Now that I know how atomics work...

[unmerged(23821)]

Hey. I just read the FAQ on using atomic weapons in Hearts of Iron. I'd suggest that they be made reasonable, not these giant province erasers. I never liked that.

Advanced Third Reich / Empire of the Rising Sun was very good. A lot of damage in the hex, but atomics were more realistically portrayed. Let's face it, Little Boy didn't even wipe Hiroshima off the map, it's still there. Do we really think that in a World War II game that such a bomb be allowed to destroy everything, absolutely?

I hope not.

 

[unmerged(21104)]

Hiroshima is still there ... but does anyone live there ?

 

[M@drox]

Hiroshima is still there ... but does anyone live there ?

Yes, I have been there. How can I convince them to hit Detroit (without killing people) so it can be built new like Hiroshima? Japan is amazing after being reconstructed. Even Germany is similar. There high levels of infrastructure today are due to the allies reconstruction projects.

 

[seattle]

Another topic related question:

What is the difference of the various atomic bombs?

Does not every kind of bomb destroy the whole province and each unit in it?

I couldn't figure out a difference yet.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

New models of bombs not affect level of destruction at all - they affect production speed only.


I agree, damage shouldn't be so total as it currently is. Pretty good solution would be:

1) on the province - all stats (except from infra) of the province drop to zero temporarily, then regain initial value with 8-10x slower rate compared to the conventional strategic bombing. Infra drops to 20, then regains initial value with 4-5x slower rate compared to the conventional strategic bombing.

NOTE: Initial drop of the province stats is caused more by total communication disruption and panic in the bombed area then by direct damage.

2) on the province defensive improvements - random chance to loose up to 80% land forts/coastal forts/AA.

3) on units present in the area - random chance to loose up to 100% of the units (minimal losses - 40%?).

NOTE: Units should be lost as whole divisions, in current system there is no sense to loose part of the division (reinforcing is too easy).


The main problem is that with realistic level of damage from nuclear weapons, there is no sense in developing them.

 

[Mike von Bek]

Let's face it, Little Boy didn't even wipe Hiroshima off the map, it's still there.

Judging by what I saw in the Hiroshima museum, Id say 'wiped off the face of the planet' would be a very apt description. Little Boy didnt even hit the ground, but after it was done, the city was gone. It was flattened rubble.

Nobody was going to be making any use of Hiroshima until years afterward.

For the purposes of the game, a nuke should destroy a province entirely.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Provinces in HoI are much bigger then one city. Most of the provinces got 100+ km radius.

No bomb in the time period we talk about had power of destruction to "knock out" such a big area.

 

[supergamelin]

Provinces in HoI are much bigger then one city. Most of the provinces got 100+ km radius.

No bomb in the time period we talk about had power of destruction to "knock out" such a big area.

The effect of the bomb was that of a medium sized strategic raid.
Larger raids were more devastating. However the effect was reached with a single bomb, instead of 200 or 300 bombers.

The area of effect was fairly small. Enough to destroy the center of a city but pretty much useless against units deployed in the field. Enough to badly damage 2 or 3 divisions but certainly not anihilate 50 or 60 divisions at once.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

I know that.
Still, nuclear weapons should have at least SOME effect, otherwise whole nuclear research in game got no sense at all. Developing weapon 5-7 years to get equivalent of 6 basic tactical bombers or 3 strategic ones? No way!

All the dissent or "war result" ideas are good to balance nuclear weapons somehow...

EDIT: BTW, I suggested on the other thread some sort of max. troop capacity in the provinces (similar to the limits in EU - every unit above the limit affects supply/oil costs and combat efficiency). If implemented (and by implemented I mean "AI understands those limits as well") that should deal with 60+ divisions sitting in the one province.

 

[supergamelin]

I know that.
Still, nuclear weapons should have at least SOME effect, otherwise whole nuclear research in game got no sense at all. Developing weapon 5-7 years to get equivalent of 6 basic tactical bombers or 3 strategic ones? No way!

All the dissent or "war result" ideas are good to balance nuclear weapons somehow...

EDIT: BTW, I suggested on the other thread some sort of max. troop capacity in the provinces (similar to the limits in EU - every unit above the limit affects supply/oil costs and combat efficiency). If implemented (and by implemented I mean "AI understands those limits as well") that should deal with 60+ divisions sitting in the one province.

I believe the effect should be something like a hit on the infra and ressources and some damage to the units stationed in the province.
Incidentally there should be a dissent hit on the target country and a smaller one on the bombing country. Say 10% for the target and 5% for the country that bombs. Maybe adjusted by the political sliders.

 

[javiermcabo]

I believe that an option
Atomic Bombs On/Off
shoud be in the game
I don't like them.
Yesterday I was playing with Germany. In june/1944 I was expecting a nuke attack (hard level) so I placed fighters on every important city.
USA dropped it on.... Paris!!!
Come on... I can't eat that!

 

[seattle]

I believe that an option
Atomic Bombs On/Off
shoud be in the game
I don't like them.
Yesterday I was playing with Germany. In june/1944 I was expecting a nuke attack (hard level) so I placed fighters on every important city.
USA dropped it on.... Paris!!!
Come on... I can't eat that!

You should position the fighter stacks along the coast line from Bordeaux to Hamburg.
Then set each stack on "intercept", thus each stack covers its two adjacent provinces.
In other words, you won't need too much fighters to protect your possessions.

Won't help against rockets though...

 

[Orthank]

The question is if ever ever Americans would have dropped atomic bomb on Paris or other occupied city or even in Europe.

Atomic weapon should be changed somehow, perhaps giving extra victory points or so.

 

[Dawnfire]

A few IC lost, Some of the Infrastructure permantently (for the game duration) lost, 30% dissent hit for the target nation.

Isn't something like that the most sensible?

If so, the level of their building need to be toned down so that only a few can be made, by US or by anyone. In some games, 6 major cities in western germany glow green, as do Paris, Moscow and Stalingrad. (under Axis control.)
Which is immensely funny if you think about it. The game just look on about what are the IC capabilities of a province, not its original owners.
Once even Copenhagen was destroyed by a nuke.

Some explaining for the americans after the war if they win.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

Hey. I just read the FAQ on using atomic weapons in Hearts of Iron. I'd suggest that they be made reasonable, not these giant province erasers. I never liked that.

Advanced Third Reich / Empire of the Rising Sun was very good. A lot of damage in the hex, but atomics were more realistically portrayed. Let's face it, Little Boy didn't even wipe Hiroshima off the map, it's still there. Do we really think that in a World War II game that such a bomb be allowed to destroy everything, absolutely?

I hope not.

I agree; make it a temporary zero to simulate the complete disaster and collapse of infrastructure as federal services are diverted...then it should climb back up to 50% or something.

- MVSN

 

[unmerged(14683)]

A few IC lost, Some of the Infrastructure permantently (for the game duration) lost, 30% dissent hit for the target nation. (...)

So dropping A-bomb on 3-4 backwater provinces (even national ones) in Scotland, Montana or Ulan-Ude can result in knocking out of war whole nation? Even 40% of dissent is enough to practically stop most of the economies of the big countries...

I don't think such high dissent hit is good idea. Something like "War Score" from EU/Vicky/CK fit here much better. We have seen second screenshot - it appears that diplomacy in HoI 2 will be much more detailed... A-Bomb attacks can fit in new diplomacy system as well.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

So dropping A-bomb on 3-4 backwater provinces (even national ones) in Scotland, Montana or Ulan-Ude can result in knocking out of war whole nation? Even 40% of dissent is enough to practically stop most of the economies of the big countries...

I don't think such high dissent hit is good idea. Something like "War Score" from EU/Vicky/CK fit here much better. We have seen second screenshot - it appears that diplomacy in HoI 2 will be much more detailed... A-Bomb attacks can fit in new diplomacy system as well.

Dissent? Um...I agree with both of you to a certain extent, I think the amount of dissent should be proportional to the amount of IC's lost. Say, 1% per I.C. One cannot doubt that dropping an atomic bomb is encredibly demoralizing on the enemy.

- MVSN

 

[unmerged(20852)]

The use of nukes historically was to force Japan to surrender. The ease in which a single bomber can penetrate defenses and deliver a devestating blow caused immense shock. Linking the use of atomics with diplomacy would be the way to go. If you can use them to force peace with a nation then they become much more useful. I personally don't like the amount of damage that they inflict in the game and that should be reduced. The damage that they do inflict upon a province should be permanent and require the owner to improve the province from a production point of view. The province should not recover without actively triggering the 'improve infrastructure' or 'build industry'. The chance of wiping out any military units should be only 5% or so per division(not cumulative). Some damage should be inflicted on all units in the territory to reflect the short term effects of radiation and fallout.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

The use of nukes historically was to force Japan to surrender. The ease in which a single bomber can penetrate defenses and deliver a devestating blow caused immense shock. Linking the use of atomics with diplomacy would be the way to go. If you can use them to force peace with a nation then they become much more useful. I personally don't like the amount of damage that they inflict in the game and that should be reduced. The damage that they do inflict upon a province should be permanent and require the owner to improve the province from a production point of view. The province should not recover without actively triggering the 'improve infrastructure' or 'build industry'. The chance of wiping out any military units should be only 5% or so per division(not cumulative). Some damage should be inflicted on all units in the territory to reflect the short term effects of radiation and fallout.

Oh, and of course Dissent should actually drastically effect a government's want to make peace. Unlike the coded stand till the end format that the HoI has.

- MVSN

 

[seattle]

The use of nukes historically was to force Japan to surrender.

I would say that the atomic bombs were completely unnecessary.
The japanase were willing to surrender before the drops.
It just so happened that it became clear that Russia would turn out to be the coming opponent of the USA.
Plus the Red Army was on its way to invade japanese provinces.

..................
Hmm, what shall we do?
I know! Let's ignore the japanese surrender and instead drop 2 atomic bombs on their cities. As we are the only nation possessing one, we can shock the Russians.
If we accept the japanese surrender, how should we demonstrate the power of our wonder weapon?

......................

Thus the two bombs were dropped, the world was shocked, the Russians knew that from this moment forth they shouldn't fuck with Americans.

This explanation does make sense, doesn't it?