Nuclear War?

[♛ Xenon-]

Nuclear War possible for this game?

[Mazisky]

The Doctor の投稿を引用：

Xenon- の投稿を引用：

Why?

I would speculate that a nuclear war is an 'eveybody loses' proposition. I absolutely h-a-t-e with a passion that stupid people are starting to think that it might be possible to win such a war once again. I'd rather hoped that that particular imbecility was behind us and would not like to have a winnable nuclear war in a game. If you lauch the nukes, it's game over for everyone, nobody wins.

Which is the reason why nobody use them despite having the possibilities. They know they would die too after retaliations

[Literally Me]

Just as an aside, there is a difference between TNWs which are small scale nuclear devices. and ICBMs. The former is believed to have a use in conventional warfare and first strike situations against rogue nuclearized nations, the later is used as a deterrent. I see no problems with either being included into Humankind.

[OneEighthSac]

i hope so! i want Total war i want to have the ability to wipe out all life

[The Doctor]

Vevut の投稿を引用：

Just as an aside, there is a difference between TNWs which are small scale nuclear devices. and ICBMs. The former is believed to have a use in conventional warfare and first strike situations against rogue nuclearized nations, the later is used as a deterrent. I see no problems with either being included into Humankind.

I was alive, but very young, when the Cuban missile crisis happened so I know all about the tactical nuke argument, thanks. We did the whole nuclear drill thing when we were kids at school, hiding under our desks. You could have also mentioned the conservative wet-dream, the neutron bomb which was far more radioactively lethal than a regular nuke yet didn't destroy property nearly so much. Useful to drop on the Warsaw Pact phalanxes of tanks and APCs but also for cleaning out cities of those unwelcome, unwashed masses as well.

Tactical nukes were deployed by both sides during the 80s, ah the happy memories, but they were never used because there was no war which was a miracle. But everyone understood that their use would almost inevitably lead to a full strategic exchange. I say 'almost' because there were some optimists who thought that we would see sense and stop before that happened. Ha ha ha! BTW, your average tactical nuke made the WW2 bombs look like fireworks. Some of them had multiple warheads as well. Tactical doesn't mean less scary at all. Quite the opposite. People actually thought they could get to use these.

We even had nuclear artillery shells, some of which were every bit as powerful as the WW2 bombs if not more so. And depth charges and anti air missiles. The bloody things were everywhere. And then we had the Star Wars program which just made it all even more dangerous. Fortunately, the world was blessed with Gorbachov who made it possible for it all to end and we all pulled back from the brink.

Now, I guess my opening remarks have been taken too seriously. I am aware that this is just a game and if it's in the game, I won't really care. i was just speculating why it wouldn't be a good idea to do so because having it in might somehow add to the already massive, dangerous burden of collective stupidity that the internet has given us. Nuclear war is the end game, End of days, whatever. It's certainly not a laughing matter.

[The Mogician]

I remember in Rise of Nations (I think), there's a nuclear winter meter where everybody loses once enough nuclear missiles are detonated. Maybe there can be something similar?

[Literally Me]

The Doctor の投稿を引用：

Vevut の投稿を引用：

Just as an aside, there is a difference between TNWs which are small scale nuclear devices. and ICBMs. The former is believed to have a use in conventional warfare and first strike situations against rogue nuclearized nations, the later is used as a deterrent. I see no problems with either being included into Humankind.

I was alive, but very young, when the Cuban missile crisis happened so I know all about the tactical nuke argument, thanks. We did the whole nuclear drill thing when we were kids at school, hiding under our desks. You could have also mentioned the conservative wet-dream, the neutron bomb which was far more radioactively lethal than a regular nuke yet didn't destroy property nearly so much. Useful to drop on the Warsaw Pact phalanxes of tanks and APCs but also for cleaning out cities of those unwelcome, unwashed masses as well.

Tactical nukes were deployed by both sides during the 80s, ah the happy memories, but they were never used because there was no war which was a miracle. But everyone understood that their use would almost inevitably lead to a full strategic exchange. I say 'almost' because there were some optimists who thought that we would see sense and stop before that happened. Ha ha ha! BTW, your average tactical nuke made the WW2 bombs look like fireworks. Some of them had multiple warheads as well. Tactical doesn't mean less scary at all. Quite the opposite. People actually thought they could get to use these.

We even had nuclear artillery shells, some of which were every bit as powerful as the WW2 bombs if not more so. And depth charges and anti air missiles. The bloody things were everywhere. And then we had the Star Wars program which just made it all even more dangerous. Fortunately, the world was blessed with Gorbachov who made it possible for it all to end and we all pulled back from the brink.

Now, I guess my opening remarks have been taken too seriously. I am aware that this is just a game and if it's in the game, I won't really care. i was just speculating why it wouldn't be a good idea to do so because having it in might somehow add to the already massive, dangerous burden of collective stupidity that the internet has given us. Nuclear war is the end game, End of days, whatever. It's certainly not a laughing matter.

I would imagine you are preaching to the choir here. If you want to write a treatise on the dangers of nuclear weapons then send it to a certain country in the East who quite literally threatened to nuke Japan into submission. (And that being in the context of first strike)

[Archerspammer]

I want the Davy Crockett Nuclear Mortar. Its the only weapon whose blast radius is larger then its effective range.

If you want to know more about it click the link below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)#Effects

[The Doctor]

Vevut の投稿を引用：

I would imagine you are preaching to the choir here. If you want to write a treatise on the dangers of nuclear weapons then send it to a certain country in the East who quite literally threatened to nuke Japan into submission. (And that being in the context of first strike)

I hope so but I doubt it.

BTW, it's funny how people tend to overlook the leader of a certain country in the West threatening 'fire and fury and frankly, power the likes of which the world has never seen before'. It's not helpful rhetoric. Nobody with these weapons should be talking about using them. That somebody else talked about using them before is no excuse but that's what happens.

[eternien]

Samantha Raven の投稿を引用：

Gosh I hope not....

Gosh i hope yes :-D
It's a real pleasure to Use Nukes or Planets destroyers in spacials 4X and even quite liberating.

[Sylfeyn]

The Doctor の投稿を引用：

If you lauch the nukes, it's game over for everyone, nobody wins.

Seems to have worked pretty well for the United States in the second world war.

[Literally Me]

The Doctor の投稿を引用：

Vevut の投稿を引用：

I would imagine you are preaching to the choir here. If you want to write a treatise on the dangers of nuclear weapons then send it to a certain country in the East who quite literally threatened to nuke Japan into submission. (And that being in the context of first strike)

I hope so but I doubt it.

BTW, it's funny how people tend to overlook the leader of a certain country in the West threatening 'fire and fury and frankly, power the likes of which the world has never seen before'. It's not helpful rhetoric. Nobody with these weapons should be talking about using them. That somebody else talked about using them before is no excuse but that's what happens.

It isnt that people overlook that, it just isnt even similar in nature to what our Eastern friends are saying. As a speaker of that language, I sat through the last 5 years listening to the insane rhetoric coming out on a weekly basis. I can tell you it is not even remotely on the same level, and to suggest otherwise is comical. The line you quoted is in response to nuclear threats from a rogue nation state. The line I quoted is about first striking a nation until they surrender so that they dont have the capability or will to help another nation from a foreign invasion. This is also coming form the same nation that also made a first strike threat against the people down under last month. What was their crime? The audacity to have economic and political ties with another country.

The list of ridiculous and insane threats goes on but I think you get the point. To compare those two quotes in context and say they are equal in effect is laughable. Also the expectation that leaders of nations are supposed to wag their finger and say 'Stop that Johnny' at nuclear threats from certain nations is preposterous. Especially towards nations that only respect strength and nothing else. Being the polite and better man on the world stage is frankly going to get a lot of innocent and helpless people killed.

I do respect your sentiment, but it just is no longer possible in the current geopolitical climate. Nations need to be reminded that traditionally objective violent actions have traditionally objective violent consequences. If you look at what has been going on over the last 5 years it has been all about testing the waters (quite literally at times) and seeking whether the West has the willpower to respond. As soon as the West and East stop responding to these threats is when they will be emboldened to make a move.


keeping things on topic, down the road I think it would be interesting to draw the game out, and invest into expanding the political relations between cultures in the games. If nuclear weapons are included in Humankind, we could see options that encourage denuclearization for fame to balance out fame through conquest.

[chaney]

I would love to see a game with a sophisticated system of consequences for actions like nuclear strike and even for threats of such actions. Major consequences. I'm afraid game developers are generally not up to the task and all we get is simple factional alignments of denouncement or praise.

[The Doctor]

Vevut の投稿を引用：

It isnt that people overlook that, it just isnt even similar in nature to what our Eastern friends are saying. As a speaker of that language, I sat through the last 5 years listening to the insane rhetoric coming out on a weekly basis. I can tell you it is not even remotely on the same level, and to suggest otherwise is comical. The line you quoted is in response to nuclear threats from a rogue nation state. The line I quoted is about first striking a nation until they surrender so that they dont have the capability or will to help another nation from a foreign invasion. This is also coming form the same nation that also made a first strike threat against the people down under last month. What was their crime? The audacity to have economic and political ties with another country.

The list of ridiculous and insane threats goes on but I think you get the point. To compare those two quotes in context and say they are equal in effect is laughable. Also the expectation that leaders of nations are supposed to wag their finger and say 'Stop that Johnny' at nuclear threats from certain nations is preposterous. Especially towards nations that only respect strength and nothing else. Being the polite and better man on the world stage is frankly going to get a lot of innocent and helpless people killed.

I do respect your sentiment, but it just is no longer possible in the current geopolitical climate. Nations need to be reminded that traditionally objective violent actions have traditionally objective violent consequences. If you look at what has been going on over the last 5 years it has been all about testing the waters (quite literally at times) and seeking whether the West has the willpower to respond. As soon as the West and East stop responding to these threats is when they will be emboldened to make a move.


keeping things on topic, down the road I think it would be interesting to draw the game out, and invest into expanding the political relations between cultures in the games. If nuclear weapons are included in Humankind, we could see options that encourage denuclearization for fame to balance out fame through conquest.

Well, we are going off topic here so I'll be careful and hopefully concise. I can see what you mean but I disagree with some of it.

Yes, asian dictators tend to bluster and are bellicose as hell. China and North Korea certainly know how to talk the talk. They've both being doing it as long as I can remember and the old Soviet Union conducted itself in a similar, belligerent and bellicose manner on the world stage and yet we're all still here. There was plenty of 'testing the waters' back then too.

But western leaders talk differently. Keeping a calm, cool head is almost always a good way to conduct yourself and is surprisingly and effectively intimidating in its own way. Echoing their bluster, calling their leaders childish nicknames and threatening another nation with destruction on the world stage makes us look weak, especially when we otherwise appease them by stopping joint military exercises or abandoning allies that have previously worked with us. No shouting but otherwise quietly demonstrating our resolve through action.

Sorry but the 'tough man' talk from that one was just that, talk. But say nice things about him and he rolled over for belly rubs and talks about falling in love.

[chaney]

EDIT: Well, I wrote this in response to a now deleted post that was attacking post #28. I'll keep it here just for the historical record. To be clear, I'm not being critical of The Doctor here, but to the deleted and unintentionally funny reply to them. END EDIT

The Doctor talks about western leaders keeping cool and how that is a good thing, describing a strategy historically used. Then they characterize "calling ... childish nicknames" as making one look weak.

We can always count on the internet for a highly rational reply filled with defensible, supported thoughts rather than personal attacks that step all over themselves. All class, no cliche. Thanks The Internet.

I guess there is no interest in discussing what GAME FEATURES might be developed?

[Greasy]

Im going to put this simply, in a game simulating civilization throught the time humankind created it, Nuclear weapons and other WMDs are a necessity, not for blowing people up, but to simulate the effects of said decision. WMDs are like bugspray, a war deterrent, they keep global superpowers from fighting wars with one another, in a game like Humankind or Civ, the point of having them is to make the other person think against war, as if you fire your nukes, everything is left in ruins. Most people screw around and end their game by having a nuclear war, but the point of them is to keep wars from happening, in Humankind, one thing I want to see is if you go against the AI, Nuclear weapons should give a modifier where if you have more nuclear weapons than the other, or are just a nuclear capable nation, the AI should be less inclined to start a war.