Now to my major point:
I would definitely prefer that nuclear warfare be modelled more like in our history instead of as simply tactical superweapons of Civ1/Civ2.

I would like there to be a need to build lots of nukes and have to station all sorts of ICBM subs. But I all these should be for deterrant effect to simulate some sort of Cold War style nuclear standoff. Some sort of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept is needed. Any use of nukes should trigger some massive world reaction and even perhaps a nuclear holocaust! This concept should not be that hard to implement IMHO. Of course the SDI defense needs to either go or be extremely late in the game for this to work.

Of course, it would be good that nuclear weapons would also be used to a VERY limited extent (a la WWII) by the first person building Manhatten Project so whoever builds it has a limited monopoly for a short time.

Anyhow, thats jsut an idea. Feel free to rip it apart.

This said, nukes should be available in two stages;-

a) As bombs which need to be transported by bombers, and
b) As ICBM's upon the discovery of rocketry or similar.

Only ICBM's can be set to automatic reponse. Bombers would have to be deployed the following turn.

quote: Originally posted by Lung on 05-14-2001 09:01 PM The big problem is that, being just a game, players have no reason NOT to start a nuclear war. Any player who is certain to lose can just start a nuclear war and stop anyone from winning. Nukes need to have their effect limited in some way. Perhaps an "active defence" type situation where, instead of fighters scrambling to defend against bombers, ICBM's are automatically set to respond to pre-determined targets. This said, nukes should be available in two stages;- a) As bombs which need to be transported by bombers, and b) As ICBM's upon the discovery of rocketry or similar. Only ICBM's can be set to automatic reponse. Bombers would have to be deployed the following turn. This should also be reflected in diplomacy, so you can state to your rivals that you now have ICBM's set to automatically respond. This should assure that nukes aren't used without serious consideration.

The number of turns that will pass between "bomber carried nuke bombs" and ICBMs will be so small that this two stage approach won't be meaningful.

As for starting a nuclear war (just for the hell of it), it might be a problem in multiplayer but it'll just have to be a gentlemen's agreement for that.

For single player its obviously not a problem. (I mean you'll get tired of seeing the same nuclear holocaust happening over and over again. Might be cool only the first time.)

since we're talking realism, I definitely want to kill the idea of SDI. This was a concept bandied about by politicians with no real concept ofthe engineering limitations, and defence contractors who are either despicably evil and greedy or just plain ass-stupid. I'm sorry but even a few simple countermeasures could defeat any missle shield/SDI system currently in place to shoot down or disable nukes. I won't go into details unless asked.

the nuke movie sounds like a wonder movie, cool but I'd stop watching after the 3rd time or so.

also, even though disease isn't going to featured as much as I'd like, there should be something to reflect how devasting a nuke is in the long run as well. in civ 2 I had a pack of engineers that would go in and clean up all the pollution within one turn! with WLTxD, I get the pop back superfast. in reality, the radiation makes the place a wasteland for a long time (the moderate radioactive Strontium has a half life of something like
29 years or so). besides death, sterility and cancer are also major effects as well as the 'salting' effect on the ground from fallout.