Why are there no games where you can use the full spectrum of tactical nuclear weapons in a 1950s-1960s setting?

Why are there no games where you can use the full spectrum of tactical nuclear weapons in a 1950s-1960s setting?
I'm sick of the fucking cold war fearmongering "NUCLEAR WAR IS LE END OF LE WORLD". Limited nuclear exchanges and tacnukes are cool and I want to be able to use.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >limited nuclear exchanges

    lol

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Casual nuclear holocaust!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Soviets intended to use tactical nukes at first. It was the Americans who immediately went full MAD apocalypse mode

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bullshit, American tactical nukes were in the cards for a land invasion of Japan.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >NUCLEAR WAR IS LE END OF LE WORLD
    Unfortunately, anon people will always think this until we get an actual nuclear war. It's still weird that people think this though, considering 2 nuclear bombs have been detonated in anger, and at least 100 have been detonated in experiments, yet we still live

    Anyways anon, I'm still upset that there is not a single game that does ancient naval battles properly, they always make you micro manage 10+ ships which is not fun, nor is it of an awesome scale. I would love to see just one game have units of multiple ships that then duke it out using real naval tactics. But I guess every strategy game must give up scale for the player to micromanage everything

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Okay, then explain how reastically a nuclear war wouldn't have awful consequences. The fact that 2 nuclear bombs were detonated when that technology was new and no one else had nukes and that hundreds were detonated in controlled conditions doesn't mean that a current-day serious nuclear war would be something you'd be able to shrug off.

      War is in the end a extension of politics, and nuclear weapons are used as a strong argument, not something to actually use

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >current-day
        Read the OP again.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >War is in the end a extension of politics
        someone needs to read marx

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Awful consequences != End of the world. Even a full out nuclear war would probably at best (worst) set the civilization a century or so back if all second-order consequences hit as much as possible, and a limited one will be basically shrugged off with some quality of life hits save for the country getting nuked.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Even a full out nuclear war would probably at best (worst) set the civilization a century or so back if all second-order consequences
          you're legitimately retarded

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, even if the destruction of the biggest cities in the countries at war causes complete breakdown of logistics and infrastructure networks in the countries that were not targeted - an unlikely occurrence in the first place, in my opinion - the situation will stabilize in about a decade or so with population and technology level of the first half of 20th century.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              While the nuclear taboo is in effect it is very difficult to use nuclear weapons. It is probably not in my interest to spend lots of resources acquiring an expensive paperweight. If someone uses a nuclear warhead and particularly if they then win, it becomes an urgent necessity for me to acquire a nuclear weapon of my own to produce deterrence. This produces many more nuclear armed states, which in turn makes the further use of nuclear weapons much more likely.

              The end of the nuclear taboo also makes it much more likely for any two hostile nuclear armed states to use nuclear weapons against each other. With the nuclear taboo in effect it is not in my interest to use nukes, because I know I can live an un-nuked life that way. With the nuclear taboo gone the situation changes: I now know that my only way to avoid a nuclear strike by my enemies is to preempt them with a successful first strike.

              In other words the more nuclear weapons are used the greater will be the interest in acquiring nuclear weapons and the less the inhibitions against using nuclear weapons. It can lead to a death spiral where city after city gets demolished.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                While nuclear taboo getting broken doubt will undoubtedly lead to nuclear weapons used more often, I do not think it will cause a death spiral. After the first few rounds, both the international relationships and the infrastructure will adapt to the new reality and just keep trucking on.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >2 nuclear bombs have been detonated in anger, and at least 100 have been detonated in experiments, yet we still live
      >these are equivalent to all out nuclear war
      Dumbass

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you seem to have forgotten what the M and D in MAD stand for

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what are atomic veterans

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We going for Nuclear war on Ukraine and once everyone see that is nothing, just a little bigger bomb then the world will be free to manufacture and use them to replace normal bombs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, entire world will let that slide and won't nuke russia in response. Limited nuclear exchange works only if you are the sole holder of nukes, otherwise it is free for all the moment first nuke lands.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So? when nukes actually happen you people will see how much propaganda that whole nuclear winter bs was, is just a stronger bomb nothing more than that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it will, just like it did nothing in response to other no-no munitions. Nobody's glassing half the planet over some monkey man throwing a fit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >we

      Shouldn't you be dodging mobilisation right now Roman

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He never leaves his mom's basement, so they will never be able to give him the mobilization notice.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >NEETs escape draft while normalfags are being sent to certain death
          Based if true

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Davy Crockett
    RUSE gave you an atomic howitzer. Fun as all hell.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly RUSE did do a good job at implementing tactical nuke exchanges. Considering how a single one could wipe out a huge group of even the heaviest units, you had to tip-toe around dealing with them, which was a nice switchup to the already unique gameplay.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't the concept of tactical nukes abandoned because the Soviets stated that they would treat any use of such weapons the same as an actual first strike and would respond in full force?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Wasn't the concept of tactical nukes
      Nukes are only tactical in their application, or strategical. But given that ANY use of nuclear force would ultimately change up the entire strategic situation of the conflict, there is no such thing as a "tactical" nuke. Though I will admid we usually use the term instead of low yield nuke, you know what low yield nukes are today? Still pretty big due to warhead limitations causing people to abandon the old bullshittery of "small" nuclear weapons that don't even fit the combat situation a modern war provides.
      Would a nuclear war cause us to be a death world? No, but the notion that an all out nuclear war would just be some minor incovinience that we will be able to shrug off that some people seem to peddle today is total and utter bullshit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Tactical nukes as in lower yield nukes used to contain the enemy in one concrete area, like AAMs to disable a whole bomber formation at once.
        >that don't even fit the combat situation a modern war provides.
        I was talking about the cold war because even back then the Soviets afaik made it pretty clear that they wouldn't conform to the American idea of a contained use of nuclear weaponry.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nta, but this sort of logic is precisely why there is no such thing as "tactical" nuke: it instantly leads to escalation, because you face a choice of doing nothing (encouraging yet another nuking) OR you retaliate, and that cause escalation.
          Tactical nukes are Korean War-era wet dream about just killing half a million Chinks with a single bomb. Guess what didn't happen.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nta, but this sort of logic is precisely why there is no such thing as "tactical" nuke
            Yeah no shit, my original post was about how that idea was abandoned because they realized it wouldn't quite work like that IRL.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What are you talking about, there's tons of games that include tactical nukes. For example, The Soviets in Red Alert have it as their special ability.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    im suck of 1980s cold war settings

    give me a good cold war game set in the early 1960s. nerve gas rockets. F-105s dropping tactical nukes etc...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      fucking this. the late 50s and early 60s were peak cold war

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cuban Missile Crisis, on Blitzkrieg engine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I always thought that tactical nukes were just engineers falling in love with their new gimmick and trying to shove it absolutely everywhere they could, even if it wasn't a good fit.
    What logistical/strategic/economic advantage do they have of conventional weapons for the same job?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Much higher yield in a much smaller frame, pic rel had a yield of 1.5 kt

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are you kidding? The obvious example is stationary targets like an air base. Hit that thing with one tactical nuke and it's completely gone and unusable for the rest of the war. If you use conventional missiles, however, your results will vary by a huge margin depending on many factors.

      And using them against formations and fleets is another obvious advantage. You could launch a massive raid on a carrier battle group using standoff missiles fired from bombers and, again, your results will depend on many factors. You might sink some escorts or sink nothing or sink the carrier if you're lucky. But what if you used nuclear tipped missiles instead? In that case, you'll almost certainly at least damage the carrier enough that it's no longer combat effective, even if you don't land a direct hit - the intense heat and shockwaves and EMP and all that will probably fuck the carrier up enough that it can no longer do its job, like shit melting and snapping and bending. Of course, if you hit anywhere near it, it's just fucking gone.

      And the same goes for formations. Let's say you know an enemy infantry unit is dug in on a certain hill. They're shooting mortars at you. You just don't know where the actual mg nests and their exact locations are. You can try to carpet it with artillery and that will work to an extent, but if you landed a few tac nukes on that hill, that unit's done.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    World in Conflict had fun tactical nukes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I want to replay it but my setup died just a few weeks ago and the replacements are slow coming. Multiplayer was amazing too with good teammates and deploying or not deploying nuclear weaponry was a big part of the strategy in that game. Sad it only gets about one full 8v8 lobby a day or so, and only at peak time.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It has to be the best looking RTS ever made with the combat itself combined with the fire support options. I wish there would be a sequel but I feel like they'd just make some disappointing failure.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Civ 3-5
    >Rise of Nations
    >Command and Conquer

    OP is a zoomer moron and hasn't played any game older than 2010.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's actually pretty funny to me that Civ games have one of the better representations of useful tactical nukes.
      >cheaper to build
      >low damage but easy use
      >easy to relocate and can't be intercepted
      so you just lob a few at a city/army before sending in mech/armor/helis to take it.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    C&C Generals did this to some extent, China had tactical nuke migs in the expansion IIRC, tactical artillery in the main release, a full scale ICBM style nuke, and some others like exploding reactors and nuclear tanks. It even had a nuke general with specialized units

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Agreed. Nuclear war is overrated.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Remember that time India and Pakistan had a conventional war despite both being nuclear-armed states? Remember how everyone said such a thing surely couldn't be possible prior to it happening?
    >inb4 "yeah but they'd have started using nukes if things got truly dire"
    You don't know that and can't know that and it doesn't matter either way. A conventional war was had and no nukes were used despite being available.

    Either way, if a country uses a nuke first, they're completely damned. There is no excuse for it that will save them. Anyone and everyone will use it as a completely justified pretense to take something from that country.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery
    VGGGGGHHHHH
    the 1950's were SOVL

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *