are nukes nessesary?

[unmerged(15998)]

If the game has to give you the oportunity to turn WW2 into a nucelar war (something that is not historicall) then why don't wive the chance to use chemical weapons? After all, some chemical weapons where used in WW2 (against soviet troops in the eastern front)

Chemical warfare = war crime
Atomic warfare = war crime

That's why I think that A-bombs are beter out of the game. Also the way they are implemented in HoI is completely ahistorical, and overpowered.

 

[unmerged(33151)]

If the game has to give you the oportunity to turn WW2 into a nucelar war (something that is not historicall) then why don't wive the chance to use chemical weapons? After all, some chemical weapons where used in WW2 (against soviet troops in the eastern front)

Chemical warfare = war crime
Atomic warfare = war crime

That's why I think that A-bombs are beter out of the game. Also the way they are implemented in HoI is completely ahistorical, and overpowered.

exactly

a war crime is a war crime, and these relatively villainous and illegal acts really do not need to be included in a game that is meant as a simulation of the military clash between the armies of the warring nations, not as a contest to see who can kill the greatest number of civilians

 

[Earl Uhtred]

It's not just about frying civilians. The bomb had enormous political significance. HoI1 didn't really reflect this, true, but that's no reason to do away with it completely.

 

[wwater]

a war crime is a war crime, and these relatively villainous and illegal acts really do not need to be included in a game that is meant as a simulation of the military clash between the armies of the warring nations, not as a contest to see who can kill the greatest number of civilians

I agree and somewhat disagree to that. I am an advocate of conventional warfare and strategy, so I play those games who offers exactly that, namely Paradox games. For instance, Civ2/3 gets boring once you get nukes, because it all boils down to nuking other nations. However in Civ3, Fireaxis has made the diplo system in such a manner, that if you use nukes you become an outcast from world society and relations are difficult to heal later. Also, if you have nukes, you have it as deterrent against attacks from your foes. So nukes can be argued, have some strategic and diplomatic value, as in the real world.

It would cool if the game allowed nukes, at the same time, makes the use of them expensive (Dissidents, loss of allies, Popular uprising etc) and at the same time, makes the logistics for nukes in such a manner that players mostly will avoid using them.

It would be cool to see the feature of nukes as a diplomatic trading card, where you can say to other nations "remember, my words are backed with nukes". And the use of them will have similar effects as in EU2, where you have a reputation to take care of.

 

[Darkrenown]

Nukes did end the war in against Japan though, while chemical and biological weapons weren't used much at all.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Nukes did end the war in against Japan though, while chemical and biological weapons weren't used much at all.

True, but they could have been if things had developed differently in History.

From my recent readings it appears that had the Germans exploited the gaps created in the Allied lines by gas attacks in WWI when Gas was first used then WWI may have ended much earlier (In the Germans' favor?). In which case Tanks would never have come to the fore and research may have concentrated on these weapons rather than other avenues?

I like my alternate history.

After all, there is a whole alternate tech tree branch to explore here and waste(?) resources on.

It's a what if.

Although, I agree that targeting Civilians (and provinces without military units present) should be a strict no-no.

 

[unmerged(15998)]

Nukes did end the war in against Japan though, while chemical and biological weapons weren't used much at all.

Nukes where historically used in a specific moment and for an specific end. Historically they could not have been used indiscriminately, or for blow away armies, like they are used in HoI.

Also, only the US developed nukes. Everybody else was veeery far from achieving them (outside the HoI time frame). The capacity of the US to use the A-Bomb was very limited, and it should have been unthinkable to use it in Europe, or against any city (and in HoI, if the enemy occupes one of your provinces or an allied province, you can nuke it )

In my oppinion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where

exceptions

, and the best way to represent them should be via events.

(If date is 6-8-45 and Japan is losing badly - the US has occupied the apropiate provinces, then you have the option to launch the attack, then the japanese player receives an event of nuclear bombing: heavy damage to both cities, and two options: surrender or receive a heavy dissent penalty. If the japs don't surrender then the US can have an event of bombing Tokio, then the jap must chose if surrender at last or receive even more dissent, etc...)

 

[Earl Uhtred]

(If date is 6-8-45 and Japan is losing badly - the US has occupied the apropiate provinces, then you have the option to launch the attack, then the japanese player receives an event of nuclear bombing: heavy damage to both cities, and two options: surrender or receive a heavy dissent penalty. If the japs don't surrender then the US can have an event of bombing Tokio, then the jap must chose if surrender at last or receive even more dissent, etc...)

Sounds like a giant leap backwards to me.

 

[unmerged(33151)]

(If date is 6-8-45 and Japan is losing badly - the US has occupied the apropiate provinces, then you have the option to launch the attack, then the japanese player receives an event of nuclear bombing: heavy damage to both cities, and two options: surrender or receive a heavy dissent penalty. If the japs don't surrender then the US can have an event of bombing Tokio, then the jap must chose if surrender at last or receive even more dissent, etc...)

i think the americans should be forced to invade japan if they want to finish the war in the pacific. personally, i see the decision of the american leadership to drop atomic bombs on japan as tinged by racism, as if saying that lives of people who arent white arent as worthy of regard. the whole attitude of saving "american" (read white anglo-american) lives by devastating populations of japanese civilians is to me an indefensible argument.

i would argue that if the american player/ai wants to defeat japan, they have to invade and fight, not drop atomic terror weapons

Nukes did end the war in against Japan though, while chemical and biological weapons weren't used much at all.

i read that einstein bitterly regretted helping to develop the atom bomb once he learned that the german atomic program was not nearly as threatening as was assumed. consider that if it was known that the germans werent intesively developing atomic bombs, einstein would almost certainly not have helped develop an american one. i believe he wrote he could have said that there simply was not enough reactive material on the earth to create an atom explosion to the politicians, and they might have left it at that. the other physicists would consider the horrible implications of atomic bomb research, had they any conscience and were not behaving like robot technicians, and follow his lead.

regarding the american politicans of the time, and thinking of their preoccupation in pleasing the public with low casualty rates in war, which is present today, i tend to see this atrocity as a political expedience rather than a viable strategy in a war

i believe that if the japanese public was generally more politically conscious than they are, they would raise a great deal of protest over this inclusion of atomic weapons, when the other atrocities of the war are left out

personally, i would like to limit the atomic research to economic applications, and leave hoi 2 as a purely military strategy simulation. i repeat that i firmly believe there is no practical reason atomic bombs should be made into the game, any more than the other atrocities comitted in the war should.

 

[Darkrenown]

i think the americans should be forced to invade japan if they want to finish the war in the pacific. personally, i see the decision of the american leadership to drop atomic bombs on japan as tinged by racism, as if saying that lives of people who arent white arent as worthy of regard. the whole attitude of saving "american" (read white anglo-american) lives by devastating populations of japanese civilians is to me an indefensible argument.

Nonsense. And nonsense on 2 levels:

1. So the US should have invaded with ground forces and suffered massive losses to try and avoid Japanese losses? Are Japanese lifes worth more than American ones? Is your argument tinged by racism? This leads on to;

2. The way the Japanese were gearing up to defend the home isles 'to the last man (and woman, and child)', the Japanese losses alone would have been higher, nevermind the overall total.

 

[Rey]

Yeah, that's right. Nukes take all the fun from the game.

Let's say you researched them. Why would you bother with your armies?
If you can conquer the world in really short time.

It's like a cheat.

 

[Darkrenown]

Nukes where historically used in a specific moment and for an specific end. Historically they could not have been used indiscriminately, or for blow away armies, like they are used in HoI.

Just because they were used too often in HoI doesn't mean they should be removed from HoI2, they should just be made more expensive and slower to produce which would both make them harder to get over all and force the player to think very carefully about how to use them rather than firing them at any province with more than 2 divisions in it.

 

[Darkrenown]

From my recent readings it appears that had the Germans exploited the gaps created in the Allied lines by gas attacks in WWI when Gas was first used then WWI may have ended much earlier (In the Germans' favor?). In which case Tanks would never have come to the fore and research may have concentrated on these weapons rather than other avenues?

True. I recently read some alt history that had Japan doing a lot better in the war when the USA started dropping nukes so they started firing chemical and biological weapons back at them.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

i think the americans should be forced to invade japan if they want to finish the war in the pacific. personally, i see the decision of the american leadership to drop atomic bombs on japan as tinged by racism, as if saying that lives of people who arent white arent as worthy of regard. the whole attitude of saving "american" (read white anglo-american) lives by devastating populations of japanese civilians is to me an indefensible argument.

Words fail me.

While we're at it, let's take the brutal, racism-tinged, unacceptable-in-the-C21 colonisation out of Victoria and replace it with Live Aid.

regarding the american politicans of the time, and thinking of their preoccupation in pleasing the public with low casualty rates in war, which is present today, i tend to see this atrocity as a political expedience rather than a viable strategy in a war

Forcing the enemy to surrender while minimising friendly and reducing enemy losses (for that is almost certainly what it did) is the definition of a viable strategy.

 

[unmerged(25612)]

i think the americans should be forced to invade japan if they want to finish the war in the pacific. personally, i see the decision of the american leadership to drop atomic bombs on japan as tinged by racism, as if saying that lives of people who arent white arent as worthy of regard. the whole attitude of saving "american" (read white anglo-american) lives by devastating populations of japanese civilians is to me an indefensible argument.

And of course such an invasion would have no damage done to the Japanese (Read Yellow Nipponese) civilian population. :wacko:

 

[Steel]

This discussion has drifted away from HOI 2 gameplay and will not continue in this forum.