Unpopular Opinion Thread

This is the thread for me!... :hatsoff:

My 4 pence worth, after reading various articles/forums at this site:

- Oh so you are an expert at Civ4 are you?
- Yup.
- Can beat all levels with your eyes closed?
- Yup.
- On a non-Pangea map?
- Well...
- With tech trading disabled?
- Er...
- Domination wins without Vassals (in a timeframe to give you a huge score)?
- Er...
- Do you give up if you don't get Liberalism first?
- I'm going home.

Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of experts on the forums - but not all can be considered the "beardy, sandal wearing gurus" :D
 
Research is overestimated, espionage is much stronger.
Bismarck is great
Nationalism is stronger than free speech. 25% ep is likely more beakers than the 2 gold from towns
 
MAD as a military doctrine shouldn't actually deter war between nuclear-capable civilizations. As soon as one launches for a civilian target, the other launches for civilian targets in return. So launching for civilian targets is stupid. That was stupid when Hitler dropped conventional bombs on England, and the Allies dropped them on Germany in return. But that doesn't stop the invading army...
 
traius said:
MAD as a military doctrine shouldn't actually deter war between nuclear-capable civilizations. As soon as one launches for a civilian target, the other launches for civilian targets in return.
Click to expand...

I realize this is the unpopular thread, but doesn't the second sentence negate the first? The fact that you will get nuked is the reason, according to the doctrine, that keeps you from launching a strike of your own in the first place. I'm not sure I understand your thinking.
 
Read the rest. If you launch a missile in retaliation, you get a dozen missiles launched back, meaning using nukes for self-defense is suicidal.... so you don't end up doing it. And you get run-over.
 
traius said:
Read the rest. If you launch a missile in retaliation, you get a dozen missiles launched back, meaning using nukes for self-defense is suicidal.... so you don't end up doing it.
Click to expand...

That's... exactly the point? :confused:
 
civtilidy said:
Research is overestimated, espionage is much stronger.
Bismarck is great
Nationalism is stronger than free speech. 25% ep is likely more beakers than the 2 gold from towns
Click to expand...

I don't know how unpopular these really are, at least I agree with all of them to some extent. With self-research you get first to bonuses and can tech monopoly teches for trading making one beaker researched worth more than it would be without trading. With esp you need to have at least someone who already has the tech which limits trading.

I like Bismack too. And when talking about nationhood the opportunity to draft can't be ignored either. I don't think free speech is good outside of a very long game or culture, bureau should be better economically for a long time and nationhood for both military and economy.
 
Imp. Knoedel said:
That's... exactly the point? :confused:
Click to expand...

Arg. Let me try again.
I meant MAD as a deterrent to any use of force is false. MAD is not a deterrent to any use of force, because if someone uses non-nuclear force on you, and you use nuclear force in response, you get a nuclear response. So using nuclear force on non-nuclear force is suicide. So now nuclear force as a self-defense doesn't work. So you have no protection from conventional war at all. Therefore it doesn't protect against war. It only protects against nuclear war.
 
Yeah, it doesn't really exist in Civ. You can completely wipe out a civ with nukes before they can even respond.
 
traius said:
Arg. Let me try again.
I meant MAD as a deterrent to any use of force is false. MAD is not a deterrent to any use of force, because if someone uses non-nuclear force on you, and you use nuclear force in response, you get a nuclear response. So using nuclear force on non-nuclear force is suicide. So now nuclear force as a self-defense doesn't work. So you have no protection from conventional war at all. Therefore it doesn't protect against war. It only protects against nuclear war.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the argument that governments use to build up their conventional forces. China already has hundreds of nukes, America has thousands, so why are they both spending ridiculous amounts of money building things like jets and ships? Because they want to be able to win conventional wars too.
It's like, imagine being a soldier in an army camp, everyone has a rifle, and you're getting picked on. You could shoot your bully but that's unheard of and you'll get shot by his friend right after you do it anyway, so you have to get better at fist fighting because although everyone has a rifle, it's only socially acceptable to fight with fists in that setting. Having a bigger rifle when you can't fist fight won't help you.

Still, you have to be careful with this thinking. Look at Russia right now. NATO could easily take on the Russian military and deal with this Ukraine crisis, but doing so would be risky. If NATO forces were rolling into Russian territory and the Russians were losing badly, are you absolutely sure Russia wouldn't fire off a nuke? I'd like to think Putin and his government wouldn't be so stupid, but one can't be sure.
 
traius said:
launching for civilian targets is stupid. That was stupid when Hitler dropped conventional bombs on England, and the Allies dropped them on Germany in return.
Click to expand...

Point of order: the Luftwaffe deliberately employed terror bombing in Poland and the Netherlands, but Hitler expressly forbade it when aerial attacks began against England*. The tit-for-tat terror bombing began when a German attack hit the wrong target at night, and an RAF raid on Berlin the next day was so inaccurate that Hitler tore up Directive 17 and declared British civilians fair game.

*I guess he looked at the British Empire and thought 'wow, these guys are almost as racist as mich, and Herr Churchill has written praises of fascism; Ich bet we can put that defensive pact with Poland behind us and take on the White Man's Burden together'.
 
noto2 said:
This is exactly the argument that governments use to build up their conventional forces. China already has hundreds of nukes, America has thousands, so why are they both spending ridiculous amounts of money building things like jets and ships? Because they want to be able to win conventional wars too.
It's like, imagine being a soldier in an army camp, everyone has a rifle, and you're getting picked on. You could shoot your bully but that's unheard of and you'll get shot by his friend right after you do it anyway, so you have to get better at fist fighting because although everyone has a rifle, it's only socially acceptable to fight with fists in that setting. Having a bigger rifle when you can't fist fight won't help you.

Still, you have to be careful with this thinking. Look at Russia right now. NATO could easily take on the Russian military and deal with this Ukraine crisis, but doing so would be risky. If NATO forces were rolling into Russian territory and the Russians were losing badly, are you absolutely sure Russia wouldn't fire off a nuke? I'd like to think Putin and his government wouldn't be so stupid, but one can't be sure.
Click to expand...

Nice analogy.

Historically speaking, MAD did keep the world powers from direct confrontation for an unprecedented period. Sure, the USA and China were locked in a major struggle in Korea, but China wasn't nuclear yet.

As for Putin, I wouldn't trust him if his life or government or ego were at risk. I wouldn't invade any nuclear power for that matter. It's a no-win.
 
noto2 said:
This is exactly the argument that governments use to build up their conventional forces. China already has hundreds of nukes, America has thousands, so why are they both spending ridiculous amounts of money building things like jets and ships? Because they want to be able to win conventional wars too.
It's like, imagine being a soldier in an army camp, everyone has a rifle, and you're getting picked on. You could shoot your bully but that's unheard of and you'll get shot by his friend right after you do it anyway, so you have to get better at fist fighting because although everyone has a rifle, it's only socially acceptable to fight with fists in that setting. Having a bigger rifle when you can't fist fight won't help you.

Still, you have to be careful with this thinking. Look at Russia right now. NATO could easily take on the Russian military and deal with this Ukraine crisis, but doing so would be risky. If NATO forces were rolling into Russian territory and the Russians were losing badly, are you absolutely sure Russia wouldn't fire off a nuke? I'd like to think Putin and his government wouldn't be so stupid, but one can't be sure.
Click to expand...

Putin is calculating. Cold, but rational. I don't think he'd launch nukes at NATO countries in any conventional warfare scenario. I DO think he'd launch nukes within his own borders to wipe out invaders though, as he doesn't give two $#|7$ about his own populace, and there would still be a large chance he would not receive a nuclear response for such an action. He would take that chance if it preserved his power, and power is his #1 concern. Launching nukes at NATO countries would definitely not end up with him or Russia having any power, so he wouldn't consider it. My 2 cents.

EDIT: I realize this goes against my statement that defensive nukes is suicidal.
 
Rusty Edge said:
Historically speaking, MAD did keep the world powers from direct confrontation for an unprecedented period. Sure, the USA and China were locked in a major struggle in Korea, but China wasn't nuclear yet.
Click to expand...
Well, between the end of WW II and the Korean War, the US military assumed the next war would be nuclear, so why bother with a robust ground force? Then Korea broke out and we had ourselves a conventional war that we did not want to go nuclear. So now we have a (relatively) large conventional force to conduct our wars backed up by nukes that we hope we never have to use.

BTW, Stalin backed N. Korea at the start of the war. China didn't send troops in until we had crossed well north of the 38th parallel.

As for Putin, I wouldn't trust him if his life or government or ego were at risk. I wouldn't invade any nuclear power for that matter. It's a no-win.
Click to expand...
The main use of a nuclear force (in the RW) is a guarantor of national sovereignty. You don't invade a country that can retaliate with incinerating your cities.
 
Lennier said:
BTW, Stalin backed N. Korea at the start of the war. China didn't send troops in until we had crossed well north of the 38th parallel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, kinda like Vietnam, and 80s Afghanistan. You know who's behind it, but it's not your country being blown apart.
 
Unpopular Opinion #99: I absolutely hate thread derails. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mastrude
Civ IV Excel Calculator Nerds
Replies
7
Views
694
Quintillus
Quintillus
P
Blue Marble on windows 11
Replies
12
Views
982
Prier10
P
M
Simple fix using AI friendly/Existing Game Mechanics to end the World of Axeman and the World of Catapults
Replies
2
Views
1K
MassRiflemen
M
W
Trying to create shortcuts to individual mods on Steam Deck - what am I doing wrong?
Replies
1
Views
225
lymond
lymond
konata_LS
Why did Chuck DOW his friend
Replies
18
Views
1K
AcaMetis
AcaMetis
Top Bottom