Nukes Reloaded

[unmerged(149861)]

After the first thread fell by the wayside, a new thread can best put aside the old issues and concentrate on the issue concerning the game.

At present, nukes can be lobbed right, left and center with no real concequences for the user, which is quite rediculous. In order to make using nuclear weapons slightly more of a tricker decision than a giant 'I win the war' option, I propose -

1. A increase in threat per nuke launched - At the end of WW2, nukes were scary. A single bomb that could level a city inspired more fear than anything else.

2. Penalty to diplomatic relations across the board - A simplified way of modeling the fact that everyone in the world looked at America in a different light after using the bomb.

3. Events in case of failure of the nuking mission. The American atom bombs were dropped amidsts total control of the air, thats not to say that a few Japanese fighters could have intercepted it, downed the plane and the bomb recovered by the Japanese. For flavour mostly.

Thoughts?

Game mechanic stuff only, people. I do not want to hear about the history or morals of war/a-bombs. -Darkrenown

 

[comsubpac]

still the same as before it doesn't make sense.
also if am not sure i reopening closed threads on your own is a good idea...

 

[Danmark Rising]

It really doesn't seem to fit within the scope of the game.

And I agree with comsubpac, it might be best to let this topic cool off for a while.

 

[ForzaA]

reopening happened with permission. The thread is being watched.

 

[Ksyr]

Fear is an important aspect of the atomic bomb, but should the UK feel threatened by the US bombing their common enemy? If you start declaring war on random countries and nuke them then maybe it would increase threat globally, but the allies were kinda close.

I don't really see the need for diplomatic penalties. It's not a fact that everyone in the world looked at America in a different light after using the bomb. They were the heroes who won the war and helped rebuild the free world. This thread is going to derail just like the previous one if we are going to lob our facts left and right with no real consequences. But seriously; People all over the world can debate this until the cows go home and the moon turns into green cheese.

An event might be nice. But what are the chances of getting something usable from the wreck? The loss of a nuke can be quite costly in itself. If the UXO team found a crashed plane with a bomb inside wouldn't they try to blow it up in place if at a safe location? Would they realise what they had found or would it be just another wreck with just another bomb?

 

[Danmark Rising]

reopening happened with permission. The thread is being watched.

Ok.

1. A increase in threat per nuke launched - At the end of WW2, nukes were scary. A single bomb that could level a city inspired more fear than anything else.

2. Penalty to diplomatic relations across the board - A simplified way of modeling the fact that everyone in the world looked at America in a different light after using the bomb.

3. Events in case of failure of the nuking mission. The American atom bombs were dropped amidsts total control of the air, thats not to say that a few Japanese fighters could have intercepted it, downed the plane and the bomb recovered by the Japanese. For flavour mostly.

Thoughts?

If there was an expansion or a mod that extended the end of the game say to 1960 or so then it would make more sense. I've seen a similar model used in other games, like Shadow President. The more you use nukes the more the world turns against you. I suppose if there was a way to say have the first 2 or 3 nukes do nothing to your diplomatic status, then after that if you continue using them you start upsetting other nations. But really your talking about the '45 to '47 years of the game without it being modded. That said, I rarely have a game that even involves nukes even in the later years.

 

[Syphus]

Had the plane been downed I am pretty sure that still wouldn't have ended well, but I may be wrong.

 

[comsubpac]

Had the plane been downed I am pretty sure that still wouldn't have ended well, but I may be wrong.

no, you can throw nukes out of planes. as long as they are not armed nothing happens.

 

[Danmark Rising]

Had the plane been downed I am pretty sure that still wouldn't have ended well, but I may be wrong.

There have been a large number of planes go down with nukes on them. Some with radiation leakage but none with a detonation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

 

[Caban]

The model is a bit simplistic... yeah, other countries will be more threatened by you... but at the same point it's also a very effective motivator to other countries to stay on your good side.

Besides, it was looked at a bit differently during the WW2 era... there weren't thoughts of destroying the entire world simply because nobody expected the ensuing nuclear arms race. And we went from bombs that could destroy a few blocks to bombs that could blow up 1/5th of the Netherlands in the span of about 30 years.

And RE: the nukes on the plane... they were armed immediately after takeoff for that very reason... just watched a documentary on that last night. Plane goes down, nuke goes off... and at least the two used in Japan were set to detonate a specific altitude, they weren't set to explode on contact.

 

[Ksyr]

Little boy was considered "unsafe", but the newer ones where made a lot safer as they got more practicals. But still. Assuming there was enough left in the wreck to resemble a bomb the people who found it might not recognise it for what is really was and blow it up to get rid of it. Or maybe a desperate enemy would try to recover explosives and metal from the bomb to use for themselves?

 

[comsubpac]

Little boy was considered "unsafe", but the newer ones where made a lot safer as they got more practicals. But still. Assuming there was enough left in the wreck to resemble a bomb the people who found it might not recognise it for what is really was and blow it up to get rid of it. Or maybe a desperate enemy would try to recover explosives and metal from the bomb to use for themselves?

even when they blow up the bomb they will "only" set free radiation but it would not lead into a atomic explosion.

 

[Ricox]

I am suggesting that there's incerased threat only with opposite ideology nations (so if US drops a nuke on Japan, then it will get threat hit on communist, socialist and national socialist nations or something along the lines of that). That would make more sense, unless ofcourse the nuke is dropped on same ideology nation, in which case the threat hit should be with similiar or same ideology nations, not communist, fascist etc. nations (why would they feel threathened when they see a nation bomb democratical nations to hell?).

 

[Ksyr]

I am suggesting that there's incerased threat only with opposite ideology nations (so if US drops a nuke on Japan, then it will get threat hit on communist, socialist and national socialist nations or something along the lines of that). That would make more sense, unless ofcourse the nuke is dropped on same ideology nation, in which case the threat hit should be with similiar or same ideology nations, not communist, fascist etc. nations (why would they feel threathened when they see a nation bomb democratical nations to hell?).

Sounds like an idea combined with the "2-3 first bombs for free" idea. What impact on the game will increased threat have in the late war years? How soon can we have that many nukes ready?

 

[Danmark Rising]

I wonder if there is a way to mod nukes so that their use generates threat with countries of ideologies that are not your own. Would be a good way to test out how this would work.

 

[unmerged(2979)]

I wonder if there is a way to mod nukes so that their use generates threat with countries of ideologies that are not your own. Would be a good way to test out how this would work.

If you want realism in using nukes you should make the cities in question 'out of order' for years and wipe out all divisions in that territory, not to mention add high attrition rates to your troops moving into that province after the fact.

 

[DanSez]

I'd say in the scope of the game, the only impact on dropping nukes would be the raising of threat level, but by then everybody who is anybody is already engaged in warfare. To what purpose would that be? It's not like the Soviet Union will suddenly feel threatened by the US dropping of the bomb, declare war and attack US/Allied forces in Europe.

I believe alot of hindsight is implied in this question as well. It was years before the full extent of what it ment to be nuked made it out in the general media. Great Britian's main sorrow at the end of the war was they knew that their empire was coming to an end, and the Americans were treating them as distant ugly step-cousins in the Pacific Theatre. Not much worry about the moral impact of what had happened. China? Probably those who knew cheered for years after they heard about the bombings. So who would have been so upset?

At most you might get some increase in threat against the "other factions" but absolutely No Threat or negative implications from withing your faction for using nukes. The Neutral nations didn't know enough about it to react within the gametime of HoI3.

As far as I can see, without game cheats, the only 2 countries with a hope of building nukes and delivering them upon their enemies before the end of 1945 would be the US and German. I apprecate the discussion but don't see how a negative modifier reflects the situtaion or mindsets of the historical period.

As another poster suggested - if this game continued on to the 1960's/70's or even "The End Of Factions", then you might have a good case to build.

 

[unmerged(219522)]

People who dislike you would still dislike you, people who liked you would still like you. Would there really have been any diplomatic penalties in real life? No, not really, especially when in this game the factions stay at war.

 

[thehollowman]

After the first thread fell by the wayside, a new thread can best put aside the old issues and concentrate on the issue concerning the game.

At present, nukes can be lobbed right, left and center with no real concequences for the user, which is quite rediculous. In order to make using nuclear weapons slightly more of a tricker decision than a giant 'I win the war' option, I propose -

1. A increase in threat per nuke launched - At the end of WW2, nukes were scary. A single bomb that could level a city inspired more fear than anything else.

2. Penalty to diplomatic relations across the board - A simplified way of modeling the fact that everyone in the world looked at America in a different light after using the bomb.

3. Events in case of failure of the nuking mission. The American atom bombs were dropped amidsts total control of the air, thats not to say that a few Japanese fighters could have intercepted it, downed the plane and the bomb recovered by the Japanese. For flavour mostly.

Thoughts?

Game mechanic stuff only, people. I do not want to hear about the history or morals of war/a-bombs. -Darkrenown

I mean, the A-bomb was a giant win the war option historically, so I don't see the problem there.

In terms of your points , and the game mechanics.

1. Conceptually this might make sense, but mechanically, doesnt threat relate to how likely they are to fight you? Atomic warfare is gonna make people afraid of you, especially if they dont have it!

2. Disagree on this one too. as you say, it would be simplified. Far too simplified. Maybe it would severely damage relationships with your enemies allies. Nuking London as Germany for example would probably make the Allies hate you forever. Then again it depends if they have one too. They might not want to be on the end of that. Just seems very difficult to model accurate. I would say, you should probably get damaged diplomatic relationships if say, you nuke warsaw, and release the polish. Yeah thanks for nuking our city >:|

3. I'd say launching a mission without superiority you should have a good chance to lose the bomb, but I can't think its likely to have one captured. Maybe if that did happen, and it didnt go off accidently in the crash, they would get a free nuclear tech, from analysing the bomb.

In general I dont think using the a-bomb should be "tricky" per se. It should be useful in ending the war, just like real life, unless they have access to them too. But in real life there were only 2 dropped, and that was pretty horrifying to see. Maybe have mods come in after you drop 5 or more, or if its the axis doing it instead of the allies.

 

[1alexey]

My point of viev.
We need to assume that:
1. bombs are scary.
2. there is no eternal aliances, today thay nucke country X, tomorow thay will bomb us if we refuse to cooperate.
3. After the war will end, the world still exists and Victors will share trophys, so the one with Nuckes is in better position.
4. The truth about whay happen to people exposed to radiation will be revialed rather soon.


Than Yes, nuckes will increase tread to everyone.
Because people generally dislike anyone who is stronger and able to forse his will on you.

For example British. Thay are in debt to America. Normaly thay could negotiate about prolongation or even refuse to pay for a time and invasion would be to expensive to enforse debt. Now we can not, since Americans will simply promise to nucke us if we dont, and since civilians are scared, we don`t have a lot of options.