are nukes nessesary?

[Kaiser Franz]

I was for a time ok with the fact of nukes being in the HoI games, but now after i watched a programm made by the BBC in the 1960's about a Nuke attack on the UK. It scared the **** out of me. I feel now that maybe it is a bad idea to have such a destructive weapon featured on the game!

Actaully i am not sure if it is a good idea to get rid of it. I guess its just my current feeling on the subject right now. but then again i know its only a game and its not real etc.

In fact i would like your opinions on this subject.
i know this is possibly a silly post but its an interesting subject that i want other peoples opinions on.
Thanks any way for taking time to read this post!

 

[Shadow Knight]

Well I can understand your fear of a nuclear weapon, but this is a war game. War is by its nature not a nice and happy thing. Whether it involves killing millions by bullets and bombs or in the flash of a single nuke it is still a bad way to go.

I support the nuke being in (hopefully redone a bit to make it less unbalancing).

 

[Sir Humphrey]

Nuclear weapons should be in the game. Say for example, you are playing a relatively historical game as the US. Would you rather nuke Japan or luanch and invasion?(Alright maybe it would be more fun, but harder). What about if hypothetically you were Germany and decided to nuke moscow?

But yes, you make a valid point, nukes should be toned down abit, for gameplay perposes.

 

[SecondReich]

Yes nukes are necessary. If only so you can look at the 40 German divisions being destroyed and say

 

[unmerged(6766)]

Nukes are not necessary.

To be historical, yes they should be available, but they would have to be given special properties, as currently they do nothing but blow up a province -- even unhistorically as was mentioned by destroying 40 divisions at once (What if those divisions were intersperesed in one huge Siberia province?.)

Of course I have problems with nukes in the real world, but in the game, I'm fine with them. Except that they are not modeled correctly. Also the research tree is very out of place with the rest of the techs - no overlapping techs etc.

If you want to be historical US, or a Germany that has acquired the bomb - what consequences can the game handle to represent these situations?

 

[Poorlaggedman]

it really doesnt make sense why they are so shunning of chemical weapons here but they have nukes in the game. I'm not saying im for chemical weapons at all i dont see how they can say that and act like nukes are no big deal. Nuclear bombs dont descriminate. They wipe out the entire population of a province in the game. The effects of nuclear bombs in real life is horrifying. Anyone who says nukes are more humane is full of it. Nukes do horrible things to people, give them terrible burns. Does anyone here know what its like to die from radiation? I dont think so. Also there's the fact that you can practice genocide using nuclear bombs in HoI if you have a grudge against certain provinces. There was a movie made during the cold war, i dont remember the name but it was based around a certain area of the united states that got nuked during a nuclear war. anarchy, canibalism, and widespread suffering of the survivors is almost a certainty of using a nuclear bomb. they are totally hypocrites to ban the subject of chemical weapons in these forums but have nukes in the game.

Dying of asphyxiation on a relatively limited scale > anihilation of several square miles of men, women, children, infants then the slow and horrible death of many of the survivors plus the devastation caused by the chaos afterward? Nukes blind people too you know and cause the same scale of burns and wounds.

Like i said im definantely not for putting more of these nasty weapons in the game. You guys do know we were stockpiling chemical weapons to spray over Japanese cities for an invasion though? So arguing that nukes are somehow historical is silly as there are ahistorical situations where other dirty weapons could have been used but never were.

I think they should try putting the nuke into the game in some other way besides dropping the bomb. Maybe a race to get the nuke and whoever gets the nuke wins? The nuke was basically a winning weapon. How long do you think Germany would have held up against a nuclear bomb? Using it like a conventional weapon in HoI isnt very realistic. The panic caused by that weapon was total, not too many country's would have been ok with a nuke attack. Some believe Japan would have surrendered even if the second bomb didnt get dropped after the first one.

There needs to be a way to sabatoge each other's research btw or some jerk could just go for the nuke and chill defending


They should make it so you make a nuke, then you can choose choose a country to attack it with and the means of attacking and if its successful then that country either surrenders immediately, or has very severe penalties, such as dissent/less efficient industry. And maybe it takes more than one nuke before the country surrenders. Think of what a nuke would do to the morale of the troops knowing another bomb could be dropped on their head?

A non-nuke treaty would also be a very good idea and maybe could give you a warning if you were about to be nuked so you could respond and lower your enemy's score if they win or win yourself. Some cool clock and alarm could go off on the screen with a countdown.

I'm just recommending that because i know nobody is gonna stand for nukes being taken out but they should really be given a different use than just point clikc - Boom i wiped out an entire province. No effect on the enemy besides the physical destruction.

 

[Sindai]

Nukes should probably be much less destructive against troops, not 100% destructive against infrastructure (or maybe have a selector on whether to target troops or infrastructure), but impose a big dissent jump on the target country.

Also, perhaps make it so that the AI is more likely to surrender the higher its dissent is.

That seems like the most historical/realistic course of actoin to take.

 

[unmerged(21103)]

Nuclear Choices

The nuclear weapons of the WWII era were no where near as bad as today but still nasty enough. They should remain in the game but I would appreciate a choice on the attack. ie. Tactical or strategic attack. With the size of provinces
You really can't wipe it all all with one weapon. A tactical attack would target troops and strategic cities/infrastructure.

 

[unmerged(33970)]

The reason why the world enjoy peace for the last 60 years more or less got to do with nuclear weapon. Because of the M.A.D theory, all countries r scared of total annilation of mankind. If it has not been for nuclear, there will still be many wars going on, though there r still some but on a lower scale.

The cold war spans some time whereby the USA and USSR fight on neutral territories. Nobody expects the Soviet Union to collapse but it dissolved naturally in the late 90s. The battle of egypt which held the world at its throat and many others. Today, we have north korea whom definitely have the capability to launch a nuclear war. Because of the fear of nuclear threats, sadly the solution is not easy.

Nowadays hydrogen bombs r much more powerful than the atom bomb last seen on hiroshima and nagasaki. With the sword of damascus hanging over our head, than comes the role of important leaders in the world.

World peace is indeed a good thing but we will just have to take things as it comes. Read on times that the US missile defence system got its loopholes as in that the Russians have developed a technology whereby upon launching a bomb, the bomb has a high capability of spliting into different smaller bombs thus the defence system will be unable to shoot down all the bombs such as the kind of ICBM.

Fully understand the threadstarter's agony. Any person who has been to the museum in germany and the infamous cambodia's concentration camps will definitely not wish nor understand how such things could have happened.

Let us enjoy peace while it still lasts. In fact, I have read of a 'big country' that if it wants to attack another major power in the world, all it has to do is shout the word 'sell' on the phone and by selling all the treasury bonds of another country, that country's economy will definitely take a big hit.

Read on history books about the great depression and how it all came. Banks down, people laid off, shops close cause consumer spending down as in a vicious cycle. Just have to take things as it goes I guess.

In the game, nuclear is definitely especially forts and large armies r a big problem. The war against russia is more of an easier task when one has nuclear as only need to take down 5 places and can just focus on defence on borders and push forward from finland into leningrad than to Moskva and another line from beneath Baku upwards till stalingrad than magnitogorsk.

Whatever damage is done is done already. World war 2 happens long before any of us r born. Whatever our forefathers have done, let us smoke the pipe of peace and live together. My country was occupied by one of the axis party too and blood had been spilled. However, if one lives with the sort of hatred than it will be very hard to be happy.

Just forgive but do not forget.

Cheers

 

[unmerged(33970)]

During the actual world war 2, the Japs had refused to surrender if not for the atom bombs. The code of chivalry and samurai spirit lives in them for it has just been a short period since Jap learnt to modernise from the Portugese. Many commited hara-kiri instead. Look at the number of zero fighters which took part in the kamikaze attacks.

In drastic time, we need drastic measures. Chinese have a saying' kill one to warn a hundred' .

Let it pass.

 

[unmerged(33077)]

Nukes are not necessary.

To be historical, yes they should be available, but they would have to be given special properties, as currently they do nothing but blow up a province -- even unhistorically as was mentioned by destroying 40 divisions at once (What if those divisions were intersperesed in one huge Siberia province?.)

Of course I have problems with nukes in the real world, but in the game, I'm fine with them. Except that they are not modeled correctly. Also the research tree is very out of place with the rest of the techs - no overlapping techs etc.

If you want to be historical US, or a Germany that has acquired the bomb - what consequences can the game handle to represent these situations?

I agree with you. Nukes need to be modelled differently. A single WWII era weapon cannot destroy all of NY state. It probably couldn't even destroy everything in Manhattan.

The one thing everyone seems to forget in discussing Nukes in the game is their historical context. Nobody really knew exactly what they would do. Yes the US had done one test of a device, but one test does not give definitive answers to all the questions. Truman really didn't know what to expect when he oredered the first bomb to be dropped, and didn't have much more data when he dropped the second one.

Someone else has suggested here that being nuked almost automatically lead to that country surrendering. While this may make sense from a historical and logical perspective, I find it unsatisfying in a gaming sense. I think that it would turn the game into a race to develop nukes.

One suggestion on nuclear research that I would like to make is that the research shouldn't be gauranteed. What do I mean by this? Simply that after going down the nuclear research path and pouring thousands of ICs into the project, the project fails to produce the desired results; or that something goes catastrophically wrong. In the original Manhattan Project, that almost occurred. When they built the original test pile, they over engineered it by an incredible factor in case their calculations regarding power output were wrong. Well they were wrong, by a significant amount. What would have happened if they hadn't built in such an enourmous margin of error? Poof, no more Manhattan Project!

 

[unmerged(25612)]

This rolls back to the discussion:

Nukes, ethically or technically?


A thread posted by myself a couple of moons back.


Now in WWII game spanning to the year of 1947, it is no question whethet nukes should be in. Of course they should. But the question is about their role.

Now the threadstarter onviously would like the ethical choice. That is, like in so many other WWII games, that when you discover nukes, then the war ends to your victory. This can be done via an event, a hardcoding, technology related innovation......

Now the technical side is more split up: You have people, like me, who think that nukes should be normal weapons but with special powers. My suggestion was that a VP province can be taken with a nuke. So nuclear weapons would be "permanent paratroopers" taking an enemy VP province and never leaving.

Then some of the technical people are happy with HOI as it is, ie. They enjoy nuclear snowball fights.



Now of course this brings up a lot of discussion about whether it is wrong or not to blow a nuke killing civilians, in an attemp to end the war...



....

And besides the thread I posted was not even the first one on that subject, nor was it the one posted before that... IIRC there was even some discussion about this in HOI1 boards....


But as long as we have no kind of a reply from the Paradox staff, even about the linings they have decided to make with the weapons of mass destruction, I`d say its all rather pointless... Who knows, if tomorrow they`ll come up with the idea of Pink Elephant riding yellow submarines as a special weapon?

 

[unmerged(29126)]

Although the two bombs that were actually dropped were city-killers (I still feel physically sick when I see pictures and films of those attacks) I'm convinced that the effect of them was mainly psychological ... noone can reliably predict psychological reactions ... one can take an educated guess ... but i.e. what would have happened id the bombs had been dropped while Japan was still in possession of the P.I. and Manchuko ... it is simply extremely hard to model ...
keeping a technology in for historic purposes without being able to model a realistic historical effect just robs the tech of it's purpose ...

I think we all agree that the province-killers are overpowered (1 nuke can hardly take out all of the industry in a province, can it ? Don't even get me started on the troop's being hit) ... maybe there should be something like a War-Exit-level ... but even that would be extremely hard to model .... not even mentioning the effect on possible future enemies that you're not yet at war with ... will they just fold over ? So I don't think nukes can be realistically added ... but I would miss the nuke-tech-tree ... aarrgh a hard choice.

edit: Maybe one nuke-icon actually represents 5-10 nukes, as is the case with DDs and SSs ? Afterall, you're vusing an entire bomber- or rocket -division to deliver one nuke-icon ...

 

[unmerged(25612)]

HERE!


Now then, THAT was what I was referring to. Ethical or Technical and so on...

 

[Kaiser Franz]

sorry, that programm i watched earlier on had made me depressed lol!
I think i was just in a sad mood! never mind, its an interesting subject anyway. But in the long run , i guess they have to be in the game! but not as destructive as they were in HoI! Phew! maybe they could add a little disent etc. never mind! thanks for your opinions!

 

[Darkrenown]

There was a movie made during the cold war, i dont remember the name but it was based around a certain area of the united states that got nuked during a nuclear war. anarchy, canibalism, and widespread suffering of the survivors is almost a certainty of using a nuclear bomb.

I don't think one area of the countrey being nuked would sent the entire nation into anarchy and canibalism, nor would the nation ignore the survivers in the nuked region and let the situation get that bad. Perhaps if every major city was nuked flat and the major farming areas and food stocks were irratiated something like what you describe might come about...but certainly not from one bomb.

 

[wwater]

I was for a time ok with the fact of nukes being in the HoI games, but now after i watched a programm made by the BBC in the 1960's about a Nuke attack on the UK. It scared the **** out of me. I feel now that maybe it is a bad idea to have such a destructive weapon featured on the game!

In order to qualm your fears, maybe you should check up on the civilian aspects of nuclear technology. An interesting article was featured in the latest Wired on China's pebble reactors. Especially interesting was the history behind traditional civilian nuclear technology, how things actually could have been much more safer than they are today.
http://www.pharmaciaretirees.com/pebble_bed_reactors.htm
This reactor was invented in '43 and production was started in '45, but the U.S Navy choose a different path. I notice from the HoI2 screenshots that "Energy" is produced and can be traded. Nuclear technology would hopefully increase this comodity and IC.

Maybe HoI2 should feature an alternative path for civilian nuclear technology or something in that direction. Anyway, I guess nukes are such a small aspect of the game. I for instance prefere to play conventional warfare only.

Nukes, by my opinion are okay to have in the game. Is it up to the individual player if they want to use them or not. The game should of course emphasize on the civilian aspects of the tech as well, plus having nukes might prevent an agressive foe.

I appreciate that Paradox has kept the B&C out of ABC weapons.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

1) Kaiser Franz, was it Threads you watched? I agree it's one of the most suicide-inducing films ever made.

Them as haven't seen it can read a round-up here.
http://www.ibp-intl.demon.co.uk/nuke/threads.html

2) I agree the role of nukes should change.

3) Look, chaps, WWII was a deeply unpleasant episode where lots of people died needlessly in unpleasant circumstances. If you can't handle nukes in a game that reflects the one period in history nukes have been used, I suggest you get hold of Barbie Riding Club and pass on HoI2. No offence.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Re: Nukes and Japan
Go here:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=145360

Argued to death twice now

Yes, the Nuke AI needs an overhaul - wait and see. It was one of the chief complaints in HoI so I am sure it has been looked at.

Re Chemical Weapons. (A comment for the designers)
I agree actually - for Military v. Military use.
I think it is wrong to include nukes and yet not include chemical weapons (as a possible option for an alternate history).
But - I can see that it is politically sensitive.
So my proposal is this:
Release game without chemical weapons but with ability for modders to include ALL NBC weapons and have NBC Battalions attached as per AA, Arty, AT and Engs.
There could be a whole new branch of the tech tree.
Now - before you all flame me. I personally disapprove of ALL NBC weapons but, what if History had developed differently? Isn't that what HoI is all about? What if Poland (for example) had developed Chemical and Bacterial Weapons in the inter war years? Certainly if Poland had had a Nuke things may have been different.

 

[unmerged(33151)]

in my opinion, it really is not necessary to include atomic weapons, as much as it is necessary to include any of the other terror weapons that were historically used and not used.

yes a lot of horrible things happened in ww2, and paradox has decided to exclude most of these that dont affect the conventional military contest. as england you cant drop anthrax laced cattle dung on german farmland to starve the country, or drop poison gas bombs on german cities. you cant indiscrimantely drop thousands of napalm bombs on civilian populations. you cant put hundreds of thousands of civilians in extermination camps.

so wouldnt it be hypocritical to make it possible to kill thousands of civilians slowly by radiation?

i really dont see the difference between terror bombing with regular bombs and dropping atomic weapons on populations. the motivation behind it is the same, isnt it? end the war quicker by killing as many of the enemy people (not soldiers, people) with as few losses of the home country's population.

now my suggestion is that the technology behind atomic weapons be included only in a civilian role, such as atomic energy generation plants. in my opinion, this tech could increase the production of the energy resource by 20% or something, and maybe increase industrial efficiency by 10% or whatever is balanced. this tech is already in hoi 1, i feel it just needs to be broadened to include the new resources and construction possibilites in hoi 2

atomics really arent necessary guys, any more than chemical, biological, terror weapons and extermination camps are