Nuke Effects

[III.Selim]

Here is the list i would like to see when nuked:

1. If nuked place is the capital, capital should change place.
2. Nuke should have effect on neighbour provinces.
3. Nuked place should have temporary radiation penalty
4. Nuked place should give damage and should decrease organization/morale of the troops which are passing from a radiated province.
5. Nuclear attack should increase dissent of the nations which are democratic.
6. Nuclear attack should increase the belligerence of the attacker.
7. It should not be easy to nuke a province. Anti-aircraft guns and fighters should be more active. Although it should be more easier to produce nuclear boms, where usa and su had thousands of nukes in cold war.

 

[humancalculator]

Here is the list i would like to see when nuked:

1. If nuked place is the capital, capital should change place.
2. Nuke should have effect on neighbour provinces.
3. Nuked place should have temporary radiation penalty
4. Nuked place should give damage and should decrease organization/morale of the troops which are passing from a radiated province.
5. Nuclear attack should increase dissent of the nations which are democratic.
6. Nuclear attack should increase the belligerence of the attacker.
7. It should not be easy to nuke a province. Anti-aircraft guns and fighters should be more active. Although it should be more easier to produce nuclear boms, where usa and su had thousands of nukes in cold war.

1. +1
2.No, the nukes back then were not really that powerful.
3.This is represented by infrastructure loss.
4.this is represented by the attrition and loss of org. from destroying the infrastructure.
5.Yes, but if they are allies with the nation that used the nuke, then no.
6.+1
7.A. I disagree and agree at the same time. If you have turbo-jet strategic bombers, I think that they are pretty safe. Then again, if you have a B-17, then yeah, it would probably get shot down. They should have a certain percentage change for each model of bomber who nukes a province to fail. For a B-17, it would be 75%. For a B-29, it would be <25%.
7.B. This game is not a cold war game. We didn't have "thousand's of nukes" by 1948. I think that it should be easily modded in for a Cold War mod.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

I hope all effects of a nuclear strike will be moddable.

 

[maekh]

and lots of HDR

 

[unmerged(94130)]

7.A. I disagree and agree at the same time. If you have turbo-jet strategic bombers, I think that they are pretty safe. Then again, if you have a B-17, then yeah, it would probably get shot down. They should have a certain percentage change for each model of bomber who nukes a province to fail. For a B-17, it would be 75%. For a B-29, it would be <25%.

But you have a turbojet strategic bombers, your ennemies will have anti air missiles or heavy AA gun guided by radars.

After there is Intercontinental Strategic Missile...so no protection against that...may be in a modern Day scenario

And perhaps the possibility to build anti atomic shelters which would reduce the effects of a nuclear strike.

 

[humancalculator]

But you have a turbojet strategic bombers, your ennemies will have anti air missiles or heavy AA gun guided by radars.

This is 1936-1948, so I think that they wouldn't put it in so that you can magically shoot all aircraft out of the sky.

And perhaps the possibility to build anti atomic shelters which would reduce the effects of a nuclear strike.

Once again, this is 1948, not 1968.

 

[Registered]

7. It should not be easy to nuke a province. Anti-aircraft guns and fighters should be more active.

Why would they be more active then usual? In principle the enemy has no way of knowing that that aircraft is carrying a nuke, not unless there was a serious breach of security. That said, there should be a chance that the aircraft carrying the nuke is downed (assuming the presence of AA/fighters)

 

[unmerged(94130)]

This is 1936-1948, so I think that they wouldn't put it in so that you can magically shoot all aircraft out of the sky.

But an aircraft is not incivible...and turbojet strategic bomber it's the first half of 50'.
I agree that an sol-air missile, it's too advanced for HoI but heavy AA guns and radars, it's possible...

Once again, this is 1948, not 1968.

And why not ?
There was shelters for conventional bombardments, so why not for anti atomics shelters ?

 

[unmerged(56754)]

I'm against most of your suggestions. Nuclear bombs of 1945/8 are not powerful as you think, or in that many numbers. The USA had 3 in 1945, not hundreds of thousands ...

And why should only democracies get dissent? I'm certain Nazi Germany or Japan would not be happy with Nukes dropped on them ...

Besides, the 1960s' bombs you describe would have lead to the end of the worl, what a rubbish war game that would be ...

 

[unmerged(56754)]

There was shelters for conventional bombardments, so why not for anti atomics shelters ?

Conventional bunkers would have probably done the job against the initial destruction of a 1945 Nuke.

Unfortunatly, to build a Nuclear war bunker that prevents the atomic effects requires it to be built with massive amounts of lead.

Obviously, living in a room of lead isn't idle to say the least ...

 

[Darknesskilla]

And why should only democracies get dissent? I'm certain Nazi Germany or Japan would not be happy with Nukes dropped on them ...

He means USA should get dissent for nuking someone else. In the US there were/are a lot of people who didn't like the idea of nukes. In Nazi Germany, not so much

 

[Filou]

I'm also against dissent for a democratic nuker. All parties were trying to exterminate their opponents, democracies did not have any more after thoughts than dictatorships about their actions.

Nuclear bombs of 1945/8 are not powerful as you think, or in that many numbers. The USA had 3 in 1945, not hundreds of thousands ...

True about power, but numbers could have been higher, at least higher than what we get now with the largest reactor.

Japan's surrender meant that most plants were shut down and planned ones were stopped. This makes it's hard to evaluate exactly how many bombs the US could have had by the end of 1945, but 3 Fat Man type bombs per month after September, with that number increasing each month to reach 7 in December seems pretty safe.

 

[Ithron]

PI have policy of no weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear weapons are not only the most powerfull weapons of mass destruction, but also were exclusively used on civilian population. The strategic bombing at least besides "setting population against dictatorship" was also doing industrial and infrastructial destruction.
I don't think it is good idea to count nuclear weapon as "acceptable" weapon of mass destruction. So I hope PI will rethink it's position on weapons of mass destruction.

As for number of nukes, here again it shows that the number of killed is less important then quantitative possibilities of further bombings.
In WW2 both nukes were used for devastating psychological effect through instant destruction of huge amount of people, and survivors who died of effects later and not from the blast itself, only spread the terror further. I doubt somebody can truly imagine what would happen if nuclear weapon would be used on city of millions, and not of thousands.

If some of the weapons of mass destruction are in game, then different aspects of economy could also be in. For example, The Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies. Having it would have such effects:
- 3% increase in economy
- dissent
- quicker reducement of dissent
- increased population in remote areas of the country
- cheaper infrastructure and industry
- less manpower.

No matter how much love some might have for Mushroom clouds, I fail to see how 200'000 achieved by Unit 731 is criminally different then 200'000 accomplished by Little boy and Fat man. Death and pain for all is the same.

 

[unmerged(94130)]

For example, The Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies. Having it would have such effects:

Too close prisoners of war camps or same death camps...

 

[humancalculator]

PI have policy of no weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear weapons are not only the most powerfull weapons of mass destruction, but also were exclusively used on civilian population. The strategic bombing at least besides "setting population against dictatorship" was also doing industrial and infrastructial destruction.
I don't think it is good idea to count nuclear weapon as "acceptable" weapon of mass destruction. So I hope PI will rethink it's position on weapons of mass destruction.

As for number of nukes, here again it shows that the number of killed is less important then quantitative possibilities of further bombings.
In WW2 both nukes were used for devastating psychological effect through instant destruction of huge amount of people, and survivors who died of effects later and not from the blast itself, only spread the terror further. I doubt somebody can truly imagine what would happen if nuclear weapon would be used on city of millions, and not of thousands.

If some of the weapons of mass destruction are in game, then different aspects of economy could also be in. For example, The Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies. Having it would have such effects:
- 3% increase in economy
- dissent
- quicker reducement of dissent
- increased population in remote areas of the country
- cheaper infrastructure and industry
- less manpower.

No matter how much love some might have for Mushroom clouds, I fail to see how 200'000 achieved by Unit 371 is criminally different then 200'000 accomplished by Little boy and Fat man. Death and pain for all is the same.

The rules say to not even touch on these subjects. the rules also say that any threads protesting this will be closed without notice. This is just a friendly warning, please delete the borderline stuff. A moderator might punish you for posting such things.

 

[henryjai]

nukes could be a decisive factor in WW2... so i don't see why it will not be included.

 

[unmerged(101730)]

2. Nuke should have effect on neighbour provinces.

No. The two nukes used were in the low two-digit kT range (something like 22kt and 30kt, if I remember correctly). Those have a maximum destruction diameter of below 10km. That's not even a 1% of an average HoI3 province (remember: they are on average circles with 130km of diameter).

 

[Registered]

I'm also against dissent for a democratic nuker. All parties were trying to exterminate their opponents, democracies did not have any more after thoughts than dictatorships about their actions.

Too true, teh Enola gay crew recieved a tickertape parade when they got home.