Nuclear weapons - Research and use

[TheParanoyid]

Henlo friens,

I wanted to share a few ideas and see if anyone else feels somewhat similar. After being on sick leave for the past week I played relatively a lot of HOI 4 and I noticed that regardless of the nation I pick, getting nuclear weapons is always a bittersweet feeling. The reason being that historically it was a major game changer and had global implications shaping international politics even until now (Iran, North Korea, China etc.).

But as of now, in the game I have the feeling that getting nukes gives the sole benefit of 5% research time after the first tech. And mass-producing nuclear weapons to use as tactical weapons just feels really wrong. Usually you can get a stockpile bigger than the US had in 1960’s by 1946.

To mitigate this, I was thinking about how to make the research and use of the nukes feel more relevant:

1. The development of nukes should not be 3 techs with some research boosts via a focus, because just clicking and waiting with a 100% chance of success, if you can survive long enough, feels dull. The actual projects to develop the weapons were humongous in the scope of brain power, resources, and political will, and the success was not at all guaranteed. The above are the reasons why I think it should be an event/focus/decision with a random success/outcome chance, which will severely strain the economy of the country which chooses to pursue it. There were different directions researchers tried, lots of pause and pivot moments, and still some of it went nowhere (looking at you Germans).

1. If the projects are so big, difficult, and expensive, the creation of nukes should be very scarce. To develop a theory, to build a reactor, and to actually develop and test a weapon should be separate events with random chance of failure and disaster (Demon Core being just the most famous one). It should have prerequisites with access to resources, having the brainpower (Einstein in the US?), and means to build and test such weapons (Germans probably won't test a nuke in the Black Forest or Helgoland).

1. Having achieved all of the above should lead to different technologies being unlocked, for the RNG-Jesus factor, some of them even civilian. And if the bomb is indeed made and tested, having 250 Nukes would no longer be possible.

1. Using a nuclear weapon should have immediate international ramifications. I’m not proposing that everyone surrender immediately. But just imagine a situation where the Germans would use a nuclear bomb on Moscow, Stalingrad or Leningrad, or any UK city. If not the leaders, the population would revolt (maybe not the Russians, because really what was there to loose, but the situation in the West was different). The same goes the other way, should the USA use nuclear weapons in Europe, it would have to face social implications as well, given that most of the population there has European roots.

My main point is, developing and deploying a nuke should be a major decision with major international implications, especially since we are talking about the period of the 1940’s. Please feel free to criticise/discuss as the above is just a very broad road-map, and realistically any of the proposals don’t really have any chance of ever being implemented.

 

[kettyo]

Tactical nukes weren't a game changer i think. It was shocking of course but not a single country not being in a desperate situation already would have surrendered because of tactical nukes used against them i think.

Maybe the first usage of nukes should give research bonuses to nukes for other nations to simulate the historical rush to get them after Hiroshima.

 

[him_15]

Nuclear research and warfare will certainly get revamped in future DLC.

 

[TheParanoyid]

Tactical nukes weren't a game changer i think. It was shocking of course but not a single country not being in a desperate situation already would have surrendered because of tactical nukes used against them i think.

Maybe the first usage of nukes should give research bonuses to nukes for other nations to simulate the historical rush to get them after Hiroshima.

Well, I did not mean tactical nukes, but Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine as a game changer, whereas the threat of using nukes would act as a deterrent because of the sheer destructive power. My main point was that nukes were not used as a tactical weapon, so using them in the game feels rather weird and underwhelming, given that you have the option to literally eradicate cities.

With regards to the research, the second nation to get nukes after the US were the USSR almost 5 years later, to illustrate the scale of difficulty to develop the tech. But it would be an interesting option to play around with espionage and nuclear research, given that a lot has been leaked historically and the rumours that the Germans are doing it helped the approval of the Manhattan project etc. Think its an under-explored theme in the game really.

 

[XselenS]

Oh baby this is awesome! Loving your ideas here, we definitely need a revamped nuclear system.

 

[kettyo]

Well, I did not mean tactical nukes, but Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine as a game changer, whereas the threat of using nukes would act as a deterrent because of the sheer destructive power. My main point was that nukes were not used as a tactical weapon, so using them in the game feels rather weird and underwhelming, given that you have the option to literally eradicate cities.

WW2 and post-WW2 era nukes were tactical weapons. They meant to be used in that role actually as invasion support tools if you look at the plans for the invasion of Japan. The first two were used on selected civilan targets for demonstration purposes and it happened so that Japan has capitulated before the actual invasion but the rest was planned to be used as tactical weapons which they indeed were. Real strategic warheads which were developed to "literally eradicate cities" came much later.

 

[Tarroque]

Using a nuclear weapon should have immediate international ramifications. I’m not proposing that everyone surrender immediately. But just imagine a situation where the Germans would use a nuclear bomb on Moscow, Stalingrad or Leningrad, or any UK city. If not the leaders, the population would revolt (maybe not the Russians, because really what was there to loose, but the situation in the West was different). The same goes the other way, should the USA use nuclear weapons in Europe, it would have to face social implications as well, given that most of the population there has European roots.

The destruction caused by nuclear weapons in WW2 is less than 0.001% of the destruction caused by the conventional strategic bombing campaign. The consequences of the air attacks which were carried out did not result in uprisings or shifts in the political mood of either Germany, the USSR, or Japan.

I agree that nuclear weapons ought to be a greater investment/payoff than they currently are but it's hard to argue that they would have made much of an impact IRL before the introduction of hydrogen bombs.

 

[DrowsyBuzzard17]

The destruction caused by nuclear weapons in WW2 is less than 0.001% of the destruction caused by the conventional strategic bombing campaign. The consequences of the air attacks which were carried out did not result in uprisings or shifts in the political mood of either Germany, the USSR, or Japan.

I agree that nuclear weapons ought to be a greater investment/payoff than they currently are but it's hard to argue that they would have made much of an impact IRL before the introduction of hydrogen bombs.

To be fair, the atomic bomb both ended WW2 and started the Cold War, which were pretty serious international 'ramifications'), you also have to remember that those were just two bombs, totaling around 36 kilotons. The second worst bombed city in WW2, Hamburg, (I'm not counting Tokyo due to the destruction be owed mainly to the fires caused by it) 'only' had 9 kilotons dropped on it, with a total of 3,000 craft being used for it. Bombings such as those and the one at Dresden had enormous ramifications, whether it be at home or abroad. The strategic bombing campaigns were demoralizing for the Axis, but bombings such as Dresden caused upheaval and questioning of motives, and 'only' 3.3 kilotons were dropped on it. While the damage caused by nuclear weapons was small percentage-wise, that isn't the whole story. Imagine if nukes had been developed in 1940. How much larger would that percentage have been?
I do agree nukes are a bit easy to get and use though, if time-consuming, and not with a ton of payoff from what I've seen. While they could be useful for breaking through well-fortified enemy lines and can completely destroy a country's war support with 5 drops if you're lucky and smart, it's has a lot of micromanaging and very generalized and, in my opinion, useless, if fun to do for the first few times.

 

[Tarroque]

To be fair, the atomic bomb both ended WW2 and started the Cold War, which were pretty serious international 'ramifications'), you also have to remember that those were just two bombs, totaling around 36 kilotons. The second worst bombed city in WW2, Hamburg, (I'm not counting Tokyo due to the destruction be owed mainly to the fires caused by it) 'only' had 9 kilotons dropped on it, with a total of 3,000 craft being used for it. Bombings such as those and the one at Dresden had enormous ramifications, whether it be at home or abroad. The strategic bombing campaigns were demoralizing for the Axis, but bombings such as Dresden caused upheaval and questioning of motives, and 'only' 3.3 kilotons were dropped on it. While the damage caused by nuclear weapons was small percentage-wise, that isn't the whole story. Imagine if nukes had been developed in 1940. How much larger would that percentage have been?
I do agree nukes are a bit easy to get and use though, if time-consuming, and not with a ton of payoff from what I've seen. While they could be useful for breaking through well-fortified enemy lines and can completely destroy a country's war support with 5 drops if you're lucky and smart, it's has a lot of micromanaging and very generalized and, in my opinion, useless, if fun to do for the first few times.

The end of WW2 and the start of the cold war seems to me to have resulted more from allied victory through the invasion of Germany and the blockade of Japan, than from the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was admittedly an envelope calculation but last time I did the math you could have built around 8800 B-17s with the money spent on the manhatten project, and those bombers could also have "delivered" in spades.

Now I haven't done the math on this but I don't think anyone would be in doubt if the question was posed: "What costs more resources to do in-game, developing nuclear weapons or building 8800 strategic bombers, and which would be more devastating to your enemy?"