Nuclear Bomb Question

[oribiasi]

If this has already been adressed, my apologies:

Previously, i.e., in both HoI1 and HoI2, a nuclear bomb would destroy all IC, infrastructure and divisions/air corps in the province. However, the infrastructure would usually "re-generate," or whatever, and divisions can travel through the area as well.

This doesn't seem reasonable; is this fixed in HoI3?

 

[Sunfighter]

why is it not reasonable? Hiroshima is here today....

 

[oribiasi]

why is it not reasonable? Hiroshima is here today....

Today, yes, in 2009. What I mean is that if I bomb Essen in 1945, the infrastructure is "re-built" in 1946ish. Doesn't seem to make sense, especially considering radiation.

 

[Sangeli]

why is it not reasonable? Hiroshima is here today....

Honestly nuclear bombs were not that powerfull back then. More people died in the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden than from either blast. Plus the blasts greatest effect is starting a giant fire and back then most of Japans buildings were of wood so the fire was the main culprit of destruction.

 

[unmerged(101225)]

They didn't even know about the radiation. Not that it would stop the Soviets, they detonated nukes then had Red Army units go play around in it to see how a fight would go after the use of tactical nukes.

I don't see why you cant drive tanks through a province that was hit by a nuke.

 

[oribiasi]

Honestly nuclear bombs were not that powerfull back then. More people died in the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden than from either blast. Plus the blasts greatest effect is starting a giant fire and back then most of Japans buildings were of wood so the fire was the main culprit of destruction.

This is true, fire was the main culprit in the destruction of both people and buildings, but the (1) complete and relatively regular destruction and the (2) radiation are the issues. I have read stories of conventional bombing, while devastating, would leave entire areas "un-touched," from bominb. Whereas nuclear bombs have no distinction. That is why it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[oribiasi]

They didn't even know about the radiation. Not that it would stop the Soviets, they detonated nukes then had Red Army units go play around in it to see how a fight would go after the use of tactical nukes.

I don't see why you cant drive tanks through a province that was hit by a nuke.

I can't believe everyone was so unaware of radiation. Maybe at first, but I can't believe people wouldn't figure that one out.

 

[unmerged(45464)]

HoI2 (DD with arma at least) IC and infra does not regenerate if hit by a nuke unlike being bombed by regular bombs.

So I don't see what the problem is.

 

[oribiasi]

HoI2 (DD with arma at least) IC and infra does not regenerate if hit by a nuke unlike being bombed by regular bombs.

So I don't see what the problem is.

Ok, that's good. I am playing it without Armageddon, so with my version it still has magically regenerating infrastructure.

 

[unmerged(101225)]

I can't believe everyone was so unaware of radiation. Maybe at first, but I can't believe people wouldn't figure that one out.

They will eventually figure it out, yes, but it isn't within the time frame nor the scope of the game.


I'm also pretty sure the IC\Manpower\Infrastructure\bases are somewhat permanently damages and don't fully repair

 

[Joppos]

To be fair, a nuclear strike should not by any means be a province 'eraser'. IC is representing all potential industry inside a province's borders. More often than not industries are spread out across a province, and so all potential industry represented by that province shouldn't be lost by one bomb. Much less all infrastructure.

In my opinion nuclear strikes should have different missions, just like ordinary bombings. They do have an enormous destructive power of course, but they do not cleanse whole provinces of industry, roads, communication, and so on. If not aimed at specific industry centres, they probably affect NU more than anything else.

 

[von_Manstein11]

of course they knew about radiation...

Radiation was the reason we discovered fission power (nuclear bombs)

 

[Alex_brunius]

of course they knew about radiation...

Radiation was the reason we discovered fission power (nuclear bombs)

That depends on who THEY are...

Are "they" the very few scientists with full insight into the project?

Are "they" the army commanders?

Are "they" the civilian population?

 

[unmerged(129995)]

Well, Little Boy only destroyed a circle with a 2 mile diameter...not exactly big. I mean, I don't think that even covers Manhattan Island...

 

[I-15]

Of course they knew about radiation. Shortly after Japan surrendered teams were sent in to basically 'wipe' the entire top layer of dirt from the streets of both cities as this had alot of the radiation in it.
That coupled with the fact that Nuclear Weapons power only really kicked off a decade or two later..

 

[unmerged(84132)]

Radiation would not stop anyone from building in most places. If you look at Chernoble, the radiation was high enough to cause people to be born with missing limbs, yet people still stayed there. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they rebuilt those areas after the bombs dropped. Those areas had extremely higher cancer rates because of such, but they still lived there.

Honestly, the general populous never was told. In Utah people were never told they were exposed to high amounts of radiation until the government decided they should take responsibility for it. Most people in this country still does not know that California had a nuclear distaster in 1959 when they were testing new forms of coolants for nuclear power plants (just look up Simi Valley California). Everyone knows 3-Mile Island, but Simi Valley was much bigger. How many people know about the wide scale nuclear contamination in Oak Ridge, TN?

It is very rare for governments to displose hazardous exposures, especially in a manner in which the disclosure would than become common knowledge. Usually when they do, it is way after the fact.

 

[Alerias]

of course they knew about radiation...

Radiation was the reason we discovered fission power (nuclear bombs)

They knew about the theory, not the practical impact on human health. The Americans had no idea their bombs would "dirty" an area after the initial blast, and that it would make people ill weeks and months after the impact, much less give cancer to their grandchildren. They thought of nukes largely as a big bomb.

In this timeframe, sending in troops into a freshly-nuked city was thus an entirely reasonable mistake.

I think HoI2 modeled nukes GREAT. They were overpowered in HoI1. They should cause immense short term damage and SOME lasting damage but it shouldn't essentially turn the province into a stretch of desert. They should cause immense strength damage and wipe away all org from units in that province, but not destroy every single division.

 

[unmerged(18834)]

Regardless of the type of weapon used, infrastructure/IC re-generation is too rapid. Europe and Japan are rebuilt in a month, and (I think?) without a cost to IC for reconstruction. Perhaps there needs to be a difference between damaged and annihilated IC/infrastructure. If it's damaged, it can repair itself with a slight cost in industrial production (maybe as part of the replacements slider). If it's eliminated, it needs to be rebuilt as if it was never there.

 

[Garak]

I can't believe everyone was so unaware of radiation. Maybe at first, but I can't believe people wouldn't figure that one out.

Ever see a film produced back then? Not a movie, but informational. They thought it would be a problem for a few days, and that most radiation would be stopped by a basic GI's uniform.

 

[Cokebottle Lovesnake]

There is a major misconception about the power of nuclear weapons, especially old ww2 ones. You will do just as much if not more damage with conventional strategic bombing, in fact arguments were made at the time that it was a far better way to end the War then continued fire bombing.

As has been indicated the blast is relatively small and the effects of radiation are negligable in the overall scheme of war, you get increased cancer rates, mutations, it affects the birth rate and fertillity, it doesn't stop factory work, or soldiers fighting unless they are in the blast zone.

Many years ago I heard a talk by an Australian POW who had been in a prision camp some 2 kilometres from the nagasaki blast centre, the blast was certainly something to remember, but he survived and was immediately put to work by the japanese in rebuilding. The city was far from destroyed by that one attack alone.

Regardless of the type of weapon used, infrastructure/IC re-generation is too rapid. Europe and Japan are rebuilt in a month, and (I think?) without a cost to IC for reconstruction. Perhaps there needs to be a difference between damaged and annihilated IC/infrastructure. If it's damaged, it can repair itself with a slight cost in industrial production (maybe as part of the replacements slider). If it's eliminated, it needs to be rebuilt as if it was never there.

That applies to any strike by any bomb, a nuclear destroyed bridge or factory is no more or less destroyed then a conventionally destroyed bridge or factory.