Is there a way to play without nukes?

[unmerged(3434)]

But what is the effect of 1 bomb in HOI really?

do u annihilate an army in one province, reduce pop,
or litterally blaze down the whole province to ashes?

 

[unmerged(6607)]

IIRC one of the betas obliquely hinted that it dealt some damage to infrastructure, some damage to armies, and made a treaty slightly more likely. And you get mucho respect from teh tiny countries that now are afraid of you. Joking on that last, sorry...

 

[unmerged(2377)]

I think there might be an option that lets you turn nukes on or off.

 

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by Dan Cook
I think there might be an option that lets you turn nukes on or off.

do you know that for sure?
because i have never heard of that.....

or the "...might be..." implies that you are just guessing?

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Dan Cook
I think there might be an option that lets you turn nukes on or off.

There isn't.

 

[Keynes]

I was actually concerned about the opposite problem - that realizing that the world ends on Jan 48 and the postwar value of nukes is thus zero, there is not enough incentive to spend the massive resources required to build them.

 

[unmerged(2377)]

Originally posted by Generalisimo
do you know that for sure?
because i have never heard of that.....

or the "...might be..." implies that you are just guessing?

Guessing of couse!

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Keynes
I was actually concerned about the opposite problem - that realizing that the world ends on Jan 48 and the postwar value of nukes is thus zero, there is not enough incentive to spend the massive resources required to build them.

Sommink must be right if both sides of the spectrum get feared

 

[State Machine]

Also, consider that it takes a lot of time to do the research, and the research is not guaranteed to work. So for the folks afraid of an ai (or player ) that is nuke-crazy, don't worry. For those that worry about the ai wasting its money on nukes, I seriously doubt that nukes are a priority in its research allocation...

 

[unmerged(10880)]

Originally posted by Dorsey4Heisman


I believe if you are going to restore the true decision making processes at work in both sides, nukes must be out of the equation. Germany and Japan didn't expect them, and the Allies planned as though they wouldn't get them.

Unfortunately this is going to be a problem through out the game. Hindsight is 20/20, most nations will probably seek to develop blitzkrieg the moment the game starts. Will the German or Japanese players sit smugly thinking that thier codes cannot be broken. Will Russia forward deploy its forces when war with Germany seems imminent.

As long as nuclear weapons are modelled accurately (Firebombing raids often did as much damage to cities and it many cases killed more, than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By todays standards the first nuclear weapons would barely qualify as a tactical nuke.

 

[unmerged(10880)]

Originally posted by starbright
Are there aircraft in the game capable of reaching from USA to mainland Europe?

Well the B-36 was designed to do just that, development began in 1940, but was slowed as it became apparent that it was no longer needed for WWII. It first flew in 1946 and became operational in 1948, easily within the HOI timeframe. Not sure if it is represented though

 

[Razgovory]

Originally posted by Disk Killer
If you notice, even Tritium bombs only allow you to produce, what, two atomic bombs a year? How do you plan to bomb Germany into submission by hitting Europe twice a year?

"Oh Crap! Here comes the Americans with the Atomic Bomb!" "What, it's already August again?"

 

[unmerged(10945)]

Originally posted by State Machine
Also, consider that it takes a lot of time to do the research, and the research is not guaranteed to work. So for the folks afraid of an ai (or player ) that is nuke-crazy, don't worry. For those that worry about the ai wasting its money on nukes, I seriously doubt that nukes are a priority in its research allocation...

Wait, so you can spend all the resources to finally make a nuke, only to have it be a dud? That's a painful thought. How much IC's does one nuke cost(the bomb itself, not the research surronding it)?

 

[unmerged(6448)]

Originally posted by Keynes
I was actually concerned about the opposite problem - that realizing that the world ends on Jan 48 and the postwar value of nukes is thus zero, there is not enough incentive to spend the massive resources required to build them.

Look I haven't played the game and haven't even kept up with developments on this forum, so I obviously don't know the impact developed nukes have or how many you can produce a year or most anything else.

But Keynes, this is the problem, really. Nukes, as have been described, are very expensive. They are also either all or nothing, based on the 1948 timeline. Germany was supposed to last 1000 years, nukes would have been useful for them if not developed until 1955. Countries that produce nukes after 48 or near that time should just not research them.

If you project a quicker development of the bomb, you know it will be successful and can speed up production. I don't know the effect of the bomb in the game, but in real life the bomb was extremely effective in terms of cost/benefit. I can't imagine it isnt' the same way in game.

 

[unmerged(1798)]

Originally posted by InnocentIII
IIRC the first flying wings were developed in the US with the thought of bombing Europe from the US in case the Germans took England.

Still, if he US is in the war I can't see them being kept out of Northern Africa if they really want a base to hit Europe from.

B-36's were designed as intercontinental bombers and early work started in 1942 (IIRC). The first flights were in 1946. They were a rather standard looking 6 engine bomber (ie. not flying wings).

http://home.nyu.edu/~jh15/b-36.html

 

[MacGregor]

I have yet to see the AI develope a nuke yet and use it. I think other betas may have though. Anyway, to get nukes, even as the US, you have to really focus your research in that direction putting a severe dent in your other research projects. Basically, only the US has the IC capacity to get away with this and even for them they will have to forgo some other area of research (or two). It's going to be a lot harder for the others unless as Germany or Russia you capture all of Europe fairly early on. So nukes have played very little part in the 20 or so games I've played so far, though I did do the historical thing and researched them when playing the US. Didn't bother using them though.

 

[State Machine]

Originally posted by PriestOfDiscord
Wait, so you can spend all the resources to finally make a nuke, only to have it be a dud? That's a painful thought. How much IC's does one nuke cost(the bomb itself, not the research surronding it)?

No, the research fails. Then you have to try again. So, in real life, Trinity was the test. The test succeeded, so the initial two bombs were available for use. Let's say Trinity failed. Then everyone has to go back and figure out what went wrong, etc. The game models this effect with a failed research followed by you trying the research again.

As for costs. No idea. I could look it up, but putting it in perspective with the overall economy would be difficult. I know that real life bomb development in the US was astoundingly expensive.

A snip from my proposal to "refine" the nuke tech:

* 8603 Industrial U235 Production - This is applying the principles in 8601 at an industrial scale. This should have a high chance and be monstrously expensive (I mean really, really, really expensive). But in the interests of game play, and the fact that non-democratic societies may find cheaper ways of doing it I would settle for extremely expensive.

 

[unmerged(6448)]

Originally posted by State Machine
No, the research fails. Then you have to try again. So, in real life, Trinity was the test. The test succeeded, so the initial two bombs were available for use. Let's say Trinity failed. Then everyone has to go back and figure out what went wrong, etc. The game models this effect with a failed research followed by you trying the research again.

Well, that is really cool. I like that a lot.

A question from someone very ignorant. How do tech costs change for country size? For something like a nuke, tech costs should be pretty much constant. I don't see why there should be any significant difference between teh cost of Luxenberg or the US getting nukes.

 

[State Machine]

Originally posted by Dorsey4Heisman
Well, that is really cool. I like that a lot.

A question from someone very ignorant. How do tech costs change for country size? For something like a nuke, tech costs should be pretty much constant. I don't see why there should be any significant difference between teh cost of Luxenberg or the US getting nukes.

Country size is not an issue. In EU2, technology was highly abstracted and combined both research and implementation. In HoI, technology is research. Implementation is building or upgrading of units. So, if you research new electronics technology, your cost to implement this technology depends on how many units you already field that could be upgraded to take advantage of this technology.

There are, of course, many cases where research provides an immediate benefit, particularly with doctrinal things. But, in general, if you research some hard technology, only new units will get that technology. Existing units must be upgraded to take advantage of your research.