Nuclear Warfare

[=AA=Aussie]

I admit it, when I played CivII i loved my nuclear weapons. I would drop them onto enemy cities then advance into them. When I found myself in a breakneck retreat i used nuclear weapons to blow apart newly captured (or recaptured) cities.

Now i'm playing Civ III, and those tactics (which I call the McArthur offence/defence) is actually a hinderance. Here's how i see it:

Now that nuclear weapons only have a 50 percent chance of killing a unit you can drop a nuclear bomb to soften up a target city during an offencive, but you run the risk of attacking a city and finding its defenders a little charred but VERY pissed. Not only that, but its more of a hinderance because it simply blows apart the roads leading to that city.

So how can one use nuclear weapons effectivly?

I have found that nuclear bombs are still very effective in a McArthur defence situation. I have had instances where my fronter defences were crumbling, so I emplyed my tactical nuclear stockpile to blow apart newly captured forts, cities, and major road junctions. It slowed the advance down enough that I was able to stop, catch my breath, and mount a proper defence or counter-offencive.

The secondary use for nuclear weapons is more in behind the lines operations. When attacked or wageing a war against an enemy that is vastly superior to me, I have used ICBM's to blow apart his war industry. I target his or her mining centres, major roads, capitals, and troop concentrations. This severly hurts his or her war economy and allows my troops a more level playing field

Now, one should not use nuclear weapons unless its absolutly nesicarry. The diplomatic and environmental factors are very severe when one resorts to his or her nuclear stockpile. For example, I once declaired war on Egypt and was forced to level its cities in order to stem the huge tide of infantry that was surging towards the front. This in turn brought every other country on the side of egypt, which lead to my defeat. Also, global warming will most often set in after a prolonged nuclear war.

Sorry if that seemed a little rambling, but its my small contribution to the forum

 

[Dearmad]

You can't use enemy roads anyway so who cares what it blows up.

I like them as they are- used more as detterent or last ditch :midfinger to you weapons!

 

[=AA=Aussie]

You may not be able to use the enemies roads, but he or she sure can. Taking them out can really slow him or her up.

On the other hand, if you blow up his or her road and you capture his or her city, you are stuck rebuilding that road, and perhaps slowed up when it comes time to rush up troops

 

[Farmer]

Here is the best single plausible use for a nuclear weapon.

Build tac nuke or ICBM.

Target enemy capitol.
Launch.

You have effectivly severed ALL landlines to the capitol and possibly destroyed the harbor if it is not land locked. That civ can no longer produce ANYTHING. The oponent will be stuck producing riflemen as draftees if he is even AT that point since he won't be able to produce anything because you've destroyed his entire trade network. Sure the cities that have resources in their radius will be able to put up a fight, but it will definately by you time. I am probably going to nuke Paris before I actually decide to wipe France off the face of the planet in my game.

- Dave

 

[paguiob]

first post, whoo hoo.

 

[WarandPeace]

Originally posted by =AA=Aussie



Now i'm playing Civ III, and those tactics (which I call the McArthur offence/defence)

LOL

 

[Le Petit Prince]

is your reputation gets very very poor like the civilopedia is saying when using nuclear weapons???

 

[ironfang]

Farmer you are my hero. NUKE PARIS!!!

 

[Sarcastro]

Originally posted by Farmer
Sure the cities that have resources in their radius will be able to put up a fight, but it will definately by you time. I am probably going to nuke Paris before I actually decide to wipe France off the face of the planet in my game.

I have similar plans for Berlin.