I think something should be done to stop people who have treaties with each other, nuking their treaty-partners by dropping Nukes in either the sea or unoccupied territory adjacent to units/bases.

At the moment is is not allowed to attack treaty partners directly, so why should it be allowed to use the area effect of Nukes on people you have a treaty with?? (it just makes a total mockery of having any treaties in the first place)

maybe you just shouldn't have a treaty with them.

lol

In order for them to hit your units, you have to keep your units still. If you keep them moving, they only have a 50% chance or so of hitting your units. Waste of $160,000.

or simply keep every unit/base four sectors away from your borders.

This does not work, a player can still target an empty sector even if it controlled by a player they have a treaty with -- borders don't matter.

Look, a nuke is not a precision weapon. The smallest tactical nukes are fairly precise (assuming complete destruction of several city blocks is precise).

Judging by the 6 miles per sector 'rule', the nukes we're throwing here are 1-2 megaton units. That's total destruction around 6 miles and moderate destruction of about 18 miles. [Not taking into account the weird rule that hits on a nuke will reduce it's effectiveness.]

Anyway, the point is a blast/compression/shock wave doesn't care who's units are nearby. It's going to damage them severely. If someone wants to nuke their own land to hit you with overpressure, then that's fine and since they aren't nuking you directly, then it's technically within the treaty limits.

That being said, I think that it would be nice to have the option of immediately ending a peace treaty if and ONLY if, you have two or more units destroyed by fire from a treaty holder.

I think that's fair and it probably wouldn't come up too often. If it's made as a test within the bomb code, then it shouldn't slow the server hardly at all.

now that is an issue... I don't really know how to answer this except to make it so even unoccupied friendly sectors can't be targeted?

I agree with this.

in order to get rid of some of my units that weren't anywhere near a base, i vacated a sector in the middle of the units and then nuked it. units disappeared.

if it can work on your own units, then it can work on anyone's units.

This has already been discussed. Collateral damage is simply a fact of life with bombs. The drawbacks to modifying the game to disallow collateral damage because of treaties are far too problematic (either preventing attacks on enemies that should certainly be possible or having collateral damage magically not effect friendly units).

Nukes will not be launched at a sector owned by someone with whom there's a treaty, so all that can be targeted are units and bases near the edge of your land. I don't really think it's much of an issue.

then there should be an option to say screw waiting on the count down of a treaty and just get with the war.

with this exploit, i see no use for treatys

which brings me back to my original statement: simply keep every unit/base four sectors away from your borders.

that is a great idea for someone that is playing a different game. keeping your units away from the border means you don't expand.

Did you make this change to the code? Right now this is not a true statement.

No, it's always been coded this way, ever since treaties were added to the game. No attacks will be processed if the target sector is owned by someone with whom you have a treaty.

But as the sea is owned by nobody, every seabase can be nuked, whether you have a treaty or not, making treaties worthless in respect to any Naval unit....

If you are complaining about someone using a $160,000 expendable unit to kill a $2500 navy base, I am missing the argument... Let me do the calculation. If I assume he attacks and kills my $2500 navy base and the $2500 construction truck I used to make it, I spend $100,000 per day doing this, he will have to use 20 nukes at a cost of $3.2million. Why are we complaining?

I had that thought as well, Black. And I agree - the only time I can see this as an acceptable strategy is if you have SO much income that wasting $160k is nothing to you - and Cerato seems the only map that'd be true on.

Frankly, there's ways around it was well. Have a CT sitting 4 sectors off the shore, and at the end of the day move it to the shore, build the navel base, build the units, move them out to see and move. Then attack the CT 4 sectors off. 50% chance of success that you'll get the units and lose nothing compared to the cost of what they'd be spending IF they catch what you are doing.

having 60mil on cerato makes nukes fairly cheap and easy.

With 60M, a person could purchase 375 nukes. You couldn't even fill up four air bases. On the other hand, a person could purchase 24,000 bases with 60M.

It's a complete waste of cash to spend 160K to destroy a few thousand dollars worth of property. It's a non-issue.