Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified

Nukes - A list of gameplay issues (UI, Broken features, Balancing, AI interaction)

Copied to clipboard!
3 years ago
Aug 23, 2021, 12:23:16 PM

After having the joy to using nukes for the first time in Humankind (game) because the map finally spawned at least two oil, it was ironically on humankind difficulty. There are many gameplay issues with them in their current state which makes them more or less broken. Humankind (game) is its own game, thus have its own mechanics, concept and implementation of certain well known elements, which one of them are Nukes. However you may compare some gameplay element with other similar titles, for example Civilization (IV, V and VI) or other 4X and/or RTS games where Nukes also appear (Anno 2070, Command & Conquer, Supreme Commander).


They also causes a lot of bugs, which I reported here, but are not part of this gameplay thread.

In the following I listed gameplay issues I encountered arround using nukes and hope at least some of them can be improved in upcoming patches

User Interaction and Nukes:

The current user action of nukes is very limited. You can only build them and use them from there against a city target in range. This is not very satisfactory.
  • You should be able to relocate nukes as it is possible with every other unit too.
  • The game contains aircraft carriers for aircraft. And the game contains a nuclear submarine which desription explicitely states that it carries nukes arround. However there is no implementation of this feature as a mobile missile carrier
  • Currently the only valid target for nukes are cities. This is a severe limitation and lack of fun for several reasons. First, when a nuke destroys a city, and its surroundings, including wonders and armies, you should be able to target any hex-field the first place. The map and its territories are often far stretched and maybe you want to destroy an army or wonder placed elsewhere. Think of some islands where I often place all of my wonders on 2-3 tiles mini islands.
AI and Nukes:

The reaction of AI's about anything related to nukes is severe limited and should be expanded. Usually in other games the AI's is freightened of anyone having nukes and even more angry when someone really uses them. Think of it in real life. What would happen if anyone of the nuclear powerhouses would use a nuke against any non-nuke nation. The diplomatic penalties would be really harsh. Currently there is only one griefing reaction from the attacked player by using a nuke against one of his cities. But:
  • There is a civic where you either chose nukes or be against them. However this choice should be more impactful, especially in combination with actually owning nukes that result in an AI reaction, especially by those who don't own nukes, they should be freightened
  • There is no reaction by third-party AI to your usage of nukes against anyone. That shouldn't go unnoticed. Like you should get a warmonger penalty or something
  • Maybe if a player choses the no nukes civics, those then should exclude the trading of uranium ressources in general. What is the purpose of not allowing nukes when you happily sell the ressources to somewhere else.

Balance and Nukes:

Nukes are by far the most powerful weapon you can build in the entire game. They can wipeout a city and its surroundings in a blink of an eye. 
  • They have the same building (14k industry) and maintance costs (90 gold) of the multipurpose jetplane. That nowhere reflects their strength. In most games they cost a ton of industry (or time) to build and the maintance cost reflect their strength. Additionally because of their sheer power some games even increase the total costs for each subsequent nuke build. You could just spam build them and nuke entire continents which you can't do in the same time and manner as you could with tanks or planes with similar costs.
  • Because of the sheer power of nukes nearly everygame I know and listed above includes some kind of protection against them, each in their own way. The most common way are anti ballistic missiles and/or an anti ballistic silo which can intercept those missiles. Think of Israel's iron dome. Usually they are available as early or not long after with a technology, they are cheapter but the disadvantages are normally that you have to build them everyhwere or there is not a 100% chance of interception. However that is commonly enough for a gameplay perspective to protect you from them or let the nuke owner attack someone else

Broken Gameplay Design for certain Nuke usecases:

Last but not least and not very immersive, there are certain and problematic results of practically using nukes which should be handled or otherwise some broken gameplay is the result.
  • As its current implementation, there doesn't exist any possibility of clearing fallout. While from a real-life immersive perspective this is, todays knowledge not really possible, the gameplay balance is heavily disrupted by it. I encountered an ingame example. I was the first be able to build nukes. There are only two sources of oil on the map (enough to build basic nuke). One ressource in my territory, the other on orange player in the direct proximity of one of his cities. I nuked the city, resulting in fallout and destruction of the ressource depot. Even after claiming the territory, I wasn't be able to build a ressource extractor on it, effectively removing the ressource for everyone in the game. Thus you can deny ressources for everyone in the game. Which in this case was very problematic because in comparison to the common horses, copper and iron there were only two oil ressources in the whole game, so noone (including me) is able to build any unit and most buildings using oil anymore. Game broken. So please implement some way for fallout clear (maybe as a unit, slow and steady? or a city project like forestation) or re-use of those ressources
  • There is no reaction of affected third-parties after getting hit by a nuke. Think of any by-passing army by a third-player or even districts from another city in the range of the nuke because of territory layout. No reaction at all at the moment.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 23, 2021, 12:34:20 PM
Drullo321 wrote:
Which in this case was very problematic because in comparison to the common horses, copper and iron there were only two oil ressources in the whole game, so noone (including me) is able to build any unit and most buildings using oil anymore. Game broken. So please implement some way for fallout clear (maybe as a unit, slow and steady? or a city project like forestation) or re-use of those ressources

Very sound feedback, but this bit caught my attention. Now all I can think of is how I'd love to have some (maybe hidden) tech that would let us adapt and continue surviving Mad Max/The Postman style after Nuclear War apocalypse.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 23, 2021, 1:45:18 PM

I think the counter to Nukes needs to be MAD. Which means it should be easy for multiple empires to get (so they should only cost one resources of each type, in addition to making sure there are at least 4-6 of each resource available.). Also the ICBM Test need to give nukes launched from Silos unlimited range (and let them relocate, including to subs, preICBM) That makes MAD a valid strategy.  The Fallout could be made to still allow Extractors, but not other districts.  That way you can have the Mad Max

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 23, 2021, 11:34:10 PM

This is an important post for nukes. 


The way I would redesign nukes is to have separate lines of technology for the warheads and for the delivery systems. Early missile delivery systems would very reasonably only be able to target cities. More advanced ones could target any tile. Likewise for missile range- early MRBM systems would have strategic range of thousands of miles, but still limited. Advanced ICBM silo systems would be able to target anywhere on the planet with totally unlimited range, and space program technologies would probably need to be an earlier prerequisite technology before this type of delivery system is possible. SRBMs, same point, less advanced missiles have less range, more advanced missiles and launch systems extends their range.


More advanced rocketry gets you better launch vehicles but not necessarily bigger nukes. And conversely more nuclear weapons development and testing gets you bigger nukes, but not necessarily a better delivery system. Bombers are also noteworthy for being an extremely cheap, low-tech, and by this point well-tested delivery system compared to an ICBM, available well before nukes are possible, so you could in theory focus on more powerful nukes and plan on using airplanes rather than strategic missiles. Enemy air defense, particularly fighters, being a real issue with this strategy that ICBM's care not a whit about.


Nukes in the nuclear era are also noteworthy because of how ridiculously cheap they are, at least compared to a comparable army, and it is this fact that leads to the Mutually Assured Destruction situation. Sure, initially getting the technology is a huge scientific and industrial problem. But each missile once the tech is there costs practically nothing. Having nukes be very expensive, especially in strategics, seems contrary to how nukes should work in terms of gameplay. The problem with nukes isn't that they are hard to afford- it is that using them is rightfully considered a Very Bad Thing to do, and has a lot of drawbacks. Particularly the whole destroying everything that might be worth conquering, and the "nuclear winter" and "no one left alive afterwards" part.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
2 years ago
Nov 4, 2022, 3:36:54 PM

This is a really important thread and I cosign everything. It should be bundled with my ideas on my thread:


https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/169-game-design-and-ideas/threads/47609-fleshing-out-the-nuclear-option-in-humankind?page=1#post-363014


Wald

0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment

Characters : 0
No results
0Send private message