Will using nukes still permanently destroy all diplomatic relations?

[hardcore_gamer]

Nukes were largely useless in Civ 4 if you were playing on a large map with tons of AI players because each time you used a nuke on a faction everyone with even remotely friendly relations with that faction decreased their relations with you, so if you nuked the hell out of a faction then all of your diplomatic relations with like half of the world was permanently destroyed.

Is this still the case in Civ 5, or is it now possible to actually use nukes without risking a permanent World War?

EDIT: Also, I don't care if its realistic, it just doesn't make for good gameplay if you have to wage a non-stop war with the whole world because you used nukes to defeat some single adversary.

 

[Mercade]

Play the game when it is released and find out. It's too early to tell just exactly what the diplomatic effects are and how that works in gameplay.

 

[Lyoncet]

In one of the more recent demos (unfortunately I don't remember where it was or who was doing the presentation, but it was a Firaxis) all but stated that nuking people has some pretty serious political ramifications. If someone remembers which demo I'm talking about (it's the one where he uses a nuke and a GDR on poor Ramesses) they could probably help you out a bit more.

However, I'm pretty sure we don't know any of the details, as in what effects it has and on whom.

[edit]I think serious global ramifications are entirely in line. If you absolutely have to use the massive, game-breaking advantage provided by nuke initiative to take someone out (read: win), you should most certainly incur a penalty. If anything, game mechanics in CIV were hugely biased for the use of nukes, magic pixie dust notwithstanding.

 

[oChuckles]

Keep in mind that you aren't really meant to "game" the AI anymore. Well, you are in the case of City States, but for other "players" you are supposed to treat them like other human players now.

So when you're thinking about whether or not something will have "political ramifications" you have to have the mindset that everything about diplomacy with other Civilzations is colored by the fact that they want to win the game.

It seems likely to me that nuking will cause City States to mistrust you, but I'm guessing "trust" isn't something you're EVER going to have in abundance with other Civs anyway. Even Alliances are all of convenience. I'm sure they'll take notice of your nuclear capabilities, but I can't imagine something as simple as "-3: You detonated a nuclear warhead!"

 

[sensual benny]

The diplomatic penalties in Civ 4 hardly made nukes worthless, you just had to make sure that no one was in a position to retaliate in a way that could harm you. I think that's entirely fair considering how horrific and destructive nukes are, and I think it would be inappropriate if the world didn't consider you a villain for using them.

(Yes, ok, the US isn't internationally renowned as villainous for using nukes on Japan, but those were kind of special circumstances and right on the eve of the bomb's discovery. They would not be so popular if they employed nukes in Iraq.)

(Not trying to justify the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there though. That was absolutely the wrong thing to do.)

 

[stealth_nsk]

In interview the present said what it will make diplomatic victory really hard.
My suggestion from everything I know is what it ruins relations with city-states, while major leader reaction completely depend on their personalities.

 

[moopoo]

In interview the present said what it will make diplomatic victory really hard.
My suggestion from everything I know is what it ruins relations with city-states, while major leader reaction completely depend on their personalities.

which is exactly the best thing we could hope for, as far as I can see. If this is true, that's a win for the AI team.

 

[Zhahz]

EDIT: Also, I don't care if its realistic, it just doesn't make for good gameplay if you have to wage a non-stop war with the whole world because you used nukes to defeat some single adversary.

Exactly. Gameplay is the most important thing. That's why using ultra powerful weapons has a cost. In this case, using them could cause you severe diplomatic problems, which happens to also be how it is in reality. If there was no "cost", you'd just nuke everyone til they glow, which is a cheeseball way to avoid using real strategy and tactics, and would make for very lame gameplay.

I'd be fine with Civ not having nukes. I'd guess the only reason they're in is because it makes for a neato explosion graphic. They've barely been used throughout history and are mostly a tool of fear and control, something that really isn't in the game, so there is no particular reason for them to be in the game at all.

If you're "in a position" of superiority so strong that you can use nukes without fear of diplo retaliation or world war, then you've pretty much won the game and there's little point to using nukes - except to see the neato explosion graphic.

It might be more interesting if you could USE nukes in diplo, like create a "treaty" that goes like, "stop attacking XXX or we'll nuke you" - blunt, but somewhat representative of modern diplomacy.

 

[Sync]

Although gameplay does indeed take precedence over realism, I don't think anyone would really enjoy it if the game departed from reality too much. Really, it seems like every time someone tries to bring realism into it they get shouted down with the tiresome gameplay > realism quote.

The two are not polar opposites, you know.

 

[Akar]

Although gameplay does indeed take precedence over realism, I don't think anyone would really enjoy it if the game departed from reality too much. Really, it seems like every time someone tries to bring realism into it they get shouted down with the tiresome gameplay > realism quote.

The two are not polar opposites, you know.

To much realism comes at the cost of gameplay. I mean, look at a paradox game liek Victoria 2. Your average gamer is unable to play it (Probably). While extremly realistic it can come at the cost of gameplay as everything is so cvomplicated. Thats why in some cases gameplay > Realism. But not to the point all realism is gne for the cause of wanting better gameplay

 

[alpaca]

To much realism comes at the cost of gameplay. I mean, look at a paradox game liek Victoria 2. Your average gamer is unable to play it (Probably). While extremly realistic it can come at the cost of gameplay as everything is so cvomplicated. Thats why in some cases gameplay > Realism. But not to the point all realism is gne for the cause of wanting better gameplay

That's not necessarily because of the "realism" in the game. I haven't played Vicky2 yet because I wait a few months before buying with every Paradox game to save on headaches, but most other games aren't actually that realistic. They are very complex by design because Paradox caters for the core gamer group

The complexity is more a result of adding a lot of features and hiding info somewhere deep down in the ledger than it is a result realism. In fact, I wouldn't even say that Europa Universalis 3 is more complex than Civ4, Civ4 is just much better at hiding the complexity and making it accessible.


On topic: Nukes should make you the bad boy of the world if you use them. I would like to see an exception for first-time use if you use them right-away after inventing the bomb. But once everybody knows what radiation does to you, they should become a tool of M.A.D. ness (MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).

Which I would dearly love to be factored into AI decision-making.

 

[markieness]

This isnt Gameplay vs Realism, this is for Gameplay AND Realism.

If nukes have no downsides, that would be very bad gameplay wise, as you would always use them. Choices make gameplay.

EDIT: Althought thinking about it, there should maybe be a "nukable" flag that you get for X yeears after nuking somone, where people are allowed to nuke you back and not get as big penalties for retaliation nukes.

 

[Azazell]

Will using nukes still permanently destroy all diplomatic relations?

YES

 

[sensual benny]

no it wasn't the wrong thing to do at all.

far fewer people (read civilians) were killed in atomic explosions than were killed in incendiary and other conventional bombing raids on other japanese cities. its a tragedy that so many were killed in nagasaki and hiroshima, but they gave up their lives so that hundreds of thousands, or perhaps even millions of others could live.

i've been to WWII museums in japan and its very strange. no mention of Unit 731 (google it), the rape of nanking, or other japanese war crimes and they blame their war of imperialist expansion on pre-pearl harbor american embargoes.

no mention of diplomatic alternatives...nope, america caused them to try to take over the pacific. *rolls eyes*

This is an ancient debate that we really shouldn´t get into, but there´s ample evidence to suggest that Japan was ready and willing to surrender before the nukes were ever dropped. And whether or not they were the aggressor at the start has nothing to do with whether or not the massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians is justified. But, I should have said in my opinion it was a mistake.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Will using nukes still permanently destroy all diplomatic relations?

YES

You mean if you nuke the world, there is nothing left you can have "diplomatic relations" with?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Louis XXIV]

My guess is that, although Civs will like you less, if you have nukes, they aren't going to retaliate (it wouldn't be smart to do) unless they are directly threatened.

That being said, I would love some kind of nuclear protection pact, where you back up city-states with nukes, so other Civs know to invade at their own risk (and you better be certain that it's worth protecting them if it involves getting nuked yourself). Ideally, it'll mean that there will be less important city-states that both sides would fight over because they don't want to risk a nuclear war with someone important.

And they need to bring back the phrase "Our Words are Backed with Nuclear Weapons."

 

[Akar]

When I use nukes I want the AI to be like "Wow, he used nukes on him. So whats he going to do to me?" and depending on wich civ/leader that is I want him to either want to be my friend or be cautious of me. Like a human (Probably)would

 

[Link]

There should be times when using nukes is seen as ok by the AI, such as in retaliation to a nuclear attack against you.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

On topic: I don't think they should destroy diplomatic relations. After all, Japan doesn't hate the US for a crime committed 70 years ago.

Semi-off topic: If the US hadn't gotten an unconditional surrender from Japan, then their economy would probably be a shadow of what it is today. Point is, what happened, happened, and be glad we can also enjoy the electronic goods we have today.

I could see them significantly
1. Decreasing influence with City-States that do not have a protection pact/alliance from you

2. Causing AI players to be significantly more cautious in dealing with you, much more willing to form secrecy pacts against you. (ie preparing to bring you down)

 

[Ogrelord]

I wonder if there will be a U.N nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, and if so, if one can break the treaty if it was vote yes to ban atomic and nuclear weapons.