Nuke Question - Why 1 Off??

[chadxo]

Thanks to all that helped with my last post. I've been watching the TMIT youtube video and he was dropping Nukes (which I"ve never used), and he seemed to drop them all one square off the city he was attacking... Why wouldn't you hit the city directly?

 

[Ghpstage]

Damage from nukes is the same in all tiles affected, it you intend to attack a city with one, it doesn't matter if its right on top or next to it.
There are possible reasons to nuke outside a city, most likely would be that tactical nukes were used and lacked the range to hit the city directly, but equally it could be to kill units 2 squares away from the city or destroy improvements while still hitting the city.

 

[Mantic0re]

In those vids he places them for a few reasons: (rephrase some of what ghpstage said)


1. Range on the tactical nuke allows for one off but not directly on the city
2. Destroy improved tiles in addition to city garrison (oil, uranium, aluminum)
3. Ensure nearby enemy units outside the city take damage
3. Avoid hitting your own troops
4. Avoid hitting helpful AI troops (I think the game makes this impossible by limiting target options)
5. Limiting fall-out spread. This will be your land soon and you'll have to clean it to make it worthwhile. TMIT put nukes on water tiles so that fewer land tiles are covered in toxic waste. Thankfully water pollution was not programmed into this game.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Thankfully water pollution was not programmed into this game.

If it were programmed, then we'd probably have a situation like:
"Your Work Boat has been consumed in the endeavour of cleaning up the toxic waste in the ocean."

If only it were that easy...

 

[2metraninja]

I never dropped a single nuke in civ4 either, and was not hit by one neither, but I can think of one more reason for not hitting directly the city (I might be totally wrong, but it may turns out exactly the way I think it works)

If the enemy have SDI defense, I think it will protect the city from rocket hit, but it cant do anything about radioactive dust and hitting wave of nearby nuke explosion.

 

[Mantic0re]

I don't know anything about nuclear reactor explosion chances. I assume chances are higher in a city revolt.

SDI reduces the chances a nuke will hit it's target. Basically it increases the hammer:damage ratio. It should affect all nukes over the enemy border and I believe it stops something like 75% of all nukes fired.

If I'm warring that late I try:
1. dropping enough nukes that the SDI cannot be built
2. capturing the city containing that wonder.
3. A lot more nukes. (this was frustrating)
4. More conventional warfare combined arms. (bomber, arty, MI, etc,etc)

 

[2metraninja]

According to one booklet (and I believe Civilopedia too)

SDI - in all cities +75% chance of intercepting Nukes

Someone experienced with nukes can say if it is the case.

 

[ManiaMuse]

I think in that game TMIT was using tanks to 2-move capture the empty cities.

Fallout gives a 2 movement point penalty which means tanks can only move 1 square in enemy territory crossing fallout. So TMIT nuked the tiles one away so he wouldn't have to cross the fallout and could capture the cities in 1 turn.

 

[jwez11007]

@ 2metraninja

The 75% interception is accurate for ICBMs i.e. only ~25% make it through SDI. Tactical nukes have an evade chance of 50% which IIRC results in a 62.5% chance of hitting. Basically once SDI comes into play tac nukes become way more hammer effective if you can properly deploy them.

 

[2metraninja]

Yes, but is it covering the whole territory of given player, or just the city tiles itself?

 

[jwez11007]

IIRC SDI affects any nukes that fall within range of striking an enemy unit who's civ has built it, whether or not they are in their culture or cities.

 

[Fleme]

^Yep, that's correct. I've shot nukes at ships and had them intercepted on international waters away from any cultural borders.

 

[kossin]

Thankfully water pollution was not programmed into this game.

Actually yes it was, I think the feature that refers to it is called 'Sitting Bull'.

 

[gilmore606]

Wow, you guys actually take nuked territory? I only use nukes for two reasons: spite, or stopping a runaway opponent when I'm near some victory condition. I have never tried invading the resulting wastelands.

 

[Camikaze]

Wow, you guys actually take nuked territory? I only use nukes for two reasons: spite, or stopping a runaway opponent when I'm near some victory condition. I have never tried invading the resulting wastelands.

Well if you're going for conquest or domination it makes plenty of sense to gobble up any enemy territory, no matter how much of a wasteland it is.

 

[kossin]

Wow, you guys actually take nuked territory? I only use nukes for two reasons: spite, or stopping a runaway opponent when I'm near some victory condition. I have never tried invading the resulting wastelands.

I once annihilated a Deity AI in 1 turn of war with nukes. It was quite fun.
Once you've beaten everybody... who cares what quality your land and cities are in?

 

[Mantic0re]

me


hence, peacemonger

 

[ManiaMuse]

What I find silly about nukes is that you are allowed to nuke your own units and cities, but not friendly ones.

 

[kossin]

What I find silly about nukes is that you are allowed to nuke your own units and cities, but not friendly ones.

You can't nuke your own territory iIrc.

As for 'friends', just DoW then 'em

The worst part is when you are blocked from nuking because there is a 'friendly' spy in target tiles.

 

[gilmore606]

I have a Monarch game going right now, random map random leader, where I found myself on a big island by myself (but with water contact to other civs). Been peacefully building and techtrading, with Fission as my beeline target for the entire game. The plan is to lever up an industrial economy and then nuke the hell out of the whole world. I've just built the manhattan project and am peaceful with all civs, although I'm near the bottom of the score rank. I'll let you know how it goes.