researching the Manhattan project from finishing it.

Why? I think it's a terrible idea. There's no reason for other civs to not be able to do it. Not to mention that's not the way it works in real life.

Plus you have building it prevent MP before there is even a treay vote. That would be akin to having the current UN (in-game) prevent anyone from buying CS influence.

- Civilizations that enter the treaty can only have a limited amount of nuclear weapons and can not use them in wars unless they are attacked by a nuclear weapon first (and only use them against the civilization that attacked them.)

Limiting the number of nukes a player can have doesn't really mean much. Preventing them from building any from that point on would be much more meaningful. Otherwise it's nuke, build new ones, nuke again. Just like we already have.

- Civilizations that sign it will get a huge positive diplomatic modifier towards each other and a huge negative diplomatic modifier against those that don't.

The same way the real treaty led to the US/USSR love fest? Or the way nobody wants to be friends with Israel, India, or Pakistan?
A small modifier maybe, but not a huge one.

- A civilization that uses nuclear weapons while having signed that treaty will receive a diplomatic hit with the same severity as that of not signing it plus one for using nuclear weapons.

The diplo hit for using nukes should just be higher. I think it shold be huge.

That's how I think it should be done. What do you think about a treaty against nuclear weapons?

As you can see, I don't like it - in the way you've laid out. It's just not realistic for one player to be able to lock everyone else out. Even if you move the no-MP to after a vote, non-signatories would be bound. Which is unfair and unrealistic.

And I'll admit that my preference for a flat ban on nukes is hard for me to get behind, from a realism perspective.

 

[buchengshi]

Edit to add:

I wouldn't mind seeing some type of counter to nukes though. SDI, bunkers, etc.

 

[smallfish]

And I'll admit that my preference for a flat ban on nukes is hard for me to get behind, from a realism perspective.

I'm going to have to agree on this.

The only reason we haven't turned each other into steaming piles of radioactive ashes and Mad Max is because the real world isn't run by immortal sociopaths locked in a hex grid system with extremely gamey mechanics

 

[prince_caspian]

The thing about SDIs is, while it's a counter to nukes, they are not counterable themselves. Currently nukes are uncounterable; to counter nukes with something that is itself not counterable would be very pointless. Suppose SDI is buildable in civ 5, before long you're going to hear people whining how nukes are totally useless because of them, how Catherine is s**t useless, how Babylon is sooooooooooooo OP because Nebby gets to SDI before everyone else, blablabla.

Bunkers are ok I guess, so long as they don't totally fizzle out nukes.

 

[smallfish]

The thing about SDIs is, while it's a counter to nukes, they are not counterable themselves. Currently nukes are uncounterable; to counter nukes with something that is itself not counterable would be very pointless. Suppose SDI is buildable in civ 5, before long you're going to hear people whining how nukes are totally useless because of them, how Catherine is s**t useless, how Babylon is sooooooooooooo OP because Nebby gets to SDI before everyone else, blablabla.

Bunkers are ok I guess, so long as they don't totally fizzle out nukes.

G&K bomb shelters

Though I suppose something like a NORAD wonder which reduces the effect of nuclear weapons on your territory by a certain amt below 50% would work alright

 

[buchengshi]

The thing about SDIs is, while it's a counter to nukes, they are not counterable themselves. Currently nukes are uncounterable; to counter nukes with something that is itself not counterable would be very pointless. Suppose SDI is buildable in civ 5, before long you're going to hear people whining how nukes are totally useless because of them, how Catherine is s**t useless, how Babylon is sooooooooooooo OP because Nebby gets to SDI before everyone else, blablabla.

Bunkers are ok I guess, so long as they don't totally fizzle out nukes.

Good points.

How about making it a building (ABM defense?), but with only a 50% chance to intercept? Decent defense, but not too OP. And maybe make it easier to build (tech-wise) than nukes.

 

[Lunchmoney]

I'm going to have to agree on this.

The only reason we haven't turned each other into steaming piles of radioactive ashes and Mad Max is because the real world isn't run by immortal sociopaths locked in a hex grid system with extremely gamey mechanics

Are you not immortal sociopaths locked in a hex grid system?

Anyways, on topic:
SDI could be run at, say, 25% efficentcy at shooting down nuclear missles, and maybe get better, capped at 50% with more tech.
Atomic Bombs, which are delivered by plane, should be targetable by fighters! "General, we've got an incoming bogie, shall we scamble jets to intercept?"

Bunkers could be built in cities to save troops and pop from when a nuke hits, but buildings should be getting levelled and the surrounding landscape to become day-glo.

 

[SHaW1986]

I think there should be SDI, not something that automatically shoots down nukes but has a certain percentage chance of shooting them down.

 

[FeiLing]

There are gonna be shelters/bunkers in G&K that probably reduce the number of population dying. That might be enough done against nukes.
Then again if a city still loses 50% pop from nukes (say 25% with a bunker) and 50% when it is captured ... then it won't be enough, as the city will lose 25% from the nuke, 50% by being captured and then again 50% when being retaken. So basically it gets razed to zero.

Is this actually a problem in multiplayer? I doubt it. Anything goes there. But if a cheating AI is throwing 20 nukes at me the turn after it builds the Manhattan project, then that is a problem that should be addressed.

 

[prince_caspian]

Good points.

How about making it a building (ABM defense?), but with only a 50% chance to intercept? Decent defense, but not too OP. And maybe make it easier to build (tech-wise) than nukes.

Most of us are suggesting a % based interceptor whether it's called SDI or ABM. Maybe but I feel that bunkers will better at doing the job if it's a 100% chance of pop preservation. I still like the diplomatic intrigue that comes with an NPT, and it's perfectly counterable. It's an incentive to players who want to shave off nukes, and those who want them. It can be implemented or derailed whichever way you want.

The SOP of how this works:
How to propose an NPT
Once a civ, say India, gets to Ecology Gandhi gets to suggest to other leaders (in the leader screen) to agree to an NPT for 30 turns. When a leader agrees, a notification will display, that said leader has signed the NPT.

What happens during an NPT?
When Gandhi proposes a NPT it is automatically assumed that he desires to participate, thus if he successfully gets a leader in he becomes a participant as well. Other leaders may, of their own accord propose NPTs separately if they have already researched Ecology. These, and Gandhi's NPT agreements are cumulative towards a majority number. However, each leader's agreement to join is only valid for 30 turns from the moment they agree, so at any time after the very first NPT is signed, the number of signatories may fluctuate such that a majority may suddenly disappear.

What happens if NPT gets a majority?
If a majority of leaders in any turn signs it then an announcement is made, in the lines of Manhattan Project, that the NPT has gained a majority and is therefore enforced throughout the world. The NPT will then cause the following effects:

1. NPTers will be able to build Manhattan Project and nukes, but their nukes will not be targetable, much like how you can't attack during a peace treaty.
2. Whichever civ uses nukes on another NPT civ, will be DOWed by all signatories. Any and all signatories that have nukes are free to target their nukes on the DOWed civ.
3. Civs that did not sign the NPT will get a negative diplomatic penalty which hopefully will cause NPT civs to become HOSTILE, GUARDED or NEUTRAL towards them. If this penalty is not strong enough, then maybe add another which reduces trade prices for non-NPTs.
4. NPT civs will tend to become more FRIENDLY towards each other. Note that this does not happen all the time.
5. NPT civs can DOW each other but will not be allowed to use nukes.

Why Ecology?
It's on the same branch level as Nuclear Fission, but on the opposite side. Plus Ecology sounds like the antithesis of nuclear contamination which theoretically makes it ideal for the NPT. So placing NPT on Ecology means you can't have it both ways on the tech path - either you're for or against nukes. Of course, settler and chieftain levels don't count.

Why no "wonder" building for NPT like Manhattan Project?
Atomic Theory, which allows it, comes one tech branch earlier than Ecology. Thus I believe it's plausible to skip a wonderlike construction for NPT. Plus under NPT it's still possible to complete Manhattan Project if you want to nuke 'em the moment it expires!



Just a thought...

 

[TyBoy]

Conventional weapons would be the counter to SDI. An SDI that would actually be effective would also need to be expensive and presumably would have no effect on conventional forces. So the SDI builder would spend a lot of beakers/hammers setting up and SDI and if the other guy used their beakers/hammers on something other than nukes they would gain an advantage from that. That speaks to a problem with a ~25% interception SDI building. It's too weak to be worth spending a lot on. If it's expensive it never gets built. If it's cheap it gets built everywhere and just becomes a generic minority chance that your nukes will fizzle. It wouldn't change the gameplay but would be really frustrating when it got streaky one way or the other. That makes for a bad gameplay change.

As I was reading/writing/losing a post an interesting model for an SDI occured to me. It would add a new unit called something like the 'anti-missile rocket.' It would be a unit you would station in your cities that wouldn't have any offensive missions. Each rocket would have a small (10-33%) chance to intercept an incoming ICBM (bomber dropped nukes should be intercepted by fighters). When an ICBM is launched against the city the rockets are fired and consumed in sequence until one hits it, destroying the ICBM at which point no more are fired. This SDI system requires the defending civ to continually spend hammers to replenish their supply of rockets if the attacking civ keeps sending ICBMs to consume them. That way SDI can effectively shut down nukes but doesn't become, 'I have developed and built my SDI, the nukes phase of the game is over.' No number of rockets stationed in a city gives a 100% chance of interception, but it approaches that asymptotically. Exactly how much the rockets would cost and what the intercept chance would be depends on how much you think an SDI system should cost and how reliable it should be.

I'd also like to see a unit promotion that gives a unit substantial protection from nuke damage. I think that's reasonable on the realism side and would be a good counter for a nuke-backed blitz strategy. If the guy blows a nuke on your city then attempts to roll in only to find your army is still mostly intact in the surrounding tiles that's going to put a big hole in his plans.

I think having nukes at all doesn't work out that great. There's no doubt they're a significant aspect of modern armies but when I think off all the reasons they don't actually get used in the real world I can't think of a single one that is modelled passably by civ. Ironically, the go-to deterrent for nukes in civ (SDI) is a total joke in the real world.

I'm using SDI as a generic term for anti-ballistic missile systems, even though it technically refers to a particular one.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions.

 

[Ailedhoo]

A Non-Proliferation Treaty would be nice. For it to work though first we must rework the UN so it will no longer be “the countdown to the diplomatic victory.”

 

[Ajuga]

A Non-Proliferation Treaty would be nice. For it to work though first we must rework the UN so it will no longer be “the countdown to the diplomatic victory.”

Yes, a different kind of Diplomatic Victory would be nice.

Maybe once 2/3rd of the civilizations join the UN (and become permanent friends) they can start electing a leader which is based on:
- How much you have helped other civilizations.
- How much city states consider you their ally.
- How strong your military is, etc.

Basically the person they like the best based on certain scores.

The chosen leader wins.

 

[Atwork]

There should be severe diplomatic consequences tied to using nukes. And obviously, there should be diplomatic consequences to stockpiling a bunch of nukes.

A civ that uses a nuke in a war of his own creation, should be branded a war-mongerer of the worst kind. If that same civ used a nuke in a backstabbing conflict, then he should never be trusted again--essentially that civ would face perpetual war from all sides.

Distinguish the civ that uses a nuke in self-defense or to end a conflict it did not provoke.

The UN should be the vehicle through which production, deployment, and usage of nukes can be negotiated diplomatically amongst all interested parties. The nations of X, Y, and Z may vote to offer 1,000 gold each to civ Z if it will agree to not build a nuke for 40 turns (for example).

A unanimous vote that one particular civ should be banned from having nukes would mean that nation faced a challenge--defy the nations of the world or go rogue.

These are some of the tools that a UN model could introduce.

Just some thoughts.....