Getting Nuked is Better than Living under Portuguese Autocracy?

[Marshall Thomas]

I just won my first diplomatic victory in BNW last night. I did so by getting the extra needed votes to be elected World Leader by liberating/resurrecting The Maya from The Portuguese. I only needed to capture one city to recall them to life just a few turns before the election.

The funny thing is that I needed to nuke the Mayan city in order to capture, then liberate it from the Portuguese! The fact that the Mayan would be grateful to me for nuking their city shows just how horrible life under Portuguese Autocracy must have been!

In the future, I think I'll impose a house rule which prohibits me from liberating by nuking. Now if only the AI would play by such a rule. I hear they do liberate when going for a diplomatic victory.

 

[lindsay40k]

Yeah, I'm sure there were people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who would have objected to their government supporting a bid by Truman for SGotUN. It's daft how a bloody atom bomb causes no more human consternation than a similar unit damage's worth of non-WMD munitions. There ought to be a warmonger penalty for using nukes at the very least. Especially if they target urban centres.

 

[cpm4001]

EVERYTHING is better than living under an autocracy!
In the scope of the game, however, I actually do play with a "house rule" that says I can't use A-bomb or Nukes, simply because I really dislike killing thousands of (admittedly nonexistent) people just to capture a city (even if I liberate it.)

 

[Jampine]

what are you guys talking about, the nukes make people happy! See, there's some right now, positively GLOWING with happiness of their good old freedom! Their lives are now filled with new possibilities and hopes and dreams and....oh bugger, they seem to have all died just now..... Lets find some more to interview...

 

[Peng Qi]

Yeah, I'm sure there were people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who would have objected to their government supporting a bid by Truman for SGotUN. It's daft how a bloody atom bomb causes no more human consternation than a similar unit damage's worth of non-WMD munitions. There ought to be a warmonger penalty for using nukes at the very least. Especially if they target urban centres.

I think it's daft that in real life people are more mad about the US dropping those two nukes than they are about the US dropping those hundreds of firebombs beforehand, or Britain turning Germany into a rubble-strewn wasteland with conventional bombs.

 

[rawrtrav]

I don't know about you guys, but whenever I've used nukes in the past, the warmonger penalty is muuuch greater than without nukes, or it comes across that way.

When I'm the first to get to nukes, that's the only time I'll ever see the other civ's being 'Afraid' as well. The civ's who were friendly normally turn to afraid as soon as I get nukes.

 

[PreLynMax]

I think it's daft that in real life people are more mad about the US dropping those two nukes than they are about the US dropping those hundreds of firebombs beforehand, or Britain turning Germany into a rubble-strewn wasteland with conventional bombs.

To be fair, Britain only turned Munich and Berlin into "rubble-strewn wastelands" with conventional bombs. Most of the rural parts of Germany were left intact.

I'm more liberal with it comes with nukes, despite of how initially passive I am (The human Gandhi, but more war-driven), but I tend to avoid using nukes when I am liberating cities.
To be fair, if living under freedom or (less likely), order is better than controlled under the government, I would tear the city I'm living apart to achieve that lifestyle, too.

 

[thegingerninja]

I agree with Peng Qi, a firebombing raid over tokyo called Operation Meetinghouse actually caused more immediate deaths than the A-bombs, and is estimated to be the most destructive single bombing raid in history

 

[Peng Qi]

To be fair, Britain only turned Munich and Berlin into "rubble-strewn wastelands" with conventional bombs. Most of the rural parts of Germany were left intact.

Well, I mean the US didn't nuke or firebomb rural areas in Japan either; they just had a lot less rural areas.

My overall point is that the logic of anger varies from person to person or culture to culture. I mean, if we had nukes an Arabic country they'd still be furious over it, whereas Japan loves us now. It makes more sense just to let the game mechanics be game mechanics and not worry so much about realism in those areas where what is realistic are open to debate.

 

[Teproc]

Er, the British bombardments certainly weren't limited to Berlin and Munich. Dresden was, like 80% razed, and I live in a town called Le Havre which was entirely rebuilt after the British bombings in WWII. The countryside wasn't that bombed, sure, but the urban centers were (in Germany that is, Le Havre is somewhat of an exception in France).

And yeah, a lot more people died in the month-long bombardments of Tokyo than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined I think, but there's a psychological aspect to nukes that is terrifying. Also more long-term impact, but it's mostly irrational, yes.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Er, the British bombardments certainly weren't limited to Berlin and Munich. Dresden was, like 80% razed, and I live in a town called Le Havre which was entirely rebuilt after the British bombings in WWII. The countryside wasn't that bombed, sure, but the urban centers were (in Germany that is, Le Havre is somewhat of an exception in France).

And yeah, a lot more people died in the month-long bombardments of Tokyo than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined I think, but there's a psychological aspect to nukes that is terrifying. Also more long-term impact, but it's mostly irrational, yes.

Ya the oft quoted city razed is Dresden, though Berlin and Munich were hit hard too. Having said that, one look at cities like Coventry or the capital London would have been enough to see it was pretty even throughout much of the war.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think they make generally applicable game mechanics without carving out random possibilities. Just think of as an odd quirk of playing an abstraction.

 

[Navelgazer]

I think it's daft that in real life people are more mad about the US dropping those two nukes than they are about the US dropping those hundreds of firebombs beforehand, or Britain turning Germany into a rubble-strewn wasteland with conventional bombs.

Podcaster Dan Carlin makes the argument (and convincingly) that the most atrocious line crossed during the world wars wasn't the use of nuclear weapons but that civilian targets were viable for any type of mass destruction, so I see that point.

That said it's difficult to turn Germany into victims in WW2, particularly by Britain, double-plus particularly in terms of bombing. Dresden was an horrific tragedy but made sense in terms of what the allies were responding to. Essentially, WW2 should never have happened and wouldn't have but for Germany. Everybody suffered but Germany really, really can't claim victimhood there.

On-Topic, I should think that nuking should cause ANY city to have a major, almost insurmountable diplomatic penalty against you. And I'd be okay if conventional bombing raids added up to something similar.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

On-Topic, I should think that nuking should cause ANY city to have a major, almost insurmountable diplomatic penalty against you. And I'd be okay if conventional bombing raids added up to something similar.

Agreed.

 

[Jampine]

Pre WW II, you only had to worry about being blown up if you where in the army,(or the country being attacked) but after planes became war machines, you only have to live in a country at war to run the risk of getting killed. I wonder why war became less glorified after that.....

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Pre WW II, you only had to worry about being blown up if you where in the army,(or the country being attacked) but after planes became war machines, you only have to live in a country at war to run the risk of getting killed. I wonder why war became less glorified after that.....

Well pre (and post) WWII civilians still had to worry about the actions of enemy soldiers or sailors if they encountered you. Planes just made the 'line of battle' a Lot "deeper".

And there are some regions that might support a nuclear liberator (assuming it was successful and didn't totally annihilate the population).. particularly if you go back to WWII or the Cold War.

(after all he did liberate the Maya... and the 2 cities the US nuked are allies of the US)

 

[Babri]

On-Topic, I should think that nuking should cause ANY city to have a major, almost insurmountable diplomatic penalty against you. And I'd be okay if conventional bombing raids added up to something similar.

Aren't there enough warmongering penalties in the game already? Also in real world, civs didn't started hating US even though it is the only country which used nuclear bombs in a war.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

(after all he did liberate the Maya... and the 2 cities the US nuked are allies of the US)

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I'll re-think my new house rule.

One problem I've always thought of in all Civ games is the idea of nuking a city then capturing it right after with units (an army). Imagine if US marines had captured Hiroshima right after it had been hit by the A bomb.

I think that the main purpose of nukes in Civ should be to force the surrender of an enemy on very favorable terms -if the bombed nation can't retaliate with nukes themselves. If they do have nuclear weapons, then this would be the time to use them. If not, they should surrender. but no need for the nuked city to be capture by the nation that just nuked it.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

If Japan can come to terms with being nuked, so can most others I'd say.

 

[Jampine]

If Japan can come to terms with being nuked, so can most others I'd say.

The civ V AI will NEVER forgive you! That one time you split ice cream on their ambassadors shoes? they have a secret plan to assassinate you in 50 years time via low concentration radiation poisoning because of it