Make Nukes a trade-off.

[bizkit]

I don't think there needs to be a diplomatic effect of A-Bombs,since it never had in real life.No one blamed USA for using it,diplomaticly as far as i know.
On the other hand the IC and Leadership cost could be higher because you only spend 1 leadership point in your huge leadership pool when you're one of the major countries.It could be a multiple research project reaching to A-Bomb,just like in HoI1

 

[Dev]

Sorry, op
Back on track.

Did the people back then(man in the street/common soldier) think the nukes were a bad idea? How much did they know in general about the cost of the war(lives/suffering/economy) and did the nukes have an impact back then(among common people) that is anything like the political correctness today?

Now the same questions for the leaders of nations.

Did it have an effect on relations? Did allies turn away because of it? Did neutrals become more "hostile"? We know the(previously fanatic) enemy surrendered, but what about the comintern? Did they penalise the allies because they had used the bombs?

If there was a penalty for using nukes in game, what should it be and why? Please remember that it is already an effort to get them and maybe even more so after we get SR in FTM.

I've read/watched a lot of WW2 documentary and I've yet to see or read about anything but cheering when the war ended. Have you seen any guys in the streets with nukes are evil posters circa august 45? I don't think so. The whole nukes are evil/bad USA for nuking Japan concept is a post WW2 thing, in 1945 everyone just wanted the war to be over with as fast as possible.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

There should be at least some form of downside to nukes. Its hardly realistic for a nation to throw nukes carelessly around and not reap the international concequnences.

After the end of WW2, tensions between the USSR and America nosedived leading to the Cold War. If people complain about nothing after Postdam, then this is perfect.

 

[Art1985]

After the end of WW2, tensions between the USSR and America nosedived leading to the Cold War.

Not because USA have used the nuclear weapon. Even if there would be no nuclear weapon ideological opposition would outgrow in cold war anyway.

 

[comsubpac]

There should be at least some form of downside to nukes. Its hardly realistic for a nation to throw nukes carelessly around and not reap the international concequnences.

After the end of WW2, tensions between the USSR and America nosedived leading to the Cold War. If people complain about nothing after Postdam, then this is perfect.

but in 1945 it did not really have international consequences as far as the game is concerned. or can you name any?

 

[Ksyr]

I wouldn't say the RL bombs where carelessly used, but in game they may be. How can we decide how much bombing is too much?

After WW2 is another what-if scenario. If the US didn't have a few years head start on the bomb maybe the soviets would have taken all of Europe/Asia because nothing could stop them. Without the nukes the relationship between east and west might have been worse not better. Fear can be a great motivator in diplomacy

 

[Phönix]

"There are no such thing as innocents in war. "

May I assume you also see it that way when Muslim terrorists blow them selfs up? The US are at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, are they not, so are they right when they think of 5 year olds as enemies?

You make me sick and the fact that you are not getting banned for such a comment is quite shocking to me... I wont engage you further, I wont sink to that level, but I have said what I needed to say about it.

 

[1alexey]

I belive there is a point in creating some consequences of prolonged Nuclear barrage.
At least rise treat, because, well if you have Nuces you are treatening.

The thing i strongly dislike US nuckes is not the blast itself, but the fact that thay conducted "experiment" on enemies, and thay knew there will be radiation affect thay did not knew how strong. Thay did not bomb neither target prior the nuck drop to get accurate blast radius,...

So we go and make Nurenberg trial, spend decades speaking about genoside,..
But when it comes to actions both Nazi and Americans conducted experiments on civilians, both wiolated convention about not using poisons.

So why did the "vicktors" even created all this spectacular "criminals against humanity" show if thay are just same "criminals against humanity"?
Why do we prohibit the nazism if "democraty" is just same with a few diferent ditales?

Double standarts?



I think the nucke excusers can allso go justify the Genoside, Death camps, experiments on prisoners, and slave labor. After all why not. It is definitely usefull for country's war efforts.

 

[Zaku]

"There are no such thing as innocents in war. "

May I assume you also see it that way when Muslim terrorists blow them selfs up? The US are at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, are they not, so are they right when they think of 5 year olds as enemies?

You make me sick and the fact that you are not getting banned for such a comment is quite shocking to me... I wont engage you further, I wont sink to that level, but I have said what I needed to say about it.

Agree 100%.

Now to be on topic, I don't think that any negative effects should be added to the nuke. I think the devs wanted it to be the game ending weapon. If you have it and the enemy doesn't, you win the war. Adding negative diplomatic relations or something like that wouldn't mean anything, since you won the war you probably are the greatest superpower. The other scenario would be that there are 2 opposing superpowers remaining(USA Russia), but then you would hate each other with or without nukes, so still no meaning to add negative maluses to them.

 

[jju_57]

I completely disagree but that's a different topic.

"There are no such thing as innocents in war. "

You make me sick and the fact that you are not getting banned for such a comment is quite shocking to me...

Agree 100%.

All of you need to study the history of war. My comment was and is historically accurate. Not only that but it is logically accurate. When two sides war someone in the war zone through their actions or inactions give support to one side or the other. It has happened throughout all of history. It will always be that way. When you aid or advocate one side, either by conscious or unconscious efforts you are no longer innocent. Your very act of giving aid makes you part of the total war effort.

So please spare me the hollier than thou bullcrap and study history.

Now if you really meant that you would not comment we can end it here. But if you do comment that means you in fact do want to debate this point.

 

[IrationalFear]

I belive there is a point in creating some consequences of prolonged Nuclear barrage.
At least rise treat, because, well if you have Nuces you are treatening.

The thing i strongly dislike US nuckes is not the blast itself, but the fact that thay conducted "experiment" on enemies, and thay knew there will be radiation affect thay did not knew how strong. Thay did not bomb neither target prior the nuck drop to get accurate blast radius,...

So we go and make Nurenberg trial, spend decades speaking about genoside,..
But when it comes to actions both Nazi and Americans conducted experiments on civilians, both wiolated convention about not using poisons.

So why did the "vicktors" even created all this spectacular "criminals against humanity" show if thay are just same "criminals against humanity"?
Why do we prohibit the nazism if "democraty" is just same with a few diferent ditales?

Double standarts?



I think the nucke excusers can allso go justify the Genoside, Death camps, experiments on prisoners, and slave labor. After all why not. It is definitely usefull for country's war efforts.

As far as I know, France was the only major in WW2 (Australia, NZ, and Canada as well) that didn't commit atrocities. I doubt anyone would want them to arbitrate considerring their previous work with the Versailles Treaty.

 

[ForzaA]

Allright, the atrocities comparison debate ends now.

 

[Danmark Rising]

Now if you really meant that you would not comment we can end it here. But if you do comment that means you in fact do want to debate this point.

I'm more than willing to debate the point the point but not in this forum.

 

[Zaku]

All of you need to study the history of war. My comment was and is historically accurate. Not only that but it is logically accurate. When two sides war someone in the war zone through their actions or inactions give support to one side or the other. It has happened throughout all of history. It will always be that way. When you aid or advocate one side, either by conscious or unconscious efforts you are no longer innocent. Your very act of giving aid makes you part of the total war effort.

So please spare me the hollier than thou bullcrap and study history.

Now if you really meant that you would not comment we can end it here. But if you do comment that means you in fact do want to debate this point.

History of war my ass. You said there are no innocents in a war, and for that i consider you a terrible person. Its people like you who starts them in the first place.

Sorry about the off topic.

 

[DoomBunny]

There are many opinions about "back then" as well. And calling nuking a city a good thing is in my opinion unacceptable.

Even if it saves more lives than it takes? Its not like the Japs would have gone down easy, they had schoolkids with sharpened bits of wood ready to charge the Allied troops as soon as they hit the beach. If an invasion took place, casualties among Jap civies would have been worse than from the bombings. The Axis werent exactly nice guys, they bombed civillians to.

 

[jju_57]

History of war my ass. You said there are no innocents in a war, and for that i consider you a terrible person. Its people like you who starts them in the first place.

Sorry about the off topic.

Personal insults will never replace logic in a debate. And this from someone playing a war game.

Name who is an innocnet? The peasant farmer? Nope because his crops with or without his permission are used to feed soldiers or enhance the war effort.

The soldier may not want to be involved but he was drafted and is fighting. Same logic applies to the industry behind that soldier who provide food, shelter, clothes and means to wage a war.

The problem with you is that you refuse to acknowledge history and war. Your viewpoint will never stop or prevent one and history proves that this simplistic and childlike approach actually leads to war.

I am not for starting wars but once one starts it is better to have a clear cut victor then not to have one. History has shown that to be true over and over again. So try to deny the truth and hide so your feelings won't get hurt. But no one is an innocent. They may not WANT to do something or may even be FORCED to do it. But upon doing it their actions make them part of the total war effort and are therefore part of it and no longer innocent.

Simple but brutal logic.

 

[Darkrenown]

Well, that's enough of that.