Nuclear Warfare

[Grimlin]

I was just reading about the Hammer of Gods in the Techtree DevDiary and the question came to my head whether or not the nuke AI is going to be rewritten.
Although it is already a good thing that the AI is using nukes now is it going to use them automatically via strategic bombing or is there some sort of plan involved now?
I know, this topic is not really fitting the category "major" when it comes to flaws in the HoI2 AI but nevertheless in early Cold War the strategies of both belligerents involved heavy use of nuclear weapons against enemy troop concentrations with regular forces only to mop up the scattered remains.
Also interesting are the consequences of nuclear weapon use which are not properly presented in the game since its built for WW2 not WW3. Troops can just march through nuked provinces without problems, there is nothing about public opinion or global effects.
So will there be changes to nuke-related mechanics, were there already changes or are such things a low priority?

 

[unmerged(189717)]

Also interesting are the consequences of nuclear weapon use which are not properly presented in the game since its built for WW2 not WW3. Troops can just march through nuked provinces without problems, there is nothing about public opinion or global effects.

You get massive unrest for getting ypurself nuked. IMO, that represents the public opinion. And why should troops not be able to march through that province? Yes, there a long term effects due to radiation, but nobody knew those in the 40s (though later they did). Plus nuclear bombs from those times only hit a small area of most provinces (but that might change later as well).

 

[Grimlin]

You get massive unrest for getting ypurself nuked. IMO, that represents the public opinion. And why should troops not be able to march through that province? Yes, there a long term effects due to radiation, but nobody knew those in the 40s (though later they did). Plus nuclear bombs from those times only hit a small area of most provinces (but that might change later as well).

Yeah I know about the unrest for the one being nuked, but there is no unrest for nuking. And yeah, the first weapons had only a "small" effect but one can research up to Hydrogen Bombs which yield a pretty huge fallout. I wasn't thinking about restricting access, although NATO planned to contaminate the Fulda Gap on exactly this purpose, but more about a simple attrition modifier.

Right now the AI simply drops a nuke when they have one at hands since its being auto-attached to a stategic bomber...

 

[unmerged(189717)]

Yeah, that's right. Commands for specific targets would be nice - like bomb_capital or bomb_victory_province etc.

 

[Amallric]

In fact nuclear bombs intended for use in battle do not have significant long-lasting effects. Its not a matter of size but of the materials used.

 

[Samilou]

I believe it would be fair to implement a significantly reduced dissent hit for each new nuke dropped on a certain side of a war by a certain side of a war, to make large-scale nuclear war possible without getting large-scale partisan warfare all over a country that has been nuked. Your dissent should not reduce when nuking others (even the opposite if it is a first strike). So the first nuke that hits you could give, say 10 percent, while the second also gives you 10 percent (I think the 20 percent per nuke used before is too much) as well, the third 5 percent, the next one just 1 or 2, and it goes on like that.

 

[vadermath]

I don't think that's really realistic; a country which has been hit by multiple nukes should be falling apart, not gaining less and less dissent with each nuke.

 

[Cybvep]

I don't think that's really realistic; a country which has been hit by multiple nukes should be falling apart, not gaining less and less dissent with each nuke.

IMO such a country should surrender or at least have a chance to do so. Adding an option "unconditional surrender" would help.

 

[Grimlin]

I don't think that's really realistic; a country which has been hit by multiple nukes should be falling apart, not gaining less and less dissent with each nuke.

A country which has been hit by multiple nukes should retaliate

Honestly, I can't see reasons for partisans rising up, rebelling against their oppressive government in the event of nuclear attacks. This assumption reminds me of moral bombing which, as seen several times in history, does not yield any large effect on peoples morale. If so it strengthens their will and doesn't weaken it (of course the correct propaganda is mandatory).

 

[Kung Zog]

I think that if the country which is nuked has the power to retaliate or has industry spread out enough to avoid a breakdown due to atomic warfare would only take a small hit in dissent. Soviet and US are examples of such countries.

If the country on the other hand is severely limited before the nuke and does not have the power to retaliate a larger dissent hit would happen. Japan and and to a certain extent UK are example of such countries.

 

[JRHINDO]

Rebelling against the government to stop the war? This is what happened at the end of ww1, people were tired of the massacres.

 

[Samilou]

There is no reason for people at the time to be more upset by a couple of nukes as opposed to strategic bombing raids killing several times more. And obviously civil war occurring from this is absurd in almost any case.

 

[JRHINDO]

Nukes are more psychologicaly damaging than months of indiscriminate bombing. The war weariness dissent rose over the years during ww1 where it reached a point of revolts in the armies and the populations.

If Japan had continues the war even after 2 nukes then people would have risen against the power in fear of the japanese extermination.

 

[unmerged(227777)]

Actually, after the two nukes, there was indeed a rebellion - against the government because the Emperor wanted to make peace, but the military wanted to keep on fighting.

 

[Samilou]

If we put aside what happened as nuclear warfare was a new and relatively unknown concept, a later nuclear war, especially in a completely different situation, would not have such a result.

 

[Cybvep]

If we put aside what happened as nuclear warfare was a new and relatively unknown concept, a later nuclear war, especially in a completely different situation, would not have such a result.

Oh, yeah, right, because everyone would keep on fighting until they are completely destroyed. Let's be reasonable here. Nukes are weapons of power. Unlike chemical weapons, which only kill people, nukes are not economical at all. You won't gain a thing from a destroyed, radiated city or from sick population. However, they may win you the war. And when both countries have them, then they serve as perfect deterrence.

 

[Easy1]

I know, this topic is not really fitting the category "major" when it comes to flaws in the HoI2 AI but nevertheless in early Cold War the strategies of both belligerents involved heavy use of nuclear weapons against enemy troop concentrations with regular forces only to mop up the scattered remains.?

The nuclear AI in HOi is certanly a major flaw all together. Every game after around 1945, when nuclear weapons is usually aquired by one part (obviously not by the AI, since it does not arm itself with nuclear weapons), is totally broken ballance-wise and incredibly unrealistic. Since the word "nuclear" will be crucial to any major war later than 1945, and pretty much everything that has to do with "nuclear" is broken in HOI, I would say the entire era after 1945 is rubbish.

 

[Samilou]

Oh, yeah, right, because everyone would keep on fighting until they are completely destroyed. Let's be reasonable here. Nukes are weapons of power. Unlike chemical weapons, which only kill people, nukes are not economical at all. You won't gain a thing from a destroyed, radiated city or from sick population. However, they may win you the war. And when both countries have them, then they serve as perfect deterrence.

No there would not be partisan warfare because of 2-5 nukes, that's all I am arguing for. Are you arguing for that there would? 5 nukes is not total destruction, yet they give you 100 percent dissent. Total destruction is when you drop them in hundreds or even thousands for most countries, this could not be done until the late 50's or early 60's, and especially then people would focus on surviving the war, not fighting the only thing that upholds communications to some degree.

 

[Grimlin]

No there would not be partisan warfare because of 2-5 nukes, that's all I am arguing for. Are you arguing for that there would? 5 nukes is not total destruction, yet they give you 100 percent dissent. Total destruction is when you drop them in hundreds or even thousands for most countries, this could not be done until the late 50's or early 60's, and especially then people would focus on surviving the war, not fighting the only thing that upholds communications to some degree.

And at the same time such a massive strike would not only destroy the state in itself but with it every possibility to organize any sort of real uprising. With cities destroyed, millions radiation sick, communications severed how should there by any sort of organized resistance against anyone?
In my opinion the effects on a province are pretty realistic with Infra at 0, IC and MP destroyed. Although the state still has nominal control it gains nothing from it, thereby essentially reflecting loss of control without partisans running around "conquering" adjacent provinces.
What is really lacking in my opinion is reduced morale and organization of divisions, maybe a negative combat modifier like the dissent modifier and attrition in irradiated provinces.
Making a country surrender as a result of nuclear war should be moved to events, its actually pretty easy to do with the IC loss trigger.

 

[^_AC_^]

Making a country surrender as a result of nuclear war should be moved to events, its actually pretty easy to do with the IC loss trigger.

Or with the new triggers for nuclear warfare:

- Trigger: nuked = X / nuked = { country = TAG1 [country = TAG2] data = X [where = Y] }
* nuked = -1 # True if against that country have been used at least 1 nuke
* nuked = 1 # True if that country has used at least 1 nuke against any country
* nuked = { country = FRA country = GER data = 1 where = 300 } # True if France(FRA) has used at least 1 nuke against Germany (GER) in Berlin (ID #300)
* nuked = { country = FRA data = -1 } # True if against France(FRA) has been used at least 1 nuke by any country
* nuked = { country = GER data = -2 where = 300 } # True is against Germany have been used at least 2 nukes (by any country) at Berlin