Firaxis i'm M.A.D.

[korn469]

now that i hopefully got your attention...

ok what about nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction?

please please please include Mutually Assured Destruction...it is the best feature ever!

M.A.D. means nukes hit simultaneously so a nuclear first strike isn't possible

and you gotta make nukes more powerful!

plus a little radiation and nuclear winter would be nice

additionally i need those features for a scenario i'm going to make...well i at least need the M.A.D. and powerful nukes

so dan, what's the word...have you destroyed the world yet?

[Timeline]

[Warm Beer]

I agree with Korn on this one. Nukes need to be more powerful and severer diplomatic consequences need to happen if a player insists on using nukes. M.A.D. is great, for it prevents a nuclear power from wiping an opponent off the map w/o retaliation (albeit, one must have enough nukes and troops at the ready).

[Lord Magnus]

I hope that MAD is included in Civ3, it'd be more fun and realistic than just moving a nuke unit one time at a time. And it'd be not hard to implement, just have it that you can build nukes but you can't move them like a unit, instead pinpoint a target for it to launch at. To wage a nuclear war just press the red button, the other side will counter-attack in the same turn with the military infastucture that they have built up. Other items that can be included in this is SDI developement and arms treaties.

[TechWins]

If this is left out of the game it will be very dissapointing for me. I'd imagine the game will still be very good it's just that I feel and many others feel that the game would be even better with some form of MAD. You don't have to do all the little extras like radiation, just at least implement MAD. So what is the haps on MAD Dan or Jeff or any member of Firaxis?

[korn469]

Dan is up and he seems talkative

so hopefully he'll answer...plus it sounds like he is a one man beta team

but dan...got M.A.D?

[Lord Magnus]

*bump*

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
ok what about nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction?

They can add the quintessential idea of it, without turning it into a game within a game. And Firaxis; please, if you read this: Keep those SDI-defences so that one can bypass that controversial MAD-philosophy nonsense, if one dont believe in it.

Why not make the effectivness of SDI-defences weighted? 100% effective if you dont have any nucks, then gradually less effective the more nucks you have within your borders. Or something similar.

[Laszlo]

I think there should be major revision of the nuke's role in Civ III. The AI is too trigger-happy with nukes, ignoring the political or automatic response (M.A.D.) that would prevent such a thing in the real world. In Civ II nukes were used too conventionally, just like any other weapon.

PS - I offer these two Webster's Dictionary definitions of conventional as an ironic commentary on this discussion which supports my point.

3 a) depending on or conforming to formal or accepted standards or rules rather than nature; not natural, original, or spontaneous [conventional behavior] b) not unusual or extreme; ordinary

5 nonnuclear [conventional weapons]

[TechWins]

Why not make the effectivness of SDI-defences weighted? 100% effective if you dont have any nucks, then gradually less effective the more nucks you have within your borders. Or something similar.

Instead of doing that SDI Defence should be very far down along the tech tree. No matter what route you take SDI should be the last thing you could discover. The SDI should be 100% effective because gameplay could get seriously messed up with too many nukes becoming effective. The SDI defence would most likely be discovered about 40 years after MAD became enabled (with the first discoverery of nuclear weapons). MAD would be however Firaxis wants to implement, whatever idea they found most fitting for the game. After about 40 years of MAD preventing nuclear weapons being used somewhat to none most civs would be discovering SDI defence. This would not disable MAD but would make it less of a resolvement in stopping nuclear warfare with SDI defences becoming available. SDI defences would become the number one way in stopping nuclear warfare and essentialy stopping nuclear warfare all togehter.

[Laszlo]

Originally posted by Ralf
Why not make the effectivness of SDI-defences weighted? 100% effective if you dont have any nucks, then gradually less effective the more nucks you have within your borders. Or something similar.

I don't really see the sense in that even though I don't much like the use of nukes, but it gave me another thought. I read in some review of Civ3 last night that units could be combined into armies of greater force as long as there were at least four cities for every army created. What if you created armies of missiles?

The SDI defense President Bush has been promoting doesn't actually work, but if it did, it would quickly get overwhelmed by multiple targets. Though that is physical interceptors, and in Civ2 lasers were the prerequisite and they could be much faster.

I suggest that there be a sort of interim defense before the lasers were perfected that would more accurately model the likely development of such systems. For example, after Rocketry, you would have a 75% chance of knocking out the fist missile no matter what for everywhere in your territory, and more if a SAM missile battery was built in the city, but it would drop to maybe 50% trying to stop two at a time, and ten would be hopeless. Sending out 'armies' of missiles would stack(excuse the pun) the odds in your favor.

[TechWins]

I read in some review of Civ3 last night that units could be combined into armies of greater force as long as there were at least four cities for every army created. What if you created armies of missiles?

This is called stacking armies and it isn't neccesarily some greater force. When attacking with a stacked army the most fitted unit to attack (determined by health and attacking capabilities) will attack first then the next most fitted then so on. When defending the most fitted unit to defend (determined by defending and health capabilities) will defend first then the next most fitted then so on. A long time ago I saw somewhere that you can now do retreating, I just thought I would mention that.

The SDI defense President Bush has been promoting doesn't actually work, but if it did,

I believe there has now been four tries done, the last one being in late July. The last one was effective. It's said that the technology to actually do it is there it's now just a matter of engineering.

Sending out 'armies' of missiles would stack(excuse the pun) the odds in your favor

I do like this idea if it could be implemented correctly. What I say by correctly is that there is a way no matter how many nuclear missles are being dropped on you you will still have 100% capability. Meaning that if you have to have ten SDIs to stop ten nukes then so be it. There has to be a way to stop nuclear warfare 100%! If there isn't the gameplay could become very boring being nuked all the time.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
Instead of doing that SDI Defence should be very far down along the tech tree. No matter what route you take SDI should be the last thing you could discover.

Well, if its literally "the last thing you could discover" theres no point in building those SDI:s because the game is practically over anyway. The laser-tech wich allowed SDI-defences in Civ-2 (and the laser-tech is confirmed in Civ-3 as well - I have seen that in a E3-video) was pretty well positioned in the Civ-2 tech-tree; third from end-tech. Similar position in Civ-3 tech-tree, I trust.

The SDI should be 100% effective because gameplay could get seriously messed up with too many nukes becoming effective.

Agree. 100% protection should be possible - weighted or not.

[TechWins]

Well, if its literally "the last thing you could discover" theres no point in building those SDI:s because the game is practically over anyway.

Well, it all just depends. Sometimes you could have over 200 years left with this discovery and other times you might beat the game before you even get to this discovery. Maybe you're right the SDI should be placed in the order that it was in in Civ2.

I'm glad you agree that SDI's do need to be 100% effective.

[Grim Legacy]

Whaaat? Powerful nukes?!

Nuclear warfare is for newbies only. Add to that the annoyingly trigger-happy, cheating AI, and I disprove of the wish for stronger nukes.

Also, the effects of pollution are going to be very much present in Civ3...rendering the mess a nuke makes even bigger already.

[Laszlo]

100% protection should be possible - weighted or not.

I didn't mean to say before that a missile grouping would render SDI defense ineffective, but that there should be a new 'low-level' protection provided with the discovery of Rocketry that grouping could override more easily than a sequence of individuals. In the end, real SDI defense would wipeout that threat.

[Laszlo]

I would also like to propose that that the SDI Defense radius be enlarged. Seriously, it's not like you couldn't see a missile coming from a ways off with radar or satellites or something. SDI simply wouldn't be needed for every city. Do you think Bush would require that defense systems be put outside every American city? Maybe if the launch came from very close to the target, and it was near the fringe of SDI coverage it could get through.

Now I'm not backing out of what I said earlier about 100% protection, but what if you had a larger radius of 66% protection, and an even larger radius of 33%? Overlapping coverage would add up and be visible on a separate layer map like for the fire risk in that Roman city building game, Caesar. This would make only a protective border necessary that would not let missiles pass through so the inner cities of your civ could rest easy. SDI would not be like a wonder in covering everywhere, but the current Civ 2 model is too city-centric, and needs to expand it's horizons beyond the city radius with this.

[eNo]

We could have a Missile Sheild Minor Wonder against nukes. Hopefully it'll be more effective than the real one though....unless that's what SDI is...

btw what does SDI stand for? I could never figure that one out....

[Acemo]

SDI = Strategic Defense Initiative


I think a missile protection wonder (that all civs can build) would be OK.

[korn469]

disclaimer: this thread was only intended to garner a responce for Dan, in the hopes he'd share more insight on how nukes work in civ3

with that being said...

{joke mode on}SDI is SciFi!
what didn't you hear me? SDI is SciFi!
SDI belong in SMAC cuz SDI is SciFi!
don't you get it? SDI is SciFi!
SE doesn't belong because it is SciFi and SDI is SciFi! so it doesn't belong either
still don't get it? SDI is SciFi! having problems understanding? SDI is SciFi!
one last time SDI is SciFi! SDI is SciFi! SDI is SciFi!{joke mode off}

I believe there has now been four tries done, the last one being in late July. The last one was effective. It's said that the technology to actually do it is there it's now just a matter of engineering.

there have been four tests done so far, none of them under battle conditions...the first test was a success, the next two were failures, and the last one was a success...i hardly call that 100% effective...

while a national missle shield might or might not get built, it is not to stop a nuclear barrage from a well armed nuclear power..Strategic Defense Inititive is dead...the national missle shield is different, it's not made to stop thousands of soviet warheads...it is made to stop a few rudimentry ICBMs from rouge states like Iraq, North Korea, Lybia, Afganistan, etc...

it is going to cost billions of dollars to develop and deploy this small scale national missle shield, billions of dollars that the US might not have...so if this thing really gets off the ground it probably won't be until 2004 at the earliest...then you'd have a system of stopping a few ICBMs from pariah states but that would be all, the russian arsenal would still pose a potenial threat to the US, and if China increased their nuclear arsenal from the 23 nukes they currently have of hitting the US then that would pose a threat...also the national missle shield wouldn't stop bombers or cruise missles, just ICBMs so it would only be partially effective against one form of delivery...and it couldn't stop nuclear terrorism

so what it comes down to is {reverting to joke mode}SDI is SciFi!{end of joke mode}

here are some things that people have actually done

*completed the human genome
*developed cloned animals
*sent space probes throught the solar system
*brought back soil samples from mars
*developed a computer that could beat a world master at chess

here are things that people have yet to do

*develop a system to stop ICBMs
*broker peace in the middle east

a cloned human is probably closer than a working National Missle Defense...

now with that being said...

as for gameplay 100% effective SDI helps the player more than it does the AI, because more than likely the AI will still invest in nukes after SDI gets deplyed, whereas the player will concentrate on conventional forces...also the player will probably be the first one to deploy a nuclear arsenal and the first one to deploy SDI...

other things can allow civ3 to have more powerful nukes than in civ2 while at the same time balancing the power of those nukes

diplomatic reprecussions and Mutually Assured Destruction would go along way towards allowing nukes to be more powerful while at the same time making them less likely to be used

M.A.D. is where when one civ attacks another with nukes that civs nukes automatically retaliate before anything else can happen

by inserting 100% effective nukes into the equation then instead of having one window of oppertunity to launch a nuclear strike (when nukes are first developed) the player would then have twowindows of oppertunity to launch a nuclear strike (the second one being when SDI gets deployed)

also since this second window of oppertunity is later in the game when the player has more nukes, better developed cities, and is closer to finishing it creates a much larger imbalance

if SDI is 100% effective then it should be only when one or two nukes are fired in a turn...if more than that are fired then it shouldn't be more than 50% effective...kind of like lazlo's idea but slightly different, because there wouldn't be any missle stacking...also SDI should be almost as costly as developing a huge nuclear arsenal so one stupid little 200 shield mini wonder could stop a 20,000 shield nuclear arsenal

SDI defences would become the number one way in stopping nuclear warfare and essentialy stopping nuclear warfare all togehter.

that is so untrue...basically the player builds the 100% effective nuclear shield and attacks the AI at will, totally unbalancing the game...all because certain people believe that SDI really exists

we might as well have light sabre infantry, and aliens (game over man! game over!), and while we're at it lets have a portal take us to an alternative universe on another map where the planet is ruled by an ape civ...because all of those things are about as realistic as a 100% effective SDI system that can stop a huge arsenal of nuclear warheads

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah The Wheel as a prereq for Horseback Riding??

Check out this step-by-step description how the wheel was invented. Then read some wheel history. Finally, read about Horses in the ancient world.

Interesting! As for the your other objections...

so as long as we are ensuring that the tech tree makes sure the wheel comes before horseback riding to ensure historical accuracy (which we are not 100% certain of) we might as well make sure SDI comes at least 40 or 50 years after ICBMs right?

right?

especially since 100% effective SDI is neither realistic, nor does it improve gameplay except to give the human an incentive to nuke the ai off the map

and as for the trigger happy ai, a little programming can stop that from being a problem, and it wouldn't hurt the AI either once civ3 gets M.A.D. as long as the ai builds nukes hust in case

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by Acemo
SDI = Strategic Defense Initiative


I think a missile protection wonder (that all civs can build) would be OK.

Maybe one of those minor wonders they talk about. Cost should be an important consideration, too. Upkeep costs should be high. To a very advanced and rich civ, it might be worth it; poorer civs might decide just to rely on MAD and mutual protection pacts with their neighbors (and hope the rich civ is stable and peaceful; MAD won't work on them...). In any case, diplomatic costs for starting a war in which you use nukes on your opponent should be very high.

[tniem]

Wow, Korn nice long response

a cloned human is probably closer than a working National Missle Defense...

American company is going to start the first human cloning project this fall overseas because their is a ban in the states. I have also heard that as many as 200 women by another company have been selected including five in England to get a cloned egg placed in their body. I would have to believe that the first cloned human will by here by 2003.


Now back to the subject at hand:

I agree, it is time for SDI to go away, certainly nothing that is 100% effective. All it allows is for the person to first discover the technology to build the defense building and go nuke happy against the AI. Not realistic at all. In one turn the game can be over by buying some SDI defenses and then nuking your opponent to death.

Meanwhile, MAD is obviously something that did have an impact in the 20th Century. Adding it to Civ III would be so easy. You launch a nuke attack through a menu (it no longer should be a unit) by missile and your opponent's turn in MP or your AI turn begins to give them a chance to conduct diplomacy and/or launch nukes. They cannot do anything else during this turn.

This is quite realistic, if the Russians had launched a missile, a U.S. installation would have picked it up and phoned the President. He would have decided to call our allies and even the Russians really quickly. Then in a split decision he would have decided to launch our nukes before everyone died. Civ III needs this feature and not the unbalancing SDI.

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by korn469
SDI is SciFi!
what didn't you hear me? SDI is SciFi!
SDI belong in SMAC cuz SDI is SciFi!
don't you get it? SDI is SciFi!
SE doesn't belong because it is SciFi and SDI is SciFi! so it doesn't belong either
still don't get it? SDI is SciFi! having problems understanding? SDI is SciFi!
one last time SDI is SciFi! SDI is SciFi! SDI is SciFi!

He is MAD, but SDI doesn't have to be unbalancing and also just because SDI is "SciFi" doesn't mean it's not going to be included in Civ3. In Civ2, it had Nuclear Fusion tech and that is still considered SciFi today. So what's so bad with SciFi? And to balance SDI is the fact that many missiles can overload it. To get a more effective SDI you're going to have to invest a lot into it, you need to reasearch the techs and build up the infastucture. And with all this Korn is right: you can't have a 100% effective SDI, but using the correct technology you can get very high effectiveness (that is if you want to invest highly in it). With the high cost of SDI lots of players may just use MAD instead.

BTW - re: Human cloning. I think that we should scale back biotechnology. The human body is something that we don't understand very good and this could be a Pandora's box we're opening. We'd be better off investing the resources in nanotech and nerual to computer interface.

[Lord Magnus]

Oh and one more thing Korn. Don't fly off the handle like that, if it wasn't for my *bump* and those users that posted about SDI, your thread would of been buried and no one from FIRAXIS would of seen it. I want Dan to see this thread too and if I had a choice between having MAD or SDI in Civ3 I'd pick MAD. But it'd be better if both were included.

[korn469]

Lord Magnus

SDI is SciFi...isn't that an annoying line of argumentation?
yes it is...about the same as
SE is SciFi
SE is SMACish

i have probably been on the receiving end of that argument more than most others here...i was not upset, i just wanted to give a few people a dose of their own medicine...basically i intended it as a joke...

i haven't been upset at anyone here, i personally think everyone here is nice and i like you all...i just want all of my arguments to be forceful, and to get their point across...it certianly did, but i will edit my post to let other know that it was a joke

ok now on to play balance

To get a more effective SDI you're going to have to invest a lot into it, you need to reasearch the techs and build up the infastucture. And with all this Korn is right: you can't have a 100% effective SDI, but using the correct technology you can get very high effectiveness (that is if you want to invest highly in it). With the high cost of SDI lots of players may just use MAD instead.

civ2
MP=600
nuke=160 normal military upkeep
SDI=200 protects everything within three spaces of the city from nuclear attack upkeep 4

*in civ2 you don't have to build a wonder to build SDI
*in civ2 SDI is 100% effective
*in civ2 a 200 shield SDI can stop an infinite number of nukes
*SDI comes two techs after nukes
*in civ2 when a nuke hits a size 3 city it turns it into a size 2 city (killing one pop)

so if SDI is implemented in the exact same way it was in civ2 then the game will suffer

right now nobody in the world is trying to build an actual SDI system...the US missle shield is not SDI...it is intended to stop small nuclear attack from rouge states and to stop an accidental launch...nobody in the world is trying to build an actual SDI system, and there are no plans on doing this...it would cost probably hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to build an SDI system that could stop thousand of nuclear warheads

a system like this probably won't be deployed until at least 2015 if not much much later if ever

M.A.D. on the other hand has been around since basically the creation of the nuclear bomb, and it has stopped at least one nuclear confrontation from occuring, and that is the cuban missle crisis...no fancy technology, just diplomacy that is what MAD is all about

if MAD gets a proper implementation then SDI won't be needed...it never existed in the cold war and if it had, then a nuclear war would have probably occured...if the US had of had a 100% effective missle shield in the cuban missle crisis they would have nuked the soviet union for daring to even try to arm the cubans

MAD would have the same game effect, you attack an opponent armed with nukes, then you ruin your reputation, there are diplomatic consequences, and in the opponent has nukes then you take just as much damage...

with 100% SDI you build SDI then you build nukes then you nuke the world before they get SDI it's as simple as that...if nukes get stronger, then if one player is nuke proof then MAD no longer exists...withou mutually assured destruction there is no balance, one side has the upper hand and can nuke at will...the other side is a hostage

i just cannot agree with 100% effective SDI under any circumstances...it is just a bad balance choice because it destroys balance...if SDI is 100% you might as well not even implement MAD because it is a waste of programming resources

[DarkCloud]

MAD should be determined by a military readiness slider for the game.

You can set how ready your people are by placing the slider at various levels. When it is high then they can simultaneously attack, but maintaining the army costs more.

When it is low it is exactly the same.

[Laszlo]

I believe that the current model the US is working on for missile defense is flawed. Bush and everybody are trying to revive the Star Wars program and all this stuff ahead of its time and it's costing a whole $^%tload of money. (And I don't think the effectiveness of their 'tests' can be trusted)

But say by some miracle they do get it up and running, what then? I'll tell you what, the rest of the world gets a little more scared that Bush is will be stupider than we know him to already be. Esentially, if they have some laser-based defense that could stop any sized attack, what do they have to fear, and what's to stop them from using nukes in a stupid way.

Basically, the US shouldn't be so secretive with this stuff, cause it just makes others uneasy to know that they're trying for such an advantage. They should have asked Russia, China, anybody, "You want in on this? If we get this working, we won't have to ever worry about some nuclear holocaust." We should all be ending this enmity instead of extending it.

Therefore, I propose some sort of combined front against the problem of SDI in Civ3. I have no doubt that sometime there will be a defense developed that's faster than any nuclear missile, even if it's not for a decade or more. But this will take so much effort, maybe even more than the US can handle alone, to bring this to realization. Even if there is no other combination of research or wonder-building, I think the possible saviour of civilization could count as an exception.

[korn469]

DarkCloud

MAD should be determined by a military readiness slider for the game.

i don't think that would work and it would add more unnecessary micromanagement, just because once more than one nation had nukes basically you'd have to put the slider on max...if it wasn't pretty much required then it would be a good thing to add...but you need M.A.D. so anything but putting the slider at max is not a good idea

Lord Magnus

In Civ2, it had Nuclear Fusion tech and that is still considered SciFi today. So what's so bad with SciFi?

i only have one problem with scifi in civ3, is that human history is just as varied and interesting as anything found in science fiction...history can be just as fun and exciting as scifi

the only things that really seem scifi in civ2 are

*fusion power
*cure for cancer
*spaceship to AC
*sdi

while one day these might have a great impact on humanity as of yet their influence has been less than that of the hula hoop...or the basketball...cabbage patch dolls have had more of an influence...and fast food has practically changed the way people eat, while all of those have had small real effect on humanity

however besides those things there are some rather important things in history they left out in civ2 in favor of fusion power

*paper (printing press)
*antibiotics
*mass media(tv/movies)
*sonar
*birth control
*the internet (yes it might have been almost scifi{netscape was already out} but it was so much closer in 1995 than fusion power)

and those are just a few things that they could of had in civ2 instead of fusion power, all of them just as fun and all of these techs actually exist and since they are just as fun (probably more so since fusion power didn't do anything) why not have them? why take a valid part of human history and replace it with something that doesn't exist...especially one that doesn't have a game effect at all?

i guess that is the best case against SciFi that i can think of

why replace M.A.D. which was the backbone on which all cold war actions were taken, which actually existed, and which actually worked, by SDI which only existed on the drawing boards, never prevented a war, and would have worked to destabilize relations instead of bring peace

if M.A.D. is in the game then nuclear warfare will be completely different...and SDI will not only be less of a priority, it will also unbalance the situation that M.A.D. creates and it will take away the tension that makes the game so fun to play

how does 100% effective SDI make the game better?

here are some reasons it makes the game worse

*it protects a peaceful civ from nuclear attack yet then it allows war mongers to focus on the conventional
*it allows war mongers to launch nuclear attacks at will
*it removes diplomacy from the equation
*it encourages nuclear war before a player can build SDI

and those are just a couple of reasons it is bad for gameplay and there are more...maybe even some worse than these...

Laszlo

But say by some miracle they do get it up and running, what then? I'll tell you what, the rest of the world gets a little more scared that Bush is will be stupider than we know him to already be. Esentially, if they have some laser-based defense that could stop any sized attack, what do they have to fear, and what's to stop them from using nukes in a stupid way.

that is SDI...the current national missile shield uses a kinetic kill vehicle that hits the ICBM before the warheads seperate...no lasers are involved

also each test cost 100 million dollars...so far they have spent at least 400 million dollars on it just for the tests...just think what that could have accomplished if spent on trying to develop a more fuel efficient vehicle, or basically anything

the national missile defense is basically Bush trying to look strong on defense, and protect his right flank...no rouge state has ICBMs capable of hitting the US, and this wouldn't protect us from russia or china if we got in a nuclear war with them, plus it is very dependent on space based warning systems...

if you explode a nuke in space, or even a conventional warhead that acts like a shot gun then you could disable those warning systems, iraq doesn't have satellites, while the US does...so they have the incentive to do something like that...

Basically, the US shouldn't be so secretive with this stuff, cause it just makes others uneasy to know that they're trying for such an advantage. They should have asked Russia, China, anybody, "You want in on this? If we get this working, we won't have to ever worry about some nuclear holocaust." We should all be ending this enmity instead of extending it

why should the US share this technology? it gives the US a strong advantage over everyone, and why should they share it with china? the US and china basically came to blows over a spy plane...then there is always tiawan...would iraq get in on this tech?...why not dismantle all nuclear weapons instead of building an SDI system?

actually they think the missile shield might take 2.5 billion dollars away from current pentagon priorities...some of that money would have went to help the russians dispose of nuclear warheads

I think the possible saviour of civilization could count as an exception.

i'm not sure what you mean...but i disagree

hehe no really...are you saying that 100% effective SDI should be a wonder jointly built by all civs? if you are then i do disagree...i think a treaty signed by all civs banning nukes would be better...if you are going to spend money building something to stop nukes, why not go the safer, cheaper, more effective way of dismantling your arsenal?

no 100% effective SDI in civ3 please!

but if you mean something else laszlo then could you please explain yourself better

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by korn469
i only have one problem with scifi in civ3, is that human history is just as varied and interesting as anything found in science fiction...history can be just as fun and exciting as scifi

the only things that really seem scifi in civ2 are

*fusion power
*cure for cancer
*spaceship to AC
*sdi

while one day these might have a great impact on humanity as of yet their influence has been less than that of the hula hoop...or the basketball...cabbage patch dolls have had more of an influence...and fast food has practically changed the way people eat, while all of those have had small real effect on humanity

however besides those things there are some rather important things in history they left out in civ2 in favor of fusion power

*paper (printing press)
*antibiotics
*mass media(tv/movies)
*sonar
*birth control
*the internet (yes it might have been almost scifi{netscape was already out} but it was so much closer in 1995 than fusion power)

and those are just a few things that they could of had in civ2 instead of fusion power, all of them just as fun and all of these techs actually exist and since they are just as fun (probably more so since fusion power didn't do anything) why not have them? why take a valid part of human history and replace it with something that doesn't exist...especially one that doesn't have a game effect at all?

i guess that is the best case against SciFi that i can think of

The reason that I don't hate CTP completely is because instead of ending at 2020 AD it ended at 3000 AD. I don't know why you think that if Civ3 had SciFi techs it'd disminish the historical part of Civ? CTP also had almost all the SciFi and missing real techs that you metioned, don't know why Civ2 left them out? It'd just mean that we lose a crappy music track or two. These SciFi techs have the potenial to greatly affect humanity just the internet and mass media did just before they're born. Everything can't be invented at once. And people don't just dream them up, it's based on early research of today, just think of it as a rough draft of the future techs. BTW - Fusion in Civ2 allowed your nuclear plants to be safe and your spaceship to travel 25% faster, so it wasn't ineffective. CTP proved that you can have SciFi and real techs together and the game was still fun (too bad the bugs got in the way)

Originally posted by korn469
why replace M.A.D. which was the backbone on which all cold war actions were taken, which actually existed, and which actually worked, by SDI which only existed on the drawing boards, never prevented a war, and would have worked to destabilize relations instead of bring peace

MAD isn't a 100% foolproof either, Cuba could of just resulted in a nuclear war instead of the Soviets backing down. And mistakes made by operators on both sides almost resulted in nukes being launched (ooppss). We're just luck that MAD has worked for us...so far. And a very effective (not a 100%) SDI may one day be developed just nanotech will transform...everything one day. Your great-grandpa probally said a 100 years ago that an heavier-than-air device will not fly, but look at what happened.

P.S. - Firaxis please comment on MAD and SDI before Korn gets carpal tunnel syndome from all the typing.

[korn469]

lord magnus

The reason that I don't hate CTP completely is because instead of ending at 2020 AD it ended at 3000 AD. I don't know why you think that if Civ3 had SciFi techs it'd disminish the historical part of Civ?

i recommend you revisiting this thread
The Covert Action Rule: Or What We Can Guess About Civ3
or
http://www.gamespot.com/features/sidlegacy/

this is Sid's take on things

So I call it the Covert Action Rule. Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a wargame and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

The original game actually went further into the future. It had paratroopers and aegis cruisers, but the problem was there was never a good stopping point. You could always invent some new technology, and I finally said all right, we're going to cut it off at World War II.

civ is a historical themed strategy game...it has about 500 turns in it...so every future tech we add, every fusion tank unit we add to civ3 is a historical or modern unit we need to just brush over...civ is already 6000 years of history, why do we really need to add in another 1000 years? that will take away from what is already in the game...they should save all of the future techs for SMAC2

MAD isn't a 100% foolproof either, Cuba could of just resulted in a nuclear war instead of the Soviets backing down. And mistakes made by operators on both sides almost resulted in nukes being launched (ooppss).

yes that is quite true...pride could have easily prevented one of the super powers from backing down and we would of had a nuclear world war...however that doesn't upset play balance...both sides get hurt, one is not undamaged while the other is destroyed, plus just as you think that

I think that we should scale back biotechnology. The human body is something that we don't understand very good and this could be a Pandora's box we're opening.

i think that by developing nuclear bombs we opened up a real pandora's box with that...however despite all of the evil that came out of pandora's box, the last thing that came out was hope...maybe the reason that there hasn't ever been a full scale nuclear exchange is because something good came out of developing the first atomic bombs...maybe mankind really learned a lesson, and maybe people began to realize if we don't cooperate then we will eventually destroy ourselves...maybe not...however it is a historical fact that SDI did not protect either side from anihilation in the cold war...it is open to debate if M.A.D. really prevented a nuclear war, but i think most agree that it did...besides that i think that most can agree in civ3 that with M.A.D. you'd be much less likely to attack a similarly armed nuclear power, when it will leave most of your cities in ruins

M.A.D. in civ3 will discourage nuclear wars, while simultaneously allow them to be more destructive, thereby adding a true strategic feel to the game

100% SDI on the other hand will encourage nuclear wars, while simultaneously undoing the strategic feel of the game, because one side will have a weapon that cannot be defeated while the other side has nothing

would it really be fair if the armor unit had the following stats 500-250-75 (10 fp 60 hp)...no way...100% SDI is just as bad, maybe even worse, both of those things destroy the balance and thereby the fun of civ2

additionally during the cold war i lived about 25 miles from a raytheon plant (the guys who built patriots) this factory had a soviet warhead pointed at it from what i heard, so in the event of a war i would most likely have been a causualty

Your great-grandpa probally said a 100 years ago that an heavier-than-air device will not fly, but look at what happened.

why go all the way back to my great grandfather? lets go back to my grandfather...he was a sargent at white sands missile base after world war 2 and he worked on V2 rockets, he actually got to meet Dr. Warner Von Braun who told him that one day men would land on the moon, and my grandfather said he was crazy...but he was just a kid from a rural area

but what i am saying is that yes 100 years from now nuclear missiles will probably be obsolete (that is if humanity hasn't destroyed itself with nukes)...however 19 years from now i say they won't, especially not huge nuclear arsenals...if things keeps on going the way they are now, in 2020 (if not sooner) i bet the chinese will be ready to challenge the US militarily and economically and their words almost certainly be backed up with many many nuclear missiles...through in counter measures, anti-satellites weapons, submarines carrying SLBMs and nuclear tipped cruise missles, plus stealthy bombers and see how effective SDI is...i really don't think anyone is predicting a 100% effective SDI system capable of stopping a massive nuclear strike, especially since they aren't building a system that is even designed to stop a full scale nuclear attack

but back to the point...SDI is bad for strategy because it introduces huge imbalances into the game

M.A.D. is good for the game because it creates tension and it balances nukes...plus you can make nukes a truly strategic weapon in civ3 instead of a conventional weapon like in civ2

and i really hope that in civ3 a nuke can destroy a size 3 city, instead of inflict only a one pop loss