Why is it that ICBMs ( lvl3 missles) get shot down by planes, they are going at 9999km and also it should be impossible to hit them, as is they arnt worth the investment.
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 1
ICBMS
- Thread starter Sniper35
- 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.
The late game cold war techs aren’t too fleshed out because they haven’t had a lot of time put into them and I imagine they are made largely useless so they don’t alter any metas
My head canon is that those techs simply are too advanced for WW2 nations to mass produce in time and be effective to be relevant by 1948, but obviously that falls apart depending on ingame scenario
My head canon is that those techs simply are too advanced for WW2 nations to mass produce in time and be effective to be relevant by 1948, but obviously that falls apart depending on ingame scenario
They may not edit any metas but for my mates and I when we play multi its fun having something to hit the USA back with, its just a little ridiculous they get killed by biplanes.
Not game breaking but would be nice to see them actually work than be present and not working.
The devs Did put wunderwafen in their road map list for the future, maybe nuclear will get some love, which will be necessary before we think about icbms
in Fatherland, germany nuke the US using V2, unfortunately in hoi, these two technologies have always been two watertight compartments. Sorry huh, but if I have a fast missile and I have the nukes, what's stopping me from nuking it? It must be said that even the peaces need a job (as well as the spies and probably half a game), the problem is that the Nukes are very useless, except if you produce 200 and throw them at a fast pace against a nation to make them. have -30% war support for bombing (which is the maximum) and partially destroy his troops ... but the problem is that the "special" technologies that are very expensive ... do not pay their cost AT ALL! If I invest in those technologies it is for a return in terms of war force ... not to say "I have the nukes, they are cool" Japan surrendered with two nukes! ONLY TWO! And we all know that the Japanese would have fought house to house! Hypothetically, if Adolf had discovered the atomic bombs towards the end of 45 and had produced them, he would have overturned the war, because hypothetically one or two atomic bombs on London would have brought to 0 the desire to fight the British. And if like in fatherland with a V2 they hit the USA, the US citizens would go to the White House the same day to immediately ask for a peace, withdraw from the war and never set foot outside the Americas again! The atomics They can turn a war upside down, turn a winner into a loser. Right now they are more useless than WW1 tanks!
- 2
- 1
- 1
fission bombs were huge, and no rocket existed big enough to launch a fission bomb at intercontinental distances until well into the 1950's.
- 5
- 3
- 1
For Nuking to be effective you need pretty much uncontested air superioty, and no way for the enemy retilate with its own weapons of mass destruction.
Difficult to talk about nukes but not about other wmd. Lets just say you can drop other stuff over cities, with similar effects of Nukes.
This was never done in Europe, because both sides always can retilate on the height of the war.
USA could do stuff against Japan, but Japan couldn't retiliate.
Difficult to talk about nukes but not about other wmd. Lets just say you can drop other stuff over cities, with similar effects of Nukes.
This was never done in Europe, because both sides always can retilate on the height of the war.
USA could do stuff against Japan, but Japan couldn't retiliate.
Last edited:
- 1
Yes, yes, but it remains that NOW, the nukes are useless. Ditto the V2 ... that is, the focuses that give the bonuses to search for them one does not do them often, they are VERY USELESS!
- 1
anyway, I don't think the tier 3 rockets are being shot down at all. Rather, it's because of them being single-use, so you'll always lose however many launched, and the game doesn't account for that properly, so it shows as having been shot down.
Rockets and atomic weapons are too cheap to be as devastating as some people want. Rocket sites build rockets out of thin air, not requiring strategic resources. There's no real limit on how many reactors you can build, so you can have however many atom bombs without regard for sources of uranium.
Besides that, having atom bombs be powerful would make the game boring. Turtle up behind a line of forts, rush atomic weapons, make the whole thing about manoeuvre warfare, naval superiority etc. irrelevant. Spend most of your industry on enough fighters to get air superiority, build 1 strategic bomber, and blammo, press the win button by atomic strikes. Lame.
Rockets and atomic weapons are too cheap to be as devastating as some people want. Rocket sites build rockets out of thin air, not requiring strategic resources. There's no real limit on how many reactors you can build, so you can have however many atom bombs without regard for sources of uranium.
Besides that, having atom bombs be powerful would make the game boring. Turtle up behind a line of forts, rush atomic weapons, make the whole thing about manoeuvre warfare, naval superiority etc. irrelevant. Spend most of your industry on enough fighters to get air superiority, build 1 strategic bomber, and blammo, press the win button by atomic strikes. Lame.
- 3
- 3
- 1
I've seen them used plenty of times to break stacks of divisions due to the amount of damage a single nuke can do to every division on a tile.
Also, didn't they change the surrender mechanics for Japan so that if you meet some requirements, you can drop two on Japan and they capitulate?
- 4
- 2
Because Paradox Air combat mechanics considers it perfectly reasonable that WW1 biplanes can shoot down ICBMs as long as you have enough of them in the air.
- 1
The problem is that even if you use ww1 planes and spam them, if it weren't for the tiny range, you win it all, you have incredible air superiority. Because:
1) they are cheap
2) AI will never produce enough
3) by spamming airports you can literally FILL an air zone and destroy EVERY ENEMY PLANE. If you add to this the strat bombers aimed at the airport you erase the enemy superiority from the map!
- 1
When to finish the umpteenth game you have to throw 200 atomic bombs on the USA turning them into fallout and instead of doing it here because it's too boring, give me a whistle.
Japan has a unique surrender decision. One for China, if they lose all continental possessions, and one if 2 nukes are dropped on Japanese cores, and I think also Iwo Jima or Okinawa is not controlled by Japan.
Those decisions have no (PP) cost, and the AI will always take them, as soon as they are available.
A human Japan doesn't need to take those decisions though even if the conditions are fullfilled.
Not really, it's more complex:
they don't have to control X islands
they must not have more than X ships
they must not have X capital ships.
nuke 2 times.
Which is pretty much the same as historical peace.
I should also point out that no one should be using strategic rockets in HOI4 anyway. They are buggy and inflict tiny amounts of damage due to how the missiles run the mission and the placement of rocket sites in certain states.
- 4
The problem is that they only serve to unlock the jet technology for ... ah no wait just spam ww1 biplanes to get air superiority ...
- 2
I wouldn't spam WWI planes to get air superiority against a competent opponent. You will get thrashed in the skies and your planes will be farmed for air XP.
But I also wouldn't waste time with jets, either. I haven't tested them lately, but every time I have, they are either inferior to other types of planes at the 1944-46 tech level at shooting down bombers, or not cost effective against fighters, or even worse than rocket interceptors against strategic bombing. And by the time you can finally get them, for most games, it doesn't matter. And the opportunity cost is substantial.
There is a cogent argument for grabbing rocket techs just to make Rocket Artillery good. There is a tipping point in techs where Rocket Artillery beats tube artillery once you have enough techs in place. But that's not my thing.
- 2
- 1
