Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobhack
At this scale it would be like popping a live hand grenade into your opponents shorts during a wrestling match... i.e. game over, for both sides.
Therefore completely pointless.
Andy
|
Not even close. Tactical nukes = high yield but low damage devices. They were people-killers, but did not damage hardware.
You can read about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuke
Tactical nukes included land mines and artillery shells that were nukes. They could be used to deny the enemy the use of certain areas (like roads, tunnels, etc) or they could be used to take out a column of tanks without destroying the tanks themselves. Tactical Nukes can be used on the battlefield, they're mobile (ie tactical) can be man-portable, suit case size, launched from a tank, etc. like radation bombs, dirty bombs.. that can take out enemy convoys while leaving their vehicles intact.
It would NOT automatically be "game over" for both sides. What you are describing would be STRATEGIC nukes that employ large warheads. Not having them in SPMBT takes away a reality that existed during the Cold War. And it detracts from the realism that would be present if they were included.
It may be inconvenient to include them in the game, but it certainly would be realistic to have them. The US had definite plans to use them if the waves of Soviet tanks were overwhelming. It could be a "game option" to have them and it could be set up where, if you were playing against a human, both would have to agree to use them or not. And it could also be set up where the war escalated to the use of strategic weapons and THEN...game over for everyone.
See my point?
Tactical nukes?
Re: Tactical nukes?
Linear Mode
