Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
I always play humanity first and go full eco. Theres no reason not to use them in my opinion. As long as you dont nuke your own country they offer no adverse effects. If anything being able to nuke all alien armies upon landing is to op. Even if you turn your own country into a massive wasteland with constant nukings you can easily recover. The malus from nukes is almost nothing and they dont even kill any pops. Its a joke. Nukes should at least do some pop dmg. You just nuked a capital and nothing? Most human population today is concentrated in cities and towns so logically a nuclear barrage on a capital that contains 10%+ of a countries people would kill nearly 10% of the country instantly.
Also 100 trillion gdp india or china earns like 150k research points so you really dont need anything but them. With those 2 countries the aliens also can never get enough pop to win. I get Mil tech to 9 by 1940s with 200k+ research and over 100t gdp in either. without ever making a single ship or space base. You cant lose if the aliens literally cant land so theres no reason to rush space at all. Not like you can even do anything to the aliens with trash tech anyway.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1176470/discussions/0/3361398331730076933/
No reason to start a nuclear apocalypse that could be avoided - we should burn xenos and not each other.
So yes, early war is all the way. Aliens lacking a presence of Earth orbit => they will never invade us.
No logic here. First - you aren't going to launch nukes unnoticed. Second - nukes aren't "magic balls of death", their destruction capabilities are quite limited in real life. To be really sure that those 10% of population'd died - you will need to launch many barrages (both IRL and in game).
You're confusing nukes used to defend yourself (against invading armies) with strategic nukes (to attack enemy regions & armies). Last are faaaar from being harmless
Depends on the nuke you are using. Tactical nuclear bombs are no match for strategic nuclear bombs. The tactical ones are designed to blow up tank divisions or an aircraft carrier group.
Strategic bombs are those who wipe out cities. If you see what one of the first bombs did to Hiroshima, then it is no far stretch to say that now - almost 80 years later - we have bombs available that are 3,000 times as strong as the bomb on Hiroshima... The biggest nuclear bomb was Tsar-Bomba - 4,000 times as strong!
Just imagine what this would mean for a city like Tokyo, New York, Paris, or Mexico City...
Also, I would argue that there isnt a lot of time if somebody launches a missile. Depending on the launch area and on the target, maximum under one hour flight time for an intercontinental ballistic missile. If launched from a submarine close by the shore, it might be as close as ten minutes until the warhead goes off.
And we dont have any protection as like as during the cold war. Not that it would matter much, since an experiment showed that even 100 people in a shelter that was capable for keeping 3,000 people alive for six months, got crazy after 3 days and they had to stop the test. Vandals destroyed the bathrooms and such...
Not only that, but: Radiation would be still very high. So radiation sickness is a huge thing, even if you take your iodine pills. Still, you will be very sick after some days, and you will have to deal with a burned down infrastructure, power shortage/no electrical devices working, you will not have shelter, food, drinkable water... I am not even talking about the medical infrastructure.
You can use farming as a source to feed people, and you will not have any other chances. Otherwise people will die of hunger. But then again: Radiation doses will be a problem, and people will get seriously sick and die after short time after consuming that food. And those who will survive, will develop cancer.
And new borns will die or will have malformations.
The launch of multiple nukes against a country/continent can also lead to a nuclear winter. Sunlight will have a tough time to reach the ground --> no plants! --> animals will die --> no food for us.
And again, radiation levels... Not only in the ground, but also in the atmosphere, and the water.
So I argue you shouldnt use nukes. Neither in the game, nor in real life. And in the game, I would say it would be only realistic if the casualties would be much higher.
Tactical / strategic is mostly based on delivery vessel and absolutely unrelated to it power.
Neglible damage. Even bridge directly below the explosion was intact. Fire caused by explosion destroyed most of city - because it was made from wood but not explosion itself.
Except if you stop dreaming and look on unclassified data about US & USSR bombs - they both reduced average power of warhead with advancement of guidance systems. That's by a reason - physics laws (better to install several warheads instead of single powerful one - it will have a bigger zone of total destruction).
Yean, yean. Why waste time for imagination? Go for declassified plans - usually big city had several dozens of targets. Because one nuke isn't enough.
Sigh. Three days will already reduce local radiation ~100 times. It will save countless amount of lives.
Only if enemy will use nukes in a most inefficient way (for destoying their targets) - in ground explosions. Air explosions of modern fusion bombs are mostly harmless & same for ground-penetrating mutions (they're very dirty but 99+% of their fallout will be undeground so technically they're very safe and clean).
It doesn't. Latest explosion of volcano have a power magnitute higher then combined peak US&USSR nuclear arsenals. Nothing major happened - a few cold winters and that's all.
Yes and no. For a tactical usage you don't need and don't want a big nuke which could be a problem for your own army sooner or later and for strategic nukes if you can't blast a small city away why would you even put that into an ICBM ?
Lol, do you have a source for it ? Because it seems completly wrong... Even in the current age plenty of village or even cities are isolated for weeks/months and people don't go mad XD. Someone even tried to make people go mad by isolating them in the worse conditions, and just made them best friends for ever (cf: Acali Raft, more known under the name of "s.x raft", read about it, it's very funny).
So, unless the shelter is VERY badly designed or the people inside are very unstable it has good chances of working as intended.