Civ2:proposed changes to nuclear weapons
D. Benker
pollute the world. I think we need something besides the city SDIs to
provide some balance. I propose--
1) a nuclear disarmament WOW? Can not be build till after the first
nuke is used but once constructed nukes are removed from the rest of
the game.
2) an SDI global WOW. This would be an orbital system that would stop
all nuclear missles but still allow smuggled nukes.
3) a mobile SDI defense that you can build and move with your army.
It would be like the AEGIS, but consumed each time it stops a nuclear
missle. Call it the patriot defense missile unit. It should have a
protection range a little smaller than the SDI (perhaps the current
and adjacent squares only) and require both rocketry and computers to
build. I find I have the time and money to build city SDI
improvements for my main cities on the home continent, but as I branch
out the AIs nuke my newly conquered cities before I have a chance to
build an SDIs.
4) some rule changes that would inflict a penalty for using nukes.
For example, democracies and republics can not use it as first strike
weapon. Also, if you use a nuke, everyone declares war on you, a
trade embargo is enforce for a fixed number of turns (income drops in
half), and a random city revolts and switches to another civ. That
should make you think twice before nuking someone.
My 2 cents, what do you think?
L. Drew Davis
>Love the new game but dislike how readily the AI civs use nukes and
>pollute the world.
[deleted]
The new WoW, "Greenpeace" (or "Environmental Movements" if
you dislike the plug) which automatically cleans up pollution near
cities (perhaps with movement headquarters as an improvement).
Armies do need a mobile anti-nuke unit. As it is, if they come
out of the city, they're toast. The AI is now smart enough to
mass its units for attacks, which of course masses them
for "tactical" nukes by the beleagured defenders.
Still, the only way I'm still in my current game is the use of
nukes myself. I hate the pollution, but the Indians are (were)
bigger than I and more advanced. They'll win the spaceship
race. I could just lose gracefully, I suppose. (Hah!) (The
moral derived from all games with nukes? Never put a
nuclear power into a losing position.)
Interestingly, the Indians have yet to nuke me back,
despite that they've developed the capability (and threatened
me with nukes "diplomatically"). The first meeting, they said
something about "respecting my deterrent". Naturally, their
announcement provoked the first strike, though I didn't
have my copter and paratroop force ready yet. They're
going for the spaceship like mad, though.
I just think of the pollution and subsequent derived penalty
as the penalty for getting behind in the first place.
--
L. Drew Davis dr...@mindspring.com
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
SteamFax
When a real nuke strikes, cities are destroyed and the land nearby is
contaminated with fallout. The contamination portion is duplicated fine in
Civ, one has at least 3 skulls that engineers must be assigned to.
But though the pop is cut in half, no city improvements are destroyed.
Perhaps this is for game balance as it might allow the human to beat up on
the AI's capital too much.
In the layered defense, the ultimate is a space based SDI system. However,
such systems are expensive to deploy as pointed out in the Regan
administration. In Civ terms, the missile would be destroyed with no ill
effects.
The next best defence is a ground based anti-ballistic missile system.
There was considerable interest in this type of system in the 60's, until
the Treaty of Assured Mutual Destruction was signed. However, the Soviets
cheated and continued to develop anti-IBMs. The system is less expensive
then SDI, but the downside is the missiles would be destroyed inside the
earths atmosphere, causing contamination possibilities. But city
structures and targeted populations would be safe. In Civ terms, the
missile would be destroyed outside the city limits, but pollution would
occur at the intercept site.
Finally there is the shelter system. This is the easiest, cheapest and
most accessable nuclear defence available. Even families acting
independently from government bodies can install one. The downside is the
targeted city would be destroyed and the land around still contaminated.
The upside is there would be people in the targeted area that could escape
to clean up the damage or move on elsewhere. In Civ terms the population
of the targeted city would survive, but none of the improvements, plus
contamination.
Robear
L. Drew Davis <dr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>dbe...@usit.net (D. Benker) wrote:
>
>>Love the new game but dislike how readily the AI civs use nukes and
>>pollute the world.
>
> [deleted]
>
> The new WoW, "Greenpeace" (or "Environmental Movements" if
>you dislike the plug) which automatically cleans up pollution near
>cities (perhaps with movement headquarters as an improvement).
No, it shouldn't clean it up. Rather, it should make one person in
each city unhappy *per* pollution, in a democracy. But it should
also reduce the likelihood of any pollution by about 10%, by virtue of
increased education and vigilance. Kind of encourages you to keep lots
of engineers running around cleaning up pollution.
>L. Drew Davis dr...@mindspring.com
David Pipes
Michael Kell
>4) some rule changes that would inflict a penalty for using nukes.
>For example, democracies and republics can not use it as first strike
>weapon. Also, if you use a nuke, everyone declares war on you, a
>trade embargo is enforce for a fixed number of turns (income drops in
>half), and a random city revolts and switches to another civ. That
>should make you think twice before nuking someone.
>My 2 cents, what do you think?
Under those conditions, why even have nukes at all?
--
Michael Kell
*Standard disclaimers and such*
------------------------------------------------------------
You will always find something in the last place you look
for it
- Murphy's law #34
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Chiu
>
> dbe...@usit.net (D. Benker) wrote:
>
> >4) some rule changes that would inflict a penalty for using nukes.
> >For example, democracies and republics can not use it as first strike
> >weapon. Also, if you use a nuke, everyone declares war on you, a
> >trade embargo is enforce for a fixed number of turns (income drops in
> >half), and a random city revolts and switches to another civ. That
> >should make you think twice before nuking someone.
I guess the penality doesn't apply to the glorious USA ......!?
(or at least, DID NOT)
> Under those conditions, why even have nukes at all?
>
> --
>
> Michael Kell
> *Standard disclaimers and such*
--
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| ********* | Kenneth S. Chiu Internet: ksc...@zadall.com |
| ** *** | |
| *** | Zadall Systems Group, Inc. |
| *** ** | 4400 Dominion Street, 5th Floor |
| ********* | Burnaby, BC, Canada V5G 4G3 |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Stefan Kiebel
> Still, the only way I'm still in my current game is the use of
> nukes myself. I hate the pollution, but the Indians are (were)
> bigger than I and more advanced. They'll win the spaceship
> race. I could just lose gracefully, I suppose. (Hah!) (The
> moral derived from all games with nukes? Never put a
> nuclear power into a losing position.)
>
> Interestingly, the Indians have yet to nuke me back,
> despite that they've developed the capability (and threatened
> me with nukes "diplomatically"). The first meeting, they said
> something about "respecting my deterrent". Naturally, their
> announcement provoked the first strike, though I didn't
> have my copter and paratroop force ready yet. They're
> going for the spaceship like mad, though.
This is very interesting. In my game, I wasn't behind, but I used
the nukes first to get the capital of the Mongols in a quick and
cheap way. As planned, I got their capital, BUT:
The Mogols nuked 2 of my more powerful city in my hinterland on their
following turn. It was pure punishment!
Obviously, the Mongols were well prepared, but they
didn't use the nukes first. Moreover, since it was me, who began
the whole mess, the Greeks, the ally of the Mongols, decided to show
me that they have got nukes, too. They nuked one of my best cities.
To conclude, it seems to me that the computer opponents only use
nukes, when they are forced to use them. Even the Mongols
(aggressive) decided _NOT_ to start this kind of war.
I think this is one of the best parts of the game. There is a lot of
truth in the behaviour of the computer player. I don't know, how
well the damage of a nuke is modelled, but within the game, it will
hurt the player. Therefore, the player has to think of the consequences,
of using the bomb. Very, very nice.
Therefore: Don't change this part. The 'global warming' part is
excellent. It punishes ALL players, even those not using bombs.
This adds a realistic component to the game and introduces a big
deal of diplomacy into the game, although this might be even more
evident in a multi-player game, which is not possible (yet?).
Stefan
D. Benker
>dbe...@usit.net (D. Benker) wrote:
>
>>Love the new game but dislike how readily the AI civs use nukes and
>>pollute the world.
>
> [deleted]
>
> Armies do need a mobile anti-nuke unit. As it is, if they come
>out of the city, they're toast. The AI is now smart enough to
>mass its units for attacks, which of course masses them
>for "tactical" nukes by the beleagured defenders.
I find it interesting that the AI civs only use nukes against cities
and never against troop or fleet concentrations. I like to stack a
battleship, Aegis cruiser, and a troop transport in one stack. If
that stack got hit with a nuke it would cause some serious hurt. But
for some reason the computer only uses cruise missles and fortunately
with version 1.07 the Aegis is now invulnerable to missile attack.
As a matter of fact the Aegis cruiser may now be a little too good
against missiles. Although I have seen many battleships (def=12 and
HP=40) sunk by a cruise missile, I have yet to see an Aegis
(def=2X8=16 and HP=30) sunk by one. Based on the numbers I would
think I would lose a few Aegis cruisers consider how the AIs like to
use missiles.
Also, has anyone every seen an AI civ use a nuke on another AI civ.
They only seem to bless me with these things, or am I being paranoid
again.
Larry Craighead
writes:
[snip]
>As a matter of fact the Aegis cruiser may now be a little too good
>against missiles. Although I have seen many battleships (def=12 and
>HP=40) sunk by a cruise missile, I have yet to see an Aegis
>(def=2X8=16 and HP=30) sunk by one. Based on the numbers I would
>think I would lose a few Aegis cruisers consider how the AIs like to
>use missiles.
I think I read somewhere that the AEGIS gets x3 against air, x5 against
missile. So the rules.txt saying x2 may be wrong. 5x8 = 40, so the
AEGIS is much better off.
Matt Craighead
Mr. Nobody
Its really annoying that a marine unit attacking a city ends up
destroying more city improvements than a nuclear explosion. Doesn't
make much sense, unless nukes in Civ II are neutron bombs.
Any idea on how to change this? Or maybe create a new, more desrutive
unit? IMHO, a city that has been nuked should be much more messed up
and much more unhappy.
-j
Neil Radisch
that I was at peace with. It seems the Greeks just wanted
to "test" their new weapon. Oddly, they immediately asked
for peace again, then sent an engineer (by transport no less)
to help me clean up the mess.....really they did.
Neil
Jim Kasprzak
>The next best defence is a ground based anti-ballistic missile system.
>There was considerable interest in this type of system in the 60's, until
>the Treaty of Assured Mutual Destruction was signed. However, the Soviets
>cheated and continued to develop anti-IBMs.
Ah, that would explain the emergence of Apple Computers and Big Blue's
loss of market share in PC sales.
--
__ Live from the bustling metropolis of the Big Apple...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, just a guy from New York.
/____ | At Khan Brothers, we make our money the old fashioned way.
\_| We loot and pillage.
*==== e-mail: jim...@panix.com
Thomas Neil Franklin
didn't even have Nukes, they nuked THREE of my cities in a
single turn and captued them with Paratroops. It was an attack
worthy of a human... :) In other words, do NOT count on the
computer players to keep their missles in their silos just
because you haven't nuked anyone!
--
Tom Franklin
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Internet: tn...@Virginia.edu
ST_S...@fac.fbk.eur.nl
>From: Stefan Kiebel <ski...@fil.ion.bpmf.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Civ2:proposed changes to nuclear weapons
>Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:22:27 GMT
>L. Drew Davis wrote:
>Stefan
I have to disagree with the nukes.
I have played emperor level as the French and I was in 1970. I was very
aggressive as I had destroyed the Chinese, the Egyptians and was just starting
to conquer the Celts.
The Carthaginians were next on my list as they had a whole continent to
themselves and a huge wad of water seperated us.
Suddenly the Carts started to build the Manhatten project. I thought *oh -oh*
and started to research the Laser (SDI defence) but within eight turns they
built the wonder and in TWO turns "Weooow! BOOM!' two of my cities were nuked.
Next turn, same. As was next turn.
I gave up after eight years as my beautiful civ was covered with pollution.
I could not send over an army to punish them as all my armies were destroyed
by the nukes.
I could not make peace as the Carths refused to talk to me. So I was
basically lost.
So basically, I HATE nukes.
Chee-Wai Chan
Richard A. Brewin (2W0S)
: In one of my games I pissed off the Greeks, and although I
Absolutely true. However, in an Emperor level game where I was the
dominant power (on all fronts - scientifically, militarily, and sizewise),
I had a peace treaty with the Sioux and good relations with them. I then
captured a city belonging to the Celts - which destroyed, if it was there,
the SDI defence improvement. Lo and behold, the Sioux broke their peace
treaty with me by NUKING this captured city and making a para assault upon
it - somehow they "magically" knew
there was no SDI defence there (even though ALL my other cities were
protected - one hell of a burden, but you can't survive otherwise!).
Not very realistic, is it? Especially when you consider I had a huge nuclear
arsenal at my disposal, and the means to nuke the Sioux back into the stone
age in retaliation.
--
* Richard A. Brewin rab...@minster.york.ac.uk *
* *