Global Triumph

collateral damage is collateral damage.  The users of said nukes should be more careful with where they aim those weapons.  I'll admit, i'm guilty of accidentally knocking off a few allied units during my nukes, but those were coordinated and I was specifically asked to nuke that spot. 

Also, consider this: if an ally's attacks resolve first, you have this nerf in place, and you had a nuke that was set to strike a base but there's now a truck sitting 2 spaces from it, all of the sudden the nuke can't go off?  I'm sorry, but I just can't honestly agree to that.

If collateral damage becomes so much of a problem, the two parties with treaties should work it out, especially since the nukes if fired by one guy at enemy territory close to the border of the other are most definitely sent as a form of assistance.  If ther'es a concern that it's being used to damage the guy outright, then that just means the guy being hurt by the nukes should break the treaty and prepare to fight back.

Exactly.
However, there is another loophole I can see. If I had a common border with someone, and they were building up and I wanted to hit them but had a treaty, I could vacate a few spaces on the border and pop off nukes. It wouldn't be economical and would radiate more of my own territory, but might cause some damage on the other side too.
However, I'd rather have this happen than have a nuke stop in mid air because it sees a friendly on the ground.

Hell, I think I've even used this one before a couple of times.

I'm fine to keep it the way it is.  Collateral damage will always be a fact of war, and we're already preventing it to a large extent by having a magical forcefield stop direct attacks.

you all keep referring to nukes, but missiles cause collateral damage as well.

I agree though, damage is damage and if you have someone clearing and firing, move off the line a bit...

funny, when we discussed the 21 day wait(to lower it) you said to me you wanted treaties to have a meaning. well with this "flaw", that meaning is crap. Then again you mentioned the drawback, which i agree is a problem.

21 days for someone to exploit this is rough, but honestly, that is primarily a problem if you make a wall of full-strength tanks and turrets on your defense.  A far more economical defense is to scatter a base, airfield, and full strength turret 3 or 4 spaces back from the border and spread them so that there's one group every 7 squares, and then have another line of fortified positions like that 6 squares further behind them.  Prevents this exploit from hurting you, gives a nice passive defense that keeps neighbors from getting too paranoid, and in the case of someone launching a full offensive on you they can't nuke your entire line at once and they have to spend a nuke on each fortified position.  But if you WANT to be absolutely silly and put a full strength line of tanks along borders and the coast of oceans when any jerk-off with a nuke you happened to treaty can just pop one off on the ocean to open up a hole in your defense, well, that's your perogative.  You probably shouldn't have treatied them in the first place if they're going to pull crap like that.

wow so i am supposed to magically know about this loophole b4 i had treatied or join the game.

if you nor your ally are willing to accept casualties or collateral damage then they might as well just quit, because this is a war, and wars cost may human lives

I had 1 airbase, and 2 or 3 bases go missing, not on reports, o signs of being attacked, nothing right? seen them the day before, next day it was gone. then i am told it could be done by treatied players attacking whom they are treatied with. THATS why i brought it up. i experimented it on someone i treatied with, with a missile. it sanked there ship. i know the guy attacking me a few times that day never hit those bases that was there the day b4 or the report would have said so. i could care less if it was accidental but the intent to cheat the 21 day countdown, and it not being on the report is my arguement.

now i was told after i sent the issue to johnny about the possible loophole, that the attack will still show up on the report so idk, but i didnt sell it, i did not imagine it was there.

ok, i didn't realize it wasn't on the battle report.  That's different; treatied or not, yeah, you should know if you get hit.  i'm just saying, collateral damage is tough, but needs to be allowed.

i've had collateral damage appear on my battle report. i've also had nuclear attacks not appear.

when tim left the game he nuked me twice. only one of those attacks showed up though. i got over it, but it was a wtf moment.


as far as the loophole goes, i'd let people exploit it. it's the difference of having friendly fire turned on or off, but i'd rather have it turned on.

The Battle Log only shows units that are attacked, not bases.  It's on the top of my list (and I believe Johnny's) about what needs to be changed.