Why I do and don't like nukes

[Blunt_Axe]

nuke silo's in real life are rarely kept in urban areas if at all...

there should be a worker action to build a silo that you could launch icbm's from that way your nukes are kept out of your cities and u will be able to use them in retaliation the next turn...

but then u would need to be able to move the icbm's... maybe an icbm transporter unit... then icbm's could only be launched from a city or from a silo...

just a thought anyway...

 

[warpstorm]

SLBMs

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by Pfeffersack
A question...it is possible to stack nukes on airfields? Then it would be possible to avoid the destruction of your own nukes during a first strike of the AI.

I thought nukes didn't get destroyed by nuclear attacks anyways...

 

[Blunt_Axe]

ICBM's cannot be stacked on airfields because they don't have any movement point so they are basically stuck in the city they were created in until launched...

i guess u could stack the tactical nukes in airfields or anywhere else u wanted to... i prefer to keep the tactical nukes in subs sitting off the enemy coasts though when i have ICBM's i don't generally use the tac's but it's nice to know they are there if i need 'em

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Nukes are flagged as immobile, you cannot move them, I don't think you can move tac nukes either, except to load onto subs. This is one thing the civ3 designers screwed up, nukes should be able to be destroyed, and be able to park at nuke silos. You could park nukes at airbases in civ2.

Re multiple civ strikes: I think that a better solution than the fanciful SDI (never been deployed, would it really work?) would be mobile, nuclear tipped ABM batteries, that you park in your cities just like mobile SAMs for anti air. IRL, these launch a nuclear missile to intercept the incoming ballistic warheads, and they are effective if deployed in numbers. These could each deflect one nuke (one from each civ per turn, if desired), so the player could heavily defend key cities by parking 5-10 of these in the city.

As you are still firing off nuclear weapons, even though the city does not get hit, one tile within the city radius should become polluted for each anti - ICBM missile launch.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

The ICBM sentry idea is incredibly simple and an excellent way of simulating MAD. Are Nukes destroyed in a nuclear attack??? I've not had too much experience of nuclear war (my only nuclear war ivolved 3 ICBM's being launched at my capital, and all were intercepted!). If the AI has built enough Nukes to effectively remove you from the game in one turn, then you have pretty much lost anyway. The fault is with the difficulty level at which you are playing, not the fundamental concept of nuclear weapons.

 

[Blunt_Axe]

just wondering....
if you have say roughly the same number of nukes or even more than the ai will this deter them from launching a nuclear assault on you? i normally try to have the most nukes in the game and i have never had the ai initiate a first strike on me... i am always the instigator when it comes to nuclear wars... makes you wonder..

 

[Plug]

Rodismus: The computer is not like a much too eager Stalin if it uses nukes a lot, Stalin never used one! I'm guessing you mean the AI is like a much too eager USA.

Anyone remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

(Also, do ICBM attacks destroy ICBM's in cities? I didn't think they used to. It would be better if they do because there would be a reason to build nuclear subs and tactical nukes.)

 

[HiroHito]

think nukes are overpowered ?? Wait until you see a PLANETBUSTER /maniac laugh

 

[Grippen]

Yep Akka your idea for automatic retaliation is great. This is more than realistic, as it is in real life.
Also the idea with the silo as city improvement is good. I guess also that if silo is added it can be loaded with only one nuke per city.
This way it will be kinda delay to get mass nukes, becase after all they need time to be built and not every city (especially the AI cities) has great productivity.
As for the nuclear subs I think that Nuclar Missiles need range increase (at least 8) so they can be more efective.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

The problem with auto retaliate is that your nukes may not strike the cities you want to hit. Suppose you already have a land invasion underway, the AI fires 10 or so nukes at your cities, and yours are auto launched, not at the front line cities defended by 5-6 mech infantry each, as you had planned on doing, but at the AI's core cities a ring or two back from the front lines? This would screw up your plans. I can see a lot complaints arising from this.

Nuclear warfare needs a major overhaul to make it more realistic and exciting. This means a lot of recoding, and I do not think we will see any major improvements in this version of civ. Hopefully, Firaxis has read all of the threads on this and is heads up on what to do in civ4, though.

 

[Bad Brett]

Rodimus, that's interesting. I usually play at the hardest level as well, but the enemy usually fires his space ship in 1200 A.D or something so I haven't been nuked a single time. Also, I think the risk is minimal if you don't start any wars in the game.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Ivan the Kulak
The problem with auto retaliate is that your nukes may not strike the cities you want to hit. Suppose you already have a land invasion underway, the AI fires 10 or so nukes at your cities, and yours are auto launched, not at the front line cities defended by 5-6 mech infantry each, as you had planned on doing, but at the AI's core cities a ring or two back from the front lines? This would screw up your plans. I can see a lot complaints arising from this.

Nuclear warfare needs a major overhaul to make it more realistic and exciting. This means a lot of recoding, and I do not think we will see any major improvements in this version of civ. Hopefully, Firaxis has read all of the threads on this and is heads up on what to do in civ4, though.

And if they nuke every one of your cities, simultaneously destroying all of your ICBM's, then will you get to aim your nukes at your preferred targets? Point taken though, maybe it could be optional setting with your military advisor (MAD). That way you could activate in response to an agressive major nuclear power knocking on your door, and leave it off while nuclear weapons are still in small numbers. Having MAD active should also deter nuclear attack. The alternative would be the option to manually fire nukes immediately once you detect an enemy launch (during your enemies turn). This ability could be gained after building a nuclear defence radar network small wonder (like NORAD or something).

I think SLBM's should have a much greater range. In real life a handful of Nuclear Submarines represent a massive deterrence, carrying enough firepower to destroy much of the world. In this game they are only threatening in massive numbers, and don't have the range to hit far inland targets.

Agreed that Civ4 should contain a massively expanded role for nuclear warfare (I want a nuclear warfare advisor!). I want to see MAD, nuclear deterrence, nuclear blackmail, quick surrenders if nuclear weapons appear in the middle of a major war, nuclear launch detection radar networks, nuclear sunmarines with enough nukes to permantly cripple an empire, UN vetoes for nuclear powers, non-proliferation pacts, arms reduction treaties, cold wars, nuclear terrorism, a distinction between fission bombs and thermonuclear weapons, neutron bombs....... I could go on but I'll spare you. If half of this was included I'd break my face due to smiling too much.

 

[meltone1]

I think an interesting upgrade would be to locate the position of enemy missile silos. That way, you could pinpoint attacks of those weapons with your own and intercept them before they fire them, if you have superior intelligence.

 

[Blunt_Axe]

i think the nuclear subs should be able to hold more tac's as well. in real life nuclear subs hold a number of missiles usually with a number of warheads per missile. maybe they could add an additional nuclear submarine at a higher cost that could hold up to maybe 5 tac's.

also it would be cool if you could get an extra movement point from ur nuclear sub with a chance of the submarines reactor melting down if you used this point in a given turn. and on the other hand if you say only moved the sub 1 square or no squares on a turn it would have a decreased chance of being detected by other subs etc...

 

[Bobisback]

Originally posted by Akka
2 - Immediate retaliation : this should require a patch. The suggestion is :
Putting your ICBM on "sentry" would put them in a "automatic retaliation" mode. When this mode is active, if another ICBM ever land on the city with ICBM on sentry, one of them will immediately be launched against the attacking missile's home city. No rep hit for such retaliation, as it's only automated self-defence.
Kind of a MAD system.

I thought Civ 3 PTW had this already I remember having like a auto bombard but it was not untell the AI declared war then your nukes launched by themselfs, I am going to try and find were I hread this form.

 

[Mr Black]

Are Nukes destroyed in a nuclear attack???

I've been playing scenarios thus far, but I really need to know the answer to this question. Because that's not what happened prior to Conquest!!!

 

[player1 fanatic]

Originally posted by Mr Black
Are Nukes destroyed in a nuclear attack???

I've been playing scenarios thus far, but I really need to know the answer to this question. Because that's not what happened prior to Conquest!!!

I don't know, but I hope not.

That would throw what little we have of MAD out of window.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

Akka's idea is the best one, although, like Ivan said, it needs a little tuning for implementation.

What I'd really like to see is this (although I doubt it will happen ):
1) If a civ (AI or human) decides to launch a nuclear attack, the game checks if the other side has nuclear weapons. If the other civ do have nuclears, the game enters a separate Nuclear War Faze.
2) In NWF, each of the civs involved are allowed to retaliate before any hits are taken. So A launches missile, B launches 2 missiles back, A responds by sending more nukes and so on. After two turns of this, the nukes start hitting and NWF keeps going til all nukes have been used and results have occured, both Civs stand down (I.E. feel they have sent enough missiles that turn) or a diplomatic solution has been made. This last option should open the door for negotiations between the leaders of the civs in question (and only those civs), enacting the red phone hotline of the cold war. No other diplo talks are allowed than those necassary to end either the use of nuclear weapons (possibly for one turn only) or the end of the war itself.
3) After NWF the game continues along it's usual path.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Yep, that idea is equally fine to a pure MAD strategy. But I think that a civ should have to build a small wonder before they can access this "between turns" nuclear warfare phase. That way, a more advanced nuclear power could still launch a first strike on a fledgling nuclear power without them being able to respond.