Nukes

[AutomatedTeller]

As we approach modern times, we have to think about nukes and what to do about them.

They are a massive pain in the ass for us - if you nuke FREE, they grow back faster. if you nuke SABER, their workers clean the pollution faster.

We have the big freaking cities and are a bit more vulnerable.

What I'm wondering is if we should propose a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, where we all agree that if ANYONE builds Manhatten project, that civ becomes a rogue civ and gets attacked by all signatories to the treaty, with nuclear weapons if necessary. Can nukes be made if Manhatten Project is razed?

What do you guys think? Is this a good idea or a bad one? Should we approach it with SABER, SABER and FREE, or all the other civs? Are nukes possibly the best way to deny a culture win by GONG?

 

[donsig]

My first inclination was to let FREE work on its spaceship them we nuke 'em at the last minute and rush in to destroy their capitol and spaceship. Now I am inclined to attack FREE before GONG so we eliminate not only the threat of FREE's launch but the possibility of a future SABER/FREE research alliance.

We should be able to deal with GONG without nukes, especially if we're still friendly with SABER after FREE is neutralized. It seems natural that SABER would help us deal with GONG. So far it looks like keeping Manhatten from the game is good - but I'm not sure how we beat SABER if we stick with them till FREE and GONG are no longer a threat. Hopefully we'd be ahead of them in research and could launch but then that means they'd want nukes whether we had agreed to ban them or not.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

We can also set up prebuilds for nukes, make manhatan and nuke´em all at once! just the main cores of course

 

[Niklas]

SDI?

I agree that a non-proliferation treaty is good. Yes, if the Manhattan Project has been built then you can build nukes, regardless of whether it still stands.

 

[donsig]

Doesn't SDI become available long after nukes? Might come too late to help us.

After sleeping on this I'm still no closer to deciding if a non-proliferation treaty would be good or bad. It certainly would benefit us if nukes were not used. Trouble with such a treaty is anyone can break it and launch a deadly surprise attack as H. Barca pointed out. Another thought is that BABE and GONG will most likely lag behind in tech and not be able to build Manhatten for quite some time. If we dog pile FREE soon then that should also nullify their nuclear threat. That leaves just us and SABER as potential nuclear powers and by the time we get to the point where one of us would want nukes there's be no one else left strong enough to help enforce a non proliferation treaty.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

SDI is available with integrated defense, which is two techs after the last SS part tech. I think it's quite unlikely that we will build it in this game

 

[Paul#42]

I don't like nuking too much. That's where I can't ignore my real life attitude

I think AT is right that they would hurt us most. We should try to get a treaty but we might face rivals that are well aware of our intentions and see their advantage when using them.
Just as in real life. It's most powerful for those who have least to lose...

HB is wrong, after completing Manhattan's the first nukes have to wait another turn because we are not supposed to break into the build sequence. So we all get a one-turn-warning - whatever it's useful for...

 

[donsig]

Well, we can build SAM batteries long before SDI is available, can't we? If we have the most to lose from nukes then we have the most to gain from a no-nuke treaty. Perhaps we should consider trying for such a treaty in the future. We could also just try making some bilateral agreements not to build Manhatten.

 

[Paul#42]

Well, we can build SAM batteries long before SDI is available, can't we? If we have the most to lose from nukes then we have the most to gain from a no-nuke treaty. Perhaps we should consider trying for such a treaty in the future. We could also just try making some bilateral agreements not to build Manhatten.

Can SAMs stop nukes?

 

[donsig]

Can SAMs stop nukes?

I thought they had a chance to stop nukes. All the civlopedia says is Defends against air bombardment. Anyone else know if this city improvement helps defend against nukes?

 

[peter grimes]

I don't know, but I tend to doubt it. After all, a nuke is not air bombardment.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

HB is wrong, after completing Manhattan's the first nukes have to wait another turn because we are not supposed to break into the build sequence. So we all get a one-turn-warning - whatever it's useful for...

One turn is nothing Of course a lot of bombers pre-builds with a couple Carriers is far more deadlier then a couple nukes in the long run