Why I do and don't like nukes

[Ivan the Kulak]

Problem with the idea of the hotline to Moscow is that in civ3 the nukes will already be in the air. Your only real job will be to figure out your response (and don't tell me there won't be one, heh, heh). I posted in another thread about having a small wonder (I called it DEWS, Distant Early Warning System), that would give you the ability to detect nuclear launches. Maybe the best way to implement this is for each launch, your NORAD advisor informs you that a nuke is headed towards the city (or silo) and asks if you wish to launch. If you do, you pick the target to fire upon (must be the launching civ), and the ICBM blasts off. Civs without DEWS cannot see launches, and even if they have nukes you may fire upon them with impunity, no retaliation is possible until it is their turn. In fact, a small, dirt poor nation with a primitive military may even have trouble finding out it was you until a couple of turns later when the news leaks through the worlds diplomatic corps.

RE nuclear subs, I agree that on huge maps the range of tac nukes may need to be increased a bit, though this is really a matter of scale. I would not give each sub the ability to carry 8-10 nukes though. This lets the player skimp on subs, and IRL there is plenty that goes into maintaining an SLBM fleet. I would say 2 missiles per sub. Build plenty of subs, 20 subs each with 2 bombs will put a major hurting on the enemy.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

The "hotline to Moscow" would at least enable you to select your preferred targets for destruction before you lose a big chunk of your nuclear arsenal. There could also be the option to cancel launches in-flight if you and your enemy have a change of heart. For example, say you launch all of your 5 ICBM's, and your opponent surprises you with a retaliation of say 50 ICBM's, you could beg him to cancel his missiles in return for technology/money/cities etc. Nuclear blackmail is sweet.

Having large capacities on Nuclear Subs wouldn't be so bad. If you had 10 nukes loaded you would be punished harshly if enemy subs or destroyers stumbled across your position.

I want a distinction between Thermonuclear Fusion and Fission weapons. The H-Bomb should be even more devastating. Neutron Bombs should also be included, killing all units and reducing pop to 1, while leaving all city improvements in place. I'm not for a moment suggesting these changes are balanced, but I love nukes!!!

 

[Granite88]

"The three most powerful men in the world: The President of the United States... The President of the Russian Republic... And... The Captain of a U.S. Nuclear Missile Submarine." - Crimson Tide

Nuclear subs are understrength in civ3 IMO. Actually, I think that an SLBM should be a completely different unit from the Tactical Nuke. SLBMs should have a greater range than tactical nukes, but not the unlimited range of ICBMs. And subs should be able to carry more than one nuke, a typhoon can carry what? 20 SLMBs? Actually i think there should also be missile subs and nuclear attack sub, but i guess that's getting a little too technical Tactical Nukes should used with their current range, but not as much strength, as in "battlefield nukes". There are actually 1 mega-ton nuclear artillery shells..... On a side note the range of cruise missiles should also be increased.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Well, I would agree on the SLBM vs Tac Nuke thing. A tactical nuke is an in-theatre weapon, designed to be fired perhaps several hundred miles, while an SLBM has a range of several thousand miles. Maybe a tactical nuke should be a weapon that sit immobile in a city, or something that travels about on a ground transport, with a range of 6, while and SLBM could have a range of 12-16 tiles. An SLBM should be REQUIRED to be loaded into a sub before it can be launched.

I suppose it might be realistic to have up to 4 missiles per sub - as Enkidu pointed out, if an enemy sub finds you you will pay. I would like to have a modern nuclear attack sub also - early subs should be slow, and upgrade to this. The Boomer should be a separate sub, and more expensive.

It would be kind of hard to model all the variations in nuclear missile technology. Maybe the best way would be to have 2 ICBMs, the first with a single warhead, doing the damage it does now, and a second missile called the "Modern ICBM", that knocks cities down to pop 1, kills all units and improvements, and pollutes a 2 tile radius, to reflect modern thermonuclear warheads and MIRV technology.

 

[Bad Brett]

4 nukes per sub? I think not. If you think about a carrier, it can hold up to eight aircrafts. what carrier can take eight aircrafts in real life? I'm not an expert, but I think a carrier can take a couple of hundred aircrafts. Anyway, does this mean the carrier in civ should be able to carry let's say 150 bombers? No. Because every bomber represents maybe 10, maybe 20, I don't know. And I can't see why it should be any difference with missiles.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

The difference is that a carrier with eight aircraft can function very successfully, and its capabilty is a good representation of its real-life counterpart. A nuclear submarine with a single tactical nuke pails in comarison to its real-life counterpart. A modest fleet of nuclear submarines should be able to operate as a global nuclear deterrent. As they are now, their range means they can be used only as a minor threat to coastal cities, and are no substitute at all for an arsenal of ICBM's.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Well, a modern boomer might carry 24 SLBMs, each armed with 8 warheads and MIRVed to hit independent targets. That's 192 warheads. Usually, though each missile will fire all its MIRVed warheads at the same city or nearby suburbs and strategic targets for maximum damage. So, 1 sub can hit 24 separate metro areas and really burn them up. As the number of cities in civ is less than in real life, hitting 4 cities from 1 sub isn't too unrealistic. I think in civ2 you could load 8 nukes onto 1 sub, IIRC.

 

[caseywills]

I haven't been playing conquests for long, and haven't been nuked yet. Nor was I ever nuked in vanilla Civ3...
However, the thought of getting hit by a ton of nukes from some rogue nation really bothers me. I think some players may not have this problem because they are playing on lower difficulty levels.
Anyway, I like the suggestion that NUKES set to SENTRY will automatically retaliate. However... the player should choose where those nukes are fired at--otherwise, a first strike could come entirely from one city, or from deserted airfields and then the retaliation will hit vacant spaces.
Once you are nuked, you should get the immediate opportunity to fire your nukes. This might be hard to program though... so as an alternative, I suggest making it so that nukes cannot be damaged by other nukes. This allows for retaliation, and would be easy to program for.
Also, the AI shouldn't be concerned with "winning the game at all costs." It should be programmed so that they choose never to fire nukes unless they are going to lose a city, and the AI should do this AT ALL DIFFICULTY LEVELS. Why? Because harder difficulty settings shouldn't make the game painful. It should be hard, but in a fun way. and getting jacked by 50 nukes does not sound fun.