Can't Nuke own cities

[Ghafhi]

How ******** is that. Even though it probably would never happen who would stop kim jong il from blowing up one of his own cities or mao or any other crazy leader. If foreigners don't do nothing when mao killed like 60 million people why would they care about a nuke that kills only half a city. There is no city of 30 million people excluding tokyo. You can't even nuke your opponents who are in a big empty space of your property. This is bs. No tactical nukes more bs. If anything they should be adding more nukes and chemcial and bioweapons to the game. Why is it that only nukes can kill more than one unit at a time. When america drops a crusie missile I'm sure it kills more than one taliban fighter.

 

[civaddict098]

If you started nuking your own citys dont you think there would be a civil war? and plus, why would you want to do that, the only reason i see for it is cus you wanna fool around cus you think its "funny"

 

[muerteverde]

Meh, I don't have a problem with it. I don't recall any world leader who has used nukes to kill his own citizens on a large scale though, and you should still be able to use Stalinistic genocide techniques to kill your people (starve them to death).

And for your last observation, each unit int eh game is more representative of a group of people rather than a single individual. So you might see only 5 figures, btu nshould assume this is a batallian of soldiers.

 

[muerteverde]

If you started nuking your own citys dont you think there would be a civil war? and plus, why would you want to do that, the only reason i see for it is cus you wanna fool around cus you think its "funny"

I have had reasons for killing off a city before, but maybe not with nukes. The whole in your territory thing is to prevent them being used as defenseive weapons probably, shooting them just outisd eyour city as an invading army has you surrounded. I personally think they should ahve tactical nukes too, that would be less powerful and used in more tactical situations. But not hitting your own soil doesn't seem unreasonablly to me, much like you.

 

[Rayanth]

Heh, I did this once when i was playing a Chieftain game just to remember how easy it used to be... when I started building SS components I built 1 nuke for every city in the world, including my own... 1 turn from SS completion, i launched nukes at every city (including my own) with the only exception being the city producing that final SS component...

massive nuclear fallout across the entire world... not many happy civ opponents left.. and then i launched for alpha centauri "Merry christmas, here's your gift... now I'm out of here! have fun..."

ah, the good ol' days...

 

[Modifiable]

I agree this seems pretty weak. During WW2, our nukes were a LOT less powerful than they are today. And they didn't just wipe out a few buildings and some people. It wiped out everything. Period. That's what a nuke does! If I fire off a nuke on somebody, unless they are in one seriously protected and very deep hole in the ground it should be obliterated. And what about if your unit is there they can't launch! Seriously??? That's just nuts.

 

[knupp715]

Well I for one am not going to send a nuke on my own city. If I want to get rid of it I will just abandon it. Also, if you sent a nuke on your own city (something only young kids would do because they would think it is amusing as CivAddict098 sad) that would make everyone else declare war on you (not a very smart move). And that would be a waste of a nuke. Just abandon a city you don't want, don't waste a nuke on it that takes a lot of "hammers" to build.

As for the tactical nukes, I'm really not disapointed that they are excluded.
They did the same things as ICBM's but you had to move them around the map because they had limited movement. Plus you had to protect them with guards so that an enemy unit didn't capture it. ICMB's were easier and just make more sense to me.

 

[UnitQ]

Well I for one am not going to send a nuke on my own city. If I want to get rid of it I will just abandon it. Also, if you sent a nuke on your own city (something only young kids would do because they would think it is amusing as CivAddict098 sad) that would make everyone else declare war on you (not a very smart move). And that would be a waste of a nuke. Just abandon a city you don't want, don't waste a nuke on it that takes a lot of "hammers" to build.

im with you 100% on that it will be a stupid move to nuke your city

As for the tactical nukes, I'm really not disapointed that they are excluded.
They did the same things as ICBM's but you had to move them around the map because they had limited movement. Plus you had to protect them with guards so that an enemy unit didn't capture it. ICMB's were easier and just make more sense to me.

No, i miss the TN. i liked the fact there were more types on nukes.

 

[QiZhe]

Well, what I've mainly seen people wanting to nuke themselves for is to kill enemies in your territory. If a stack walks past your borders, you should be able to nuke them. Also, if you've got some random soldier next to an enemy city and you want to nuke them, it should be a sacrifice you have the option to make.

 

[knupp715]

No, i miss the TN. i liked the fact there were more types on nukes.

I am going to miss the cruise missiles, they were cool. But I always thought the tactical nuke and the ICBM's were too simaliar. I don't have anything against a new kind of nuke though. For example the hydrogen bomb.

 

[knupp715]

Well, what I've mainly seen people wanting to nuke themselves for is to kill enemies in your territory. If a stack walks past your borders, you should be able to nuke them. Also, if you've got some random soldier next to an enemy city and you want to nuke them, it should be a sacrifice you have the option to make.

I don't have anything against nuking a stack of doom that is sitting in your borders, but nuking your own city, I just don't understand that.

Edit: It does make sense though that they excluded this from the game. I mean do you really think a nation would nuke it's own territory just because there might be a chance that a city might be captured. I understand that a game isn't meant to be 100% realistic or historic, and I'm not saying it should be. I'm just saying it makes sense the game developers excluded nuking your own territory.

 

[Rexflex]

I can't see much reason for your own cities. Perhaps in a very nasty situation where enemy units have massed around the city in question and are about to take it, you might feel the urge to it and take the enemy units with it. But such a method isn't that effective anyway - it will likely leave your city utterly defenceless and subject to invasion by any surviving or out of range enemy units.

I guess the restriction was put in to protect you from making mistakes ("oops, I didn't mean to *that* city") . I'm sure if people really have a problem with that then they can make a mod without that restriction.

 

[knupp715]

I guess the restriction was put in to protect you from making mistakes ("oops, I didn't mean to *that* city") .

This has happened so many times to me. I have accidently nuked an enemy city when I have a stack right next to it. This is also another reason why I agree with the new features.

 

[QiZhe]

I can't see much reason for your own cities. Perhaps in a very nasty situation where enemy units have massed around the city in question and are about to take it, you might feel the urge to it and take the enemy units with it. But such a method isn't that effective anyway - it will likely leave your city utterly defenceless and subject to invasion by any surviving or out of range enemy units.

I guess the restriction was put in to protect you from making mistakes ("oops, I didn't mean to *that* city") . I'm sure if people really have a problem with that then they can make a mod without that restriction.

Then they should've not allowed you to nuke your city as opposed to anywhere in your borders.

For that second part, that's what they have auto-save for.

 

[CornMaster]

If you started nuking your own citys dont you think there would be a civil war? and plus, why would you want to do that, the only reason i see for it is cus you wanna fool around cus you think its "funny"

Or you did it by accident because you thought you hit rebase...

 

[EdCase]

I agree this seems pretty weak. During WW2, our nukes were a LOT less powerful than they are today. And they didn't just wipe out a few buildings and some people. It wiped out everything. Period. That's what a nuke does! If I fire off a nuke on somebody, unless they are in one seriously protected and very deep hole in the ground it should be obliterated. And what about if your unit is there they can't launch! Seriously??? That's just nuts.

Actually more people died from the fallout than from the blast in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both bombs if memory serves were both 1 kilotonne in yield but very very very dirty.

 

[Carver]

Not to be able to nuke anywhere in your territory is bad for gameplay and unrealistic. I think most nuke armed nations would be very willing to nuke rural portions of their country to stop an invasion if they didn't have the conventional forces to stop it. This rule is a disadvantage for smaller civs; they may have fewer units and be more vulnerable to the 'hordes.'

I even think you should be able to nuke your own cities. Suppose you only have one nuke, and one of your cities is surrounded, and you don't have the conventional forces to defeat the attackers. It would be ideal to target your city and inflict damange on all the tiles occupied by enemy units.

 

[knupp715]

Not to be able to nuke anywhere in your territory is bad for gameplay and unrealistic. I think most nuke armed nations would be very willing to nuke rural portions of their country to stop an invasion if they didn't have the conventional forces to stop it. This rule is a disadvantage for smaller civs; they may have fewer units and be more vulnerable to the 'hordes.'

Let's say in a few years (this is just an example) that canada attacks America. Do you really think America is going to nuke there own territory in order to kill some of the Canadian military. In real life, Nuclear weapons are only used as last resorts (the only 2 ever used were on Japan) and I think America would send one over to a Canadian city not to their own territory. Plus the nuclear fallout would last decades and innocent Americans would be dying for years to come. I don't think it's very realistic at all.

I even think you should be able to nuke your own cities. Suppose you only have one nuke, and one of your cities is surrounded, and you don't have the conventional forces to defeat the attackers. It would be ideal to target your city and inflict damange on all the tiles occupied by enemy units.

If you nuked your own city, you would just leave it open for more damage and any of the surviving enemy units would then easily take your city. If you are afraid of losing a city, sell the improvements, and abandon it. Then send a nuke over once that is not your territory anymore (after you abandon the city).

 

[Daniel Jackson]

If I recall, before the development of ICBM's both NATO and Warsaw Pact countries had plans in case of a conventional attack by the other side. I'm not sure about the Warsaw Pact plan, but NATO's last resort, in case they were being overwhelmed by enemy forces, would be to use nukes to keep them from advancing any further. Don't you think some friendly forces would be caught in the ensuing blasts, or non-enemy cities would be engulfed?

Thankfully, this never happened. But I think you should still be able to keep them for a last resort in case you're being overwhelmed.

If you nuked your own city, you would just leave it open for more damage and any of the surviving enemy units would then easily take your city. If you are afraid of losing a city, sell the improvements, and abandon it. Then send a nuke over once that is not your territory anymore (after you abandon the city).

Due to cultural expansion, this may not always be a viable strategy, as the borders would still be over the enemy units.

 

[Carver]

Let's say in a few years (this is just an example) that canada attacks America. Do you really think America is going to nuke there own territory in order to kill some of the Canadian military.

If the Candians had 20,000 armored vehicles and 2000 combat jets and the US had 2000 armored vehicles and 200 combat jets, yes I am quite confident that the US would nuke its own territory if that would wipe out a significant piece of the Canadian force.

Plus the nuclear fallout would last decades and innocent Americans would be dying for years to come. I don't think it's very realistic at all.

The fallout would last but the more important fact is that the country would survive and would not have been conquered. I think any nation would be willing to make this sacrifice.

If you nuked your own city, you would just leave it open for more damage and any of the surviving enemy units would then easily take your city.

Possibly, but you may have enough units to pick off the survivors.

BTW, I like your sig.