Completely false, it was dropped from a Tu-95 and detonated 4000m above ground. Do you even research any of the claims you make or do you want yet another thread to devolve into people having to correct you?
- 2
- 1
Atomic Bombs need a Rework
- Thread starter AskingForIt138
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Perhaps you should consider being more polite when disagreeing with someone else. Its just a forum bro.
- 4
- 3
- 1
But it does. As mentioned it lowers stability which impacts capitulation. Yes we know that Japan doesn't cap until you actually invade it but it should not. Imagine if all you'd need is drop a bomb somewhere to capitulate a nation. That would ruin the game.
As I mentioned, the naval + air superiority and the constant bombing of Japanese cities with non-nuclear bombs was what made it clear Japan didn't stand a chance.
Nukes can very much decide the war. If you're in a situation where you can spam nukes at enemy divisions, airports and cities, you have basically won. The AI may not give up but players will unless they're larping.
- 2
Apologies, but the other thread got off-topic precisely for this reason.
- 1
Yes but spamming atomic bombs are ahistorical, the US only had a few by the end of 1945. The atomic bomb should be a war winning weapon, which it was historically. And I don't want an atomic bomb to cause instant capitulation, only if the enemy has control of core territory, low stability/war support, low ratio of strength compared to enemy, etc.
I think you may want to go back and reed my initial post because I argued I would want to see one or two nations total in the game to ever develop an atomic bomb by gatekeeping the tech with access to uranium, high civ cost (like 100), and those with the scientific community available to actually make the bomb. Historically that was the US with the aid of the UK and Canada.
I would never want to buff the weapon without making it way more costly to produce and costly on per unit basis.
- 2
- 1
My best advice would be just to ignore the troll, who seems not even to have read the post and missed the point.
It is also worth noting that all serious nuclear weapon tests were ground (or underground) detonations, since this is the only way that allows you to accurately measure the effect. The wikipedia entry is based on Russian claims, which may be true - but odd.
- 1
Dude, everything you're asking for is in the game. Small nations may be able to research the bomb but they lack the IC to build reactors. If you want to prevent Butan from having the bomb, you should protest about them to research tanks or planes in the first place. I doubt even China was able to produce their own planes back then, not to say research new ones.
I don't know if you played HOI 2 but back then, countries had science teams that had strengths in different fields and determined which techs you were able to rush and which not. And I even suggested a system similar to it, even tying army XP into it as in you fight with tanks, you get tank research proficiecy.
Finally I don't think in terms of resources that uranium was the issue. Rather heavy water was.
- 3
- 1
I believe the US only were about to prepare their 3rd bomb by the time they surrendered.
Uranium access would mean having to add more resources to the map I guess plus trading.
Would also make sense to perhaps introduce deuterium (heavy water) as a resource too then?
The third question would be how the pooling of resources would be represented. How would technology sharing and experience gained collaborating be represented?
I also believe a hypothetical France that never falls might have the capability to develop their own programme or have a greater part of the Manhattan program like the UK for example putting their ascendancy as a nuclear armed nation a fair bit earlier in time. Not sure if such hypothetical should be represented or firmly restricted to only the four you mentioned earlier?
Or you could provide evidence for your claim that the Tsar Bomba was a ground test, but that isn't really relevant either. But if you want to avoid getting called out perhaps you should bother checking before claiming something.My best advice would be just to ignore the troll, who seems not even to have read the post and missed the point.
It is also worth noting that all serious nuclear weapon tests were ground (or underground) detonations, since this is the only way that allows you to accurately measure the effect. The wikipedia entry is based on Russian claims, which may be true - but odd.
Heavy water reactors have never actually need used for plutonium production for nuclear weapons - even though they would in theory make this easier by eliminating the first step of low-level enrichment of uranium to be used as reactor fuel.
However, because of this possibility, Sweden was for a very long time on the watch list as a nation that might quickly acquire nuclear weapons - all because of the old heavy water research reactor in Ågesta.
Last edited:
Sweden was on the verge of developing their own, but sourcing of uranium and international and domestic pressure lead to the cancellation of the Swedish nuclear weapons programme. The R4 reactor at Marviken for producing plutonium was almost complete before the programme ended.Heavy water reactors have never actually need used for plutonium production for nuclear weapons - even though they would in theory make this easier by eliminating the first step of low-level enrichment of uranium to be used as reactor fuel.
However, because of this possibility, Sweden was for a very long time on the watch list as a nation that might quickly acquire nuclear weapons - all because of the old heavy water research reactor in Ågesta.
Setting up domestic uranium mining and production was considered but was ultimately not done.
Nothing in my original post is currently simulated in the game. I don't think you're getting the "spirit" of what I'm suggesting.
I want a mechanic in the game that can simulate the human endeavor that was the Manhattan Project and I think that this could be tied to a research overhaul in general. The project was filled with uncertainties, personalities, and issues that the game could make way more flavorful than a research slot that any country can research. Its ridiculous that any country with a civ can eventually develop an atomic bomb.
I want the scientific process of developing the bomb represented, its high costs and materials, and the world changing affect represented.
Simply researching the techs, building reactors, and spamming bombs in the late game is not fun and its not historical.
- 4
- 3
- 1
Would a joint faction-wide project with members all being able to contribute towards completion rather than being strictly technology be a better implementation then?
Although I suspect that would require a new system for handling larger scale joint projects like this
Heavy water reactors have never actually need used for plutonium production for nuclear weapons - even though they would in theory make this easier by eliminating the first step of low-level enrichment of uranium to be used as reactor fuel.
However, because of this possibility, Sweden was for a very long time on the watch list as a nation that might quickly acquire nuclear weapons - all because of the old heavy water research reactor in Ågesta.
What I was talking about was that a lack of uranium didn't hinder anyone from developing nuclear weapons but a lack of heavy water did - talking about the famous commando raid on the Norwegian heavy water plant. And I think even that is in the game in some form since you have to build reactors.
I suspect it would have to be a new system to handle something like this. I'm imagining like a lot of scientists added into the game, making them country specific, and adding a mechanic to give refuge to fleeing scientists from fascists/communist nations. Then there should be a project window that shows the scientists working on the project, along with the resources and civ cost to maintain the project. This could be also be used to simulate jet research, rocket research, etc.
I guess that would also include the ability for the leader to snub all other contributers at the end.
Why of course!I guess that would also include the ability for the leader to snub all other contributers at the end.
The problem is war support (which is what the bombs penalize) doesn't meaningfully impact capitulation in this game
At 0 war support, it's only about a 10% difference. Which by the point they're at 20% capitulation status, is only an extra week of combat saved. Which makes the war support penalty practically worthless
I agree they shouldn't capitulate immediately upon being nuked. Honestly, I think the real issue here isn't that the bombs are underpowered, but the thing they affect doesn't have a real effect on the game
- 2
Yes, if war support had a greater impact of capitulation that would probably solve a lot of issues.
Although that would probably need a major overhaul of many nations and the balance as a whole.
Last edited:
- 1
Comparing nuclear weapons with the Tsar Bomba is comparing tanks during WW2 and now with the Maus. Yes, all tanks are tiny compared to it, but it can't be used in any practical way. The atomic bombs of 1945 is smaller than many tactical nuclear weapons, but at the time it was a major shock and really prompted the Emperor to intervene.