Is my tactic dumb?

[Hal.E]

Hey all,

I am a novice Civ3 player, mostly playing C3C.

When I am conquering someone usually their cities have few population left in them due to my bombing, so instead of keeping them, I nuke them and then abandon them, and as my foes usually do ICS this leaves a polluted buffer between me and my foes.

Obviously I keep the good cities, but the pop1's with low level buildings go kerblewie.

My reasoning behind this is that they will have to clear it up if they want to rebuild cities there, as I usually only go to war to keep my foes down, rather than for victory, thus I wont be expanding into the area.

Thanks!

 

[Delphi456]

There isn't any point in reducing their population below 6 - there defensive bonus kicks in at pop 7.

Assuming you are playing on a level below Emperor, I'd try to keep the towns and starve them down to 1. Otherwise, raize the town for slaves.

 

[bigFRANK]

If that’s how you like to play then carry on, I don’t think it’s a good strategy though.

If you do make nukes (and intend to use them) then use them to kill your opponents massed troops/navy/airforce/nukes rather than as city destroyers alternatively use them to cut of vital supplies that are out of range of your bombers e.g. your enemy only supply of aluminum, or if there importing goods that they cant build units without hit the capitol as melting the roads will effetely break the trade deal.

 

[vmxa]

Nukes are going to trigger global warming and who needs that? Best to win the game before modern age. Also I view all land as mine, so I do not want to nuke it.

 

[GamezRule]

It is better to leave them at a higher population and raze for slaves.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

Just curious, why wait until they are at 1 pop? The nuking reduces population to. The only downside if you arn't going to move into the area is global warming.

 

[Raliuven]

My reasoning behind this is that they will have to clear it up if they want to rebuild cities there, as I usually only go to war to keep my foes down, rather than for victory, thus I wont be expanding into the area.

What is your planned Victory Condition (VC)? Histogrpah? Spaceship? Culture?

Why make all the land unusable? Settle the land yourself and make them into farms if nothing else. If you can't because you are pushing the domination limit, set up some units as sentries. When the AI shows up with a settler on a boat, thank them for the slaves.

Also, if you are planning to do a lot of fighting - with EVERYONE - then let fly. If you planning to hold a UN vote, forget it. The AI's don't like it much when the nukes start flying.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Nukes are going to trigger global warming and who needs that? Best to win the game before modern age. Also I view all land as mine, so I do not want to nuke it.

I also view all land as mine, so I usually keep cities and nuke seldom. After you wipe out their Civ they're OK. You can still farm Scientists and it pays a little more troop support. More cities is almost always good.

Admittedly my military games usually don't go that far and I don't usually invest my shields in the Manhattan Project. I don't like dealing with diplomatic fallout and some stray nuke hitting me.

 

[Slayer88]

If I ever get to the modern age I am usually trying to win by diplo/space race. If I want any kind of military style victory, it is completed before nukes are available. I do not like getting into nuke wars with the AI.

 

[darski]

I think the "Nuke Fever" goes away rather quickly once a newbie gets a couple of games in tow. And we are all grateful for that eh?

 

[Theov]

No it's not dumb.
I wouldn't repeat it though and I think 99% of the people here would agree.

 

[King of Anshan]

The fun thing of nukes is that you can play god, in a way. you could turn plains next to rivers into desert so that you have floodplains!
The game is for fun and if you like to nuke things than its good.

 

[timerover51]

Hey all,

I am a novice Civ3 player, mostly playing C3C.

When I am conquering someone usually their cities have few population left in them due to my bombing, so instead of keeping them, I nuke them and then abandon them, and as my foes usually do ICS this leaves a polluted buffer between me and my foes.

Obviously I keep the good cities, but the pop1's with low level buildings go kerblewie.

My reasoning behind this is that they will have to clear it up if they want to rebuild cities there, as I usually only go to war to keep my foes down, rather than for victory, thus I wont be expanding into the area.

Thanks!

If your strategy works for you, you enjoy doing it, and are having fun playing the game, the no strategy is ever dumb. I have my own style of playing the game which is not like many of the other on the forum, but it works for me.

 

[Ataxerxes]

If your strategy works for you, you enjoy doing it, and are having fun playing the game, the no strategy is ever dumb. I have my own style of playing the game which is not like many of the other on the forum, but it works for me.

I agree. Most ways of playing the game are not dumb. We can just call certain styles "suboptimal". Most of us do something in the game that is suboptimal - witness the thread about our CivIII eccentricities. I'm very big on revenge, myself.