Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Ghafhi, Oct 15, 2005.
You should all rent 'Fail-safe', a really cool movie, shot live theater-wise... Great movie.
It wouldn't happen, your nation would turn against you and probably lead a huge exodus. Either that or you'd be kicked out of power if you were a world leader for such behavior. It just wouldn't happen, and it adds tactics to the game - you're not going to go nuking your own armies or allies, so it's sensible to not allow you to do so.
I think the main reason they've included these new limitations is to allow the AI and human player to fight a nuclear war on a more even footing. In Civ III the human always had a big advantage in that he could target whatever he wanted with his nukes, stacks, resource squares, infrastructure and invasion fleets etc, but the AI only ever used nukes against cities.
Taking away the option to hit whatever the human wants adds a difficult dilemma and adds the the "last resort" feeling. I just hope that the AI has had its targeting choices updated too, coz in civ III it often just picked a single city and launched everything it had at it.
I would prefer to have the option to nuke my own territory if needed, but until the AI is prepared to do the same i think i will settle for not being able to do so.
i can buy the balance arguement- but if an invasion force was able to invade your territory with a huge amount of units- unstoppable by your military- it will be alot tougher than in civ3 when you could nuke that stack into oblivion.
I suppose one could simply lose the city- then nuke it, as an alternative approach. I derived great satisfaction nuking invasion fleets.
We can't nuke our own territory? I'm amazed that the makers of the game so completely underestimated the bloodthirstiness of Civ Fanatics!
Although I have to admit that some of you seem almost too eager to find scenarios which provide a plausible reason to reduce your own citizens to atoms.
This is what I was thinking. It's so nice when people take the words out of my mouth. It saves me a whole lot of typing.
And whoever was in power at that time would be out of a job. This would cause so much controversy that...that.... I don't even know. Can you imagine your family or friends being killed by your own governement? Either way, I'm confident the United States would use a nuke as a last resort, and on an enemy city, not their own soil [Sarcasm] (but if Bush was still president I wouldn't put it past him)[Sarcasm].
In the game of Civ4, you are correct. In real life, I'm not so sure any nation would be willing to make that sacrifice.
I would have liked to nuke a city and remember the accomplishments of my spies and crippled units that brought its downfall.
While a little extra work to be sure, can't you simply DISMISS your troops near the enemy city you plan to nuke before nuking it? Perhaps this is a configurable "idiot proof" option in preferences.
If Firaxis is truly getting rid of cruise missiles that is a ridiculous idea on their part. In modern day warfare, the cruise missile is one of the key weapons. Cruise missiles, whether nuclear tipped or with conventional payloads, are critical to modern day navies.
Hope that is one thing that can be modded. In fact, if I can figure it out in the new editor, I will ADDING all kinds of missiles and warheads in the games, like:
Nuclear tipped artillery shells, in NATO and the Soviets' arsenal since the 60's.
Nuclear tipped torpedo's, once again around since the 60's.
Conventional and nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
Neutron bomb, or lethal gas, based warheads, which will destroy units but no infrastructure.
These are just a few of the weapons that would be required for a modern day warfare scenario.
I just hope the editor allows that kind of flexibility.
But if the country get overrun by invaders whoever is in office will be out of a job anyways. Any president has a strong incentive to make sure his government is not overthrown, otherwise he may wind up in jail, on trail, and/or being executed.
But in terms of Civ, this rule makes it harder for smaller civs. A high tech small civ with nukes should be able to defend itself; but these limitations mean that if the small civ is outnumbered and the enemy troops make it to its soil - the small civ is done.
Additionally, if A and B civs are nuke powers, and the war is being fought in A's territory, then A is a huge disatvantage: Civ B can use nukes "on the battlefield" and civ A can't. I don't see how this is good.
Aha! Something to mod that no one will really complain about being modified! The ability to become a dictator that can assault his own cities to quell any ruckus/resisters. I know some have fantasized about slapping around some unhappy citizens.
I hate it when people are really so far into politics they can't even hear what they're saying anymore. It's so far off-topic, and yet obviously needs to be addressed. What you're suggesting is insanity to the max. Can you try to keep your politics off the Civ IV forums?
Firaxis is trying to make this a more balanced games - I guess they figure tac nukes, bio/chem weapons, and nuking enemy troops near your cities(not your cities) will tip the balance towards military solutions. I read alot of what they posted and civ 4 seems to be heavy in the diplomatic/cultural solutions now.
Oh - I think anyone dense enough to nuke their own city should be allowed to do so...and the result should be loss of game. I regret that you cant use tac nukes on a large concentration of enemy troops and the lack of cruise missles for the same. Nuking ones own city would not result in civil war - it would result in Revolution and execution of the former leader for war crimes.
Yes cruise missiles are out of the game, but I am positive somebody will mod them back in.
I'm not far into politics and I am perfectly capable of hearing what I'm saying. It wasn't really that off topic and no, it didn't need to be adressed. I know that Bush wouldn't drop a nuke on the United States. I was simply just making a little joke because I know many people don't like Bush. I had no idea you would take it so seriously. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else with what I said.
Oh dear -- I'm sorry. A sarcastic joke I can understand, but it's so hard to really pick out sarcasm on forums these days without someone spelling it out.
Often with sarcasm brackets
Thanks for the advice Jecrell. I will use the sarcasm brackets from now on. Sorry for the midunderstanding.
Can't nuke my own cities?
Another worry off my mind...
I think the bigger issue is that you can't use nukes inside your borders. It would be pretty extrordinary circumstances that caused you to nuke your own city. It's just not something that's likely to happen. The point is, when you have a nuke, you have the ability to target whatever you want to target. Say a large force is coming up your road, are you telling me you couldn't pillage improvement and slow them down simply because it is in your territory? Of course you can! The same with nukes. If you own it you can target it where you need to, not where some arbitrary rule says you can.
I miss it, too. And although I never nuked my own land in Civ III it should be in Civ IV, too.
The whole thing is a good idea, about the nuking being kind of a "last chance" option.
I think the "cities" in CIV must be considered as sth like the capital of a state in the US for ex. The area between them is filled with small towns, crops and people.
"civilized" govts therefore would rather surrender than nuke their own citizens. But of unfortunately nuking his own land is exactly the kind of stuff that an Hittler could do... so the question is still open. Maybe police state totalitarisms with the "mad statesman" new civic should be allowed to self nuke?
Separate names with a comma.