A question about nukes and counter-missile

[TRP]

A small question to the AOD devs on behalf of our mod 1964. We are planning on making a full conversion for AOD set in an alternate timeline cold-war, and as is usual for a Cold War there will be nukes. I would like to ask: Has AOD changed how HOI handles nukes? And is there any system in place that would allow us to mod in antiballisticmissiles? Ie a way to destroy nuclear missiles before they hit.

Any info would be greatly appreciated. Regards

-TRP

 

[Lennartos]

The system is still just as it was in HOI2 you would have to shoot down the ICBM / v2 to prevent the nuke from hitting.

I can see a few solutions to that issue, as it from a gaming perpective was an addition to province AA(Spartan / Sprint missile).
For example i guess a new province building that has a chance to shoot down V1/V2s as they enter neighboring provinces would be a good idea here.

 

[Kahless]

Isn't the point of nukes is that they cant be shot down. It's 2010 and the technology is just starting to go past the testing stage.

 

[Lennartos]

Isn't the point of nukes is that they cant be shot down. It's 2010 and the technology is just starting to go past the testing stage.

Actually the technology has been developed and proved since the 60'ies..
Sure, they interception rate can be discussed, especially as they where never needed, but they work in princippe. (one of the reasons nuclear subs where so interesting, no chance of intercepting those)
look for example at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

The reason for the lack of defence would rather be due to the "The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972" and the relative peace we have archieved due to the mutual destruction situation.
As the wiki states it:
"Technical difficulties aside, an odd anti-ABM argument developed: that no defense at all was better than any defense. Namely, a false sense of security might encourage ABM-defended nations to escalate against minor threats, believing they would be protected against any response. By this reasoning, simply starting to deploy such a system could prompt a full-scale attack before it could become operational and thereby render such an attack useless. This curious set of arguments implied that it couldn't possibly work, but if it did that would be even worse."

 

[TRP]

Well this idea comes from a gameplay perspective. In a modern-day cold war gone hot it makes more sence to have maybe 50% of nukes to fail target depending on the tech levels of the warring powers than to have them all hit turning entire nations into ruins

 

[Talar]

The early ICBM:s would probably have a very high failure percentage regardless of ABM:s (at least the Soviet ones, I don't know about american). For a long time much of the Soviet ICBM capacity was a bluff that the US believed since they did not have good enough intelligence. The US relied more on their bomber fleet to deliver nukes during the early cold war.

Source for the above is Wilhelm Agrell, Maskerad Front (only available in swedish as far as I know).

 

[Sturmwrath231]

Once you bring MIRVs into the picture, interception is a bit of a wash.

 

[unmerged(12556)]

And don't forget that nuclear tipped ABMs would cause huge EMP damage to their own counties, and after a few were detonated likely disable the radars guiding them.

While I like the fact that there is a clear effort to improve the nuclear modeling in the game, for me it's in the "nice to have" category not in the "needed to make it worthwhile" category.

 

[Dichromate]

And don't forget that nuclear tipped ABMs would cause huge EMP damage to their own counties, and after a few were detonated likely disable the radars guiding them.

No necessarily.
Firstly, some attempt to shield most military electronics is usually made, but possibly more importantly, depending on *when* this exchange is going to be taking place it may well not matter that much, since vacuum tubes are considerably less vulnerable to electromagnetic pulses then transistors and diodes.