A way to implement "cold war" into Civ3

[Kevin Ar18]

Let's admit it, the nuclear weapons in Civ 2 did not command a much of a fear and deterrent as they do in real life. I have a suggestion to give nuclear weapons in Civ 3 more of a fear and cold war effect to them.

Well, Civ 2 did not really make use of ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missles). Instead Civ 2 mostly used tactical nukes or nukes you specifically tell what to do each turn, and there was also the ability to place a nuke using a spy. But the real fear comes from ICBMs.
I suggested adding an ICBM unit to civ 2.
Here's how it would work:
Assign it a target.
The ICBM would have a command allowing you to assign a specific tile for it to attack. It would then retain this tile in memory till your ready to use it.
Nuclear War
Somewhere in Civ 3 there should be a command to allow you to lauch your all your preset ICBM's. This is where the cold war idea comes in. All other Civs would have the option to launch their preset ICBMs in retaliation (even before your make another move). In a similar manner if someone else uses nuclear weapons you would immediately have the option to launch your preset ICBMs on them before they can make another move. Thus, things would take on a true nuclear war with all sides incurring casualties.
Give it 0 movement points
Since the ICBM is not a regular unit, it has no movement points. To load it into a submarine you would move the sub into the city and load it on (like you can in Civ 2). To move to another city, there should be a unit that can do the same thing -- as well as an aircraft that can transport them as well).
Attack Order
There should be an order where you can tell a single ICBM to attack a location on the map instead of having to launch all your preset ICBMs. The enemy would of course detect it and have the option to retalitate with all their forces of ICBMs before your turn is over.
Missle Silos
Using your worker units you should be able to build silos anywhere you want and thus transport ICBMs to them for keeping till you use them (if ever).
Other Nuke Options
1. There would still be the regular old nukes in Civ 3 like there was in Civ 2 -- nukes that have move points as well as using nukes via a spy.
2. Thes other nukes cannot be detected upon launch or anything because they're not big and noticeable like ICBMs. However, once you hit a civ with one of these alternative nukes, the enemy should have an option to strike you with their ICBM arsinal before the turn is over (and of course you can respond in the same as can other civs). Thus, this would deter you from even using other types of nukes.
3. When a spy hits a city with a nuke, there should be a chance that the other civ did not detect your spy and thus cannot tell who did it.
Neutron Bomb
The neutron bomb would be a nice third type of nuclear weapon (perhaps in regular form AND ICBM form). The neutron bomb just kills lifeforms, but doesn't touch structures.

Options
Any time the message pops up asking if you want to launch your ICBM arsenal, you should also have a list of check boxes for the countries you want to attack. For example if you have some ICBMs targeted at Russia and some targeted at China, you can just put a check beside Russia to have those targeted at Russia to fire.

So, as you can see, basically the idea is to have a true cold war kind of feel with nuclear weapons and the result of using them can have drastic consequences.

Here's a possible idea:

Russia has been detected lauching ICBMs. Do you wish to launch your ICBM arsenal?	(embassy) -->	The first detected Russian missiles will arrive in 15 minutes. But be warned, if you chose to contact them, there may be some undetect missiles that may hit sooner!
(yes) | V	*	(Launch) | | | | | | <---------
15 minutes till first Russian ICBM strikes Which countries would you like to strike? * You have the following countries targeted: Russia (19 ICBMs - 3 neutron) China (10 ICBMs - 0 neutron) Spain (3 ICBMs - 5 neutron) * Open Diplomacy channels after launch.	*

[This message has been edited by Kevin Ar18 (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Kevin Ar18]

html seemed to not take too well
Got it fixed....
[This message has been edited by Kevin Ar18 (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Ilkuul]

Great idea! I really like it. Then if all the superpowers destroy one another simultaneously with their ICBMs, some lowly little outlying tribe walks in and takes over the world!

(Impressive graphics in your post! Must have taken some doing...)

[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 21, 2001).]

[SerapisIV]

I'd love to see MAD in Civ. The nuclear volleys in CivII were completely out of whack. A tricky issue would be actually getting the AI to skirt that fine line of being aggressive but not stupid, or being too passive like CTP2. Good luck to Firaxis on that one. Nukes in CivII and SMAC were handled too much as regular units. You are right in that they need to have their own rules/capabilities.

[Kevin Ar18]

Take a look at this long post by Korn469:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000323.html#24
There's a lot of suggestions in that one post.
However, the one thing I'd really like to see (and the reason for this thread) is that cold war kind of feel with nuclear missiles I outlined and as korn469 briefly mentioned.

The issues brought up in that other thread concerning the devastation a nuclear missile (ICBM) would do is also something else that should be of concern. It might be actually quite interesting to plunge the world into an apocolypse as a result of nuclear weapons (like you see in movies of what happened after a nuclear war). Thus, mass use of ICBMs would really be something to be wary of (like they should be).

[Kevin Ar18]

In addition to storing missiles in missile silos, you should also be able to place them in submarines. Then when you give the launch order they will launch, of course.

Again the ICBMs would have 0 move points because they only go somewhere where you give the launch order.
(You would have to transport them with vehicles to their missile silos or a naval city for loading in subs).

[Ralf]

Hmm! This is one impressive well-prepared post! But the hour is late (over here) so I come back later!

[java4me]

I love it!!!

This would be very perfect for civ3!!!!!

Very good ideas, and I hope that FIRAXIS has the same idea!!!

Again, very well done!!!

[manofthehour]

I love it, the only problem is could you program the AI to understand that if it launches so will you?

[manofthehour]

One thing that everyone seems to agree on is that there should be an autolaunch feature. I hope this happens.
Also when it looks like realations between you and another civ are going south you could sign a pack of no using nuclear weapons. So that way you would be fighting a war without nukes and if someone voilated the treaty and used them anyway there would be all sorts of penitalies with other civs. Like trade sanastions.

[Darkknight]

I like it. Kind of like the CTP2 idea but better. I like the time factor.

[dainbramaged13]

I love these ideas

but i have to go
i will talk later

[Krypter]

The problem with civ2 was that it treated nukes just like any other weapon - except more powerful. Once the war started, there was no restraint, not even a chance at a truce amid the carnage. Well, okay, that's realistic, but not fun.

The trick is to make the AI understand what balance means. In the real world, nuclear weapons have only been used once partially because of the public opprobrium, the moral outrage against them (at least in the West, less so in the Soviet bloc). Moral qualms had a big part in avoiding armageddon, especially during the Cuban missile crisis.

Getting the AI to understand and practise moral restraint could be difficult.

A good idea would be to implement the Armageddon Clock in the game. As a conventional war got hotter, or an atrocity was committed, it would tick closer to midnight, until finally an AI player would snap and then everyone would launch missiles.

Poof.

"Bend Over.
Place your head between your legs.
And kiss your goodbye."

Then you can play the Mad Max scenario.

[JMarks]

Great ideas, love 'em all.

And since we're talking of neuclear weapons on subs, the neuclear subs should be independant of cities, just in case the city is taken. We've all seen the movies, and some of that is based partly on fact, isn't it? What'd be cool is if all your cities are taken, but you still have a couple of rouge neuclear subs with a few ICBMs aboard. You'd still be a viable power. Now only if your sub crew could occupy a city...

Ioanes

[Kevin Ar18]

Originally posted by manofthehour
I love it, the only problem is could you program the AI to understand that if it launches so will you?

Yeah, that would be pretty easy to program into the AI.

And as Krypter brought up, just when would the AI determine enough is enough and launch their missiles?

Well here's some ideas:


When does the AI decide enough is enough?

When you attack something important to them.
Say you attack an ally that is very important to them. It would have to be a war where they feel very threatened and fear you would gain a huge advantage if you won it.
When they are losing in a war to you
If the AI sees they are losing in a war to you and that will very likely be conquered, they may decide to launch since they have little to lose anyways.
Only the most peaceful of Civs would not launch their nuclear arsinal if they were about to die (they probably wouldn't even have one to start with).
Trigger Happy Civs
Maybe there are some trigger happy Civs in there - like the ones with the expansionistic, militarisitic policy (whatever is the most extreme of AI types in CivIII). These might be ready to shoot off their missiles at the slightest attack from you. If there's any war between these gusy it would be a nuclear war first and what's left later. These kinds of Civs you would really be locked in a cold war with, without much a chance to conquer them.


Ok, well maybe these are not the best instances of when an AI should attack, but it's a start.

[TechWins]

I like the idea Manofthehour makes about a pact of no nuclear war. That is a very good idea. If somebody did break the pact maybe the other civs might see them as a threat and cut them off from all the resources by not trading with them. Some countires might go as far as declaring war on them. Even if there wasn't a no nuclear war pact, the other countires would determine if the nuclear attack was rightfully done. About a way the AI might attack with nuclear weapons is if they had got brutally attacked for no apparent reason (kind of like Pearl Harbor). They would feel that if they didn't attack with an even bigger vegance they would look weak and cowardly.

[korn469]

Ok nuclear weapons are the most important ingrediant in any type of cold war situation and i think that we all agree with that point

for civ3 to be capable of providing a true cold war experiance it needs to first thing increase the destructive capability of nuclear weapons...using nuclear weapons should either destroy the city or severly damage it...i'm talking at least 75% population loss if not 80 or 90 percent...massive infrastructure loss (both buildings and tile improvements)...then some sort of lingering radiactive debris that is much harder to clean than pollution

secondly make ICBMs capable of hitting anywhere on the map

thirdly introduce mad into the game...if one nuke gets launched on a turn they all do...no firststrike ability

finally program the AI to understand that nuclear wars are horrible! singularity planetbusters in SMAC were quite deadly but the AI once activated to commit atrocities still didn't understand this

once this exist then conditions exist for a cold war to begin...

in real life the cold war started because you had superpowers that towered over all of the other powers, and one side had atomic bombs which i'm sure made stalin think twice before starting a war...if the USA hadn't of developed the atomic bomb, then WW2 wouldn't have ended in 1945 it would have lasted until the conventional war between the US and the USSR was over

a cold war is all about blockades, and trade embargos, and covert actions, and most of all cool, calculated diplomacy...it is not about striking cuba first during the missle crisis, it's about not striking cuba at all because MAD doctrines basically boils down to this...no matter how a war starts, or who starts it, there will be no winners only losers

i really hope that civ3 has these elements implemented in it

korn469

[SerapisIV]

A recent preview (don't remember which one) said that there will be two different kinds of nukes. Cruise missile size, limited range, and ICBMs that can hit a target anywhere on the map. In addition a Firaxis member was quoted as saying that the nuclear age is a period that in which the goal is just to survive without destroying yourself. Things look good for more realistic nukes

[dainbramaged13]

YAY!!!

But kevin should still get some credit for his hard work - i doubt the civ3 thing will be so complex

[Kevin Ar18]

Neutron Bomb

I honestly don't know a lot about these, but from what I know, they are capable of destroying all lifeforms in the area, but leave structures unscathed.

Is this true? And what about their area of effect? Is is smaller or larger than regular nuclear weapons?

These may make an interesting extra type nuke you could put on tactical or ICBM warheads.



Also, today's nuclear weapons have a much larger blast radius than the first ones. I believe they have a different name, but I can't really recall what it is. Maybe these should be a second or third type of nuke that you research. When you get these much larger nukes, then the deterent would get increasing greater to not use them (I suspect).

If anyone recalls what their name is, well, speak up.... Is it fusion bomb?


Also about how the AI should treat "Cold War," korn469 brought up a good point in the Nukes thread.

there is not any known device that can stop a nuclear missle once launched from hitting it's target, not SDI, not a nanite defuser, nothing at all

the only thing that has prevented a nuclear war so far has been careful calculation of the outcome of a nuclear war, which would mean both sides would suffer tremendously and gain nothing!

the reason they signed the ABM treaty to begin with is not because it would be a true deterrant to nuclear destruction but because it be like an imaginary secruity blanket...this false sence of safety would finally lead to a miscalculation that could result in the deaths of millions of people

if SDI is even in the game it should be very expsensive and should work only somewhere between 25% to 40% of the time...meaning nuclear deterrance would be the primary method of staying alive

the reason Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and other states want nuclear tipped ICBMs is not because they think they could actually completely destroy the USA in an overwhelming nuclear strike, but because they can deter the US from using force inside their sphere of influence...really who in their right mind would risk the millions of people (and billions of dollars) in New York city on defending breakaway kurdish rebels in Iraq just because the the pentagon promises that the US national missle defense system is 90% effective in stopping simulated ballistic missles

the answer is NOBODY!

Iraq would have a free hand to do whatever they wanted because the US couldn't intervene

the AI needs to understand this in Civ3 and diplomatic options need to reflect some of these realities

[Tabun]

OK, let's see if I can recall what I learned in my Cold War studies, and this should answer you question, possibly ad nauseam.

Nuclear Weapons is the general term for any device that uses the power of nuclear energy to destroy something.
The first Nuclear devices were Trinity, Little Boy & Fat Man. They were Atomic weapons. The explosions SPLIT atoms in order to release energy, this is call fission.
I believe in the early '60s, the US developed a much higher-yield nuclear device. That is to fuse two atoms together (making a different element...), this is called fusion. These weapons are the nukes of the present; Themro-Nuclear weapons. They are alson known as Fusion weapons, but not commonly - even though that's exactly what they use for their power.
A Neutron weapon is designed to destroy every living creature by use of radiation alone. Damage to structures is minimal (in nuclear terms, that's a good 10-30 blocks leveled). Also, the radioactive isotopes released in a neutron bomb have very short half-lives (the amount of time it takes a known amount of a radioactive substance to half it's original mass). Something like 4 days to 3 months. That means that within a maximum of 1 year, it will be safe for the attacker to occupy a 90% operational city!

As a side, and departing note, the attacker would have little to no problem getting food and plants to grow. Radiation that doesn't kill a plant directly will make the sucker grow like mad. This is the same principle that makes garden seeds sprout sooner if you microwave them for a bit before planting them.

Hope I gave you plenty of info! (Guarsh, hope it's all reasonably correct too!)

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Tabun
As a side, and departing note, the attacker would have little to no problem getting food and plants to grow. Radiation that doesn't kill a plant directly will make the sucker grow like mad. This is the same principle that makes garden seeds sprout sooner if you microwave them for a bit before planting them.

Quick OT, really? Ever tried it or is it urban legend? Why?

[Ralf]

I like the general concept of M.A.D; Pre-assigned targets; Pop-up warnings messages with Yes/No/Contact embassy options...

but dont try to make it into a game within a game ( read Korn469 ). Firaxis should limit themselves by extracting the quintessential idea of MAD - not try to cram buckloads of details into it. Too much and too little destroys everything. Different types of nuclear-bombs definitly feels unnecessary. No neutron-bombs for example (overtaking undamaged & fully equipped cities/ city-areas unbalances the game too much).

Finally, the "No" option in the ICBM-dialog doesnt make any sense. Replace it with three buttons (yes, you can only choose one):

• Yes, launch total retaliation
• No, but initiate SDI-defences
• First call hot-line, then choose

What!! Why cant I both launch total retaliation and initiate SDI-defences at the same time?
Sorry - even if you have both - that would let you of the hook far to easy.
There is no such thing as a free meal. Now, YOU are the president. Make your apocalyptic choice.

[manofthehour]

Your idea is ok about the 3 choice but why not just ude dilomacy, find out they are nuking you, turn on SDI (how would this work, I thought they were always on) than next turn bombs away?

[Andreiguy]

Though it is a good idea, I believe neutron bombs would unbalance the game; if you spend all your time building neutron bombs until you have one for every city not owned by you on the planet, you could win the game in a couple turns by quickly occupying cities and destroying any small opposition that comes up. For that reason, I think that:

a) some units should NOT be destroyed: non-human units, like missles, which could be launched automatically, and maybe futuristic units which are radiation-resistant

b) there should be VAULTS where a certain number of people in a city could seek refuge in the case of a nuclear strike (like in Fallout and Fallout 2, great games, by the way)

c) you should be able to know approximately how many nuclear or other missles an enemy has, and if a country chooses not to disclose this information, they could be pressured, even sent an ultimatimum from the UN. You could ask an enemy to reduce their arsenal (like in CTP 2)

[manofthehour]

I think that an emienies nuclear arsonal should be pretty much common knowagle. And if there is an auto aim feature you should know how many they have pointed at you. Also how many are in range, like nukes on bomber that could hit your civ in 1 turn.

[manofthehour]

About Kevins idea about the AI saying when enough is enough is a good one. Some other things I might add are

1. Nukeing someone because they are deafeating your ally seems unlikely. It seem logical that you would first declare war and see what you can do without Nukes. Than if they start deafeating you than would use you Nukes.

2. Well there should be some trigger happy Civs.

3. If the AI feels that war is invitable and they only way they can defeat you is by completely wipping out your military while they are unprepaired.

Also depending upon why a Nuclear strike happens should effect the punishment on the country.

1. Nuking after being Nuked should have realitily no punishment.

2. After fighting a long and loosing many men a nuclear attack is made than this would premote anger but not as much drastic action.

3. Declearing war and then immeditaly using Nukes should have very harsh reaction. Trade santions places on what goods Nukes requier, (not sure what this is yet) by all civs, except mabey your closest ally and fully trade sanstions placed by some civs.

4. A Nuclear attack while not at war should cause outrage. Full trade sanstions by all civs except allies who would refuse to help you and mabey even break off alliences. Mabey even war declealred on you by some civs who have been mad at you for a while.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by manofthehour
Your idea is ok about the 3 choice but why not just ude dilomacy, find out they are nuking you, turn on SDI (how would this work, I thought they were always on) than next turn bombs away?

You absolutely right! Design-mistake from my part.

OK, then - the big idea was that you shouldnt be able to launch full-scale attacks with the knowledge that each and every of your own cities are totally secure behind their SDI-defences. Lets put it like this:

A city cannot be expected to produce; store or launch ICBM's and be protected by SDI-defence at the same time. You really must choose. Once an SDI-defence is built in a city, then you cannot produce; store or launch your missiles from that city anymore. If you choose to demolish that SDI-defence - well, then that city is back in ICBM-business again.

Perhaps above must be tweaked and fine-tuned, but I think you get the general idea.

[manofthehour]

This would put some hard choices on you. Because you cities that can make the ICBM the fastest are the one you really want to make.

[Geoff the Medio]

A city cannot be expected to produce; store or launch ICBM's and be protected by SDI-defence at the same time

Why? Is this a game-balance thing, or a realism thing?

Either way, I don't get it...