How to make Nuclear Deterrent / MAD work in SMACX

[binTravkin]

We had a discussion in a turn tracking thread about why SMACX MP games have a decisive break in them around the time nukes come around.

Here's an excerpt from my post about reasons and possible fixes.
This might give some ideas for MP improved scenarios, to enable sort of "Cold War", i.e. making sure that Mutual Assured Destruction actually works.

---
The root of the problem with nukes is, as Mart outlined - turn based play.
During turn based play Mutual Assured Destruction is broken if one of the sides has not/can not put their nukes in safety.
IRL this is solved by nuke-resistant silos, (near-)permanently flying bombers and nuclear subs.
In game this may not be possible due to subs coming too late in game, bombers not carrying nukes (and missiles not being possible to lift without grounding the same turn) and there being no nuke-resistant silos (I think you can base a PB on separate airfield, but it's not nuke-resistant).

The simplest solution would be to mod the abilities for subs and air carrier capability so that they would be available around the time nukes come online.
Then you can have MAD and a real "Cold War" in SMACX.


Regarding technological limitations related to those abilities:
Carrier ability should be possible with Doctrine: Initiative, since it includes IA for the industry and IB for the material (Synthmetal).

Submarine ability should be possible starting with High Energy Chemistry or Silksteel Alloys. On Earth subs are made from steel. I'm not sure if "plasma" steel is better than "normal" steel, but it certainly sounds so. And silksteel should most definitely be.
Silksteel Alloys seems to be a better candidate because it also includes IA, for the industry required to build large complex stuff like subs.
---

[binTravkin]

I had further thoughts on this topic and realised that it could be possible without modding tech by adding pre-defined units.
E.g. you could have:
 - carrier submarine, a 0-4-5 sub+carrier unit which would be unlocked by Silksteel Alloys
 - hunter submarine, a 2-3-6 sub unit, which would be unlocked by Silksteel Alloys, 2 because AP is in prereqs and to make it weak enough to not be able do much damage vs combat ships (except unarmored), but strong enough to attack enemy units w/o armor or bombard enemy units w/o attack ability (like the carrier submarine & armored transports)
 - hunter submarine mk2, a 8-3-6 sub unit, which would be unlocked by Monopole Magnets (requires both Silksteel & Super String theory)

The difference in armor tech between carrier and hunter sub would be explained by first one having to shield it's contents more rigorously as it's ability depends entirely upon them, whereas 2nd one is primarily meant to attack others.

Further advances in sub tech would then be made upon researching the appropriate techs as per "normal" practice.

[Mart]

Submarines and carriers fit much better somewhere around Doctrine Initiative.
My impression is, that game designers were trying to replicate tech tree "percentages" from civ2. So if in civ2 carriers and submarines were somewhere near the end of tech tree, they did so in SMAC.

I think about including such changes it the Rebalance Mod. But I am not sure if both abilities should be straight from the Doctrine Initiative. One of the mod objectives is to have as much original game feel as possible.
There are though empty slots in SMAX, several of them, and something like adding "Naval Technology" tech would be possible.

[Vishniac]

What happens in Multiplayer when someone uses a planet buster?
If you see Faction A nuke Faction B:
- are you automatically drawn into a vendetta against A?
- can you reverse to truce or even treaty with A one turn later?

[bvanevery]

I think a fundamental question of multiplayer is why you're even doing it.  I recently read an AAR where people took 4 months to play it.  Worrying about the "fine tuning" of the play experience somewhere around the 3.5 month mark, when everyone is about to die horribly in a worldwide holocaust, seems like a counterproductive use of human time and energy.  There are better multiplayer games about "getting nuked" that don't take 4 months to get to the action.

I consider SMAC first and foremost to have been designed as a single player experience, reacting to the personalities of the AIs.  Civ games are so bloody long in general that it's hard to see them another way.  Not impossible, but things get compromised when considering single player vs. multiplayer.  A proper multiplayer game, should allow everyone to get on with "whatever" fairly quickly.  A Civ / SMAC tech tree simply doesn't do that.

So, the restraints on nukeing 'work' in a single player SMAC game.  There's this UN thingy with atrocity prohibitions.  Planet gets pissed at you.  Multiplayer?  People are dicks that don't agree to anything.  "You're not the boss of me!"

I have played some LAN and hotseat SMAC, with just 1 other player.  Even that took a rather long time because of the turn based nature of the game.  I don't remember us ever finishing games.  Only maybe coming into some kind of initial contact and preliminary conflict.  Then someone's got like, you know, LIFE to go deal with.

Does anyone have a track record of getting multiplayer SMAC/X games done in something resembling a 'reasonable' time frame?  That you could convince another human is 'reasonable', given what the game is?  I'm just not seeing it.