Well.. not really. Nuclear war consequences to environment were strongly overestimated during Cold War to ensure citizens no leader is stupid enough to start such war.
The idea of "nuclear winter" was partially a Soviet plot but was mostly fueled by genuinely concerned, overly excitable Western environmentalists like Sagan. It had nothing to do with "ensuring" there wouldn't be a nuclear war, the Cold War was never intense enough for a conventional war to begin with, much less a nuclear one.
Nuclear winter was just primitive climate modeling, mega hype, and worst-case/perfect scenarios meeting a media circus of war paranoids and laymen, and grant money from the Kremlin.
I wish to be able to remove enemy presence from planet via most obvious and logical way:
Annihilating everything from orbit via full-scale nuclear bombardment (at cost of destroying planet infrastructure and making most of planet tiles temporarily inhabitable).
Land invasion should be an option, not only way.
More details:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...interaction-and-possible-improvements.994839/
If you're going to sideline planetary invasions, the best way would be to make "planetary fortifications" into "planet health" and just make the world "pacified" after being bombarded for a long time. It would be functionally equivalent to the current occupation without any actual invasion.
You can either have invasion or no invasion. There wouldn't be a reason to have invasions if you could just bomb everything from orbit. It would be needlessly redundant since players would go for whatever is most expedient, whether it's bombing the planet with a huge fleet or invading it with small armies.
.png){kind=avatar}
