Nukes Reloaded

[Ksyr]

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.

Not all soldiers are crammed into the center of town for easy killing. Especially if the country in question have experienced massive conventional bomber raids already. If the province has huge stacks of troops then at least some of them are hit, but a province can be a lot larger than the city. Attrition yes, because they don't know so much(anything at all) about radiation.

 

[scroggin]

reopening happened with permission. The thread is being watched.

I would just like to say that the moderators here do a great job of keeping the forum civil and decent its apreciated.
On the topic the problem I see with this idea is that having high threat as it is modeled in the game makes a country more likely the want to go to war with you . Perhaps they should drift away from you diplomaticly instead.
On (3) Im sure any country with nukes would put proceedures in place to prevent their enemies being able to get an unexploded nuke the nukes were set to detonate when decending through a set altitude so if the bomb was armed when they entered enemy airspace shooting the plane down would still cause a neuclear explosion

 

[comsubpac]

I would just like to say that the moderators here do a great job of keeping the forum civil and decent its apreciated.
On the topic the problem I see with this idea is that having high threat as it is modeled in the game makes a country more likely the want to go to war with you . Perhaps they should drift away from you diplomaticly instead.
On (3) Im sure any country with nukes would put proceedures in place to prevent their enemies being able to get an unexploded nuke the nukes were set to detonate when decending through a set altitude so if the bomb was armed when they entered enemy airspace shooting the plane down would still cause a neuclear explosion

but i think the bomb would be only armed shortly before the drop. unarmed a nuclear bomb is "harmless".

 

[unmerged(149861)]

Alright, so, the revised edition


1. Using a war-winning weapon that nobody else has does and should change the attitudes of other nations towards the nation with the bomb. A gradual increase in the penalty should be introduced, meerly to stop the idea of using nukes to kill infrastructure in a province.

2. I still think that there should be a severe relations penalty for using nukes. For example, the world should hate me if I bomb a German controled Paris more than if I create a mushroom cloud over Berlin.

3. I think its agreed that nuke missions should have at least a 50.50 chance to fail, making air control that bit more important.

 

[unmerged(198171)]

This thread is silly very very very few players will ever reach the point where they can build atomic weapons and there is any sort of enemy left, and even if they do who really cares if your enemies hate you more and your allies like you more. This is something that should maybe be implemented in a cold war expansion but has no place in a world war two game. Paradox should spend their resources on things that most players experience and need improving on such as the horrible horrible horrible seaborne allied invasions, or the fact that submarines are worthless against capital ships even though they sank basically as many capital ships in WW2 as carriers, or the fact that the AI groups its CV's with BB's so they sail gloriously into Capital gun ship range. These are the things that need fixing and changing things that most HOI3 players experience, not something that 1% of the players will experience and doesn't even really matter to them.

 

[mrwrong]

i think in order to make the bombs , it should take more resources ...

 

[tommylotto]

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.

Nazi Germany might have used nukes to collect loans, but America? come on...

Increasing threat makes someone more likely to DOW you. Nukes have the exact opposite effect. We need a new category -- the fear factor. A country might appear threatening, but too strong to mess with. Nukes might increase the threat level but would make the fear factor go through the roof. Nukes are a deterrent -- the fear they generate exceeds the threat they produce.

 

[1alexey]

Nazi Germany might have used nukes to collect loans, but America? come on...

Increasing threat makes someone more likely to DOW you. Nukes have the exact opposite effect. We need a new category -- the fear factor. A country might appear threatening, but too strong to mess with. Nukes might increase the threat level but would make the fear factor go through the roof. Nukes are a deterrent -- the fear they generate exceeds the threat they produce.

Ameicans, British, Nazi, Comies, Japanese are same. All in for money and power. All made war crimes.

There is actually a reverse effect if threat becomes too big, people are more wiling to be your friend. And allighn to you.

Also will forse others to rush their nucke reserch.

 

[Chromos]

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

Hi,
as nukes had an obviously HEAVY impact on decisions, of even an well known inveterate foe like Japan, it should have heavy effects.

Already in game:
1. Effecting NU of target country.

2. Devastating effect on buildings,infra and stored Ressources(! Capital hit is deadly !) in that provinces hit.(Remember: Diameter of Prov ~30Km*30Km.)

3. Light to Medium damage done to troops in that target province.

4. ? Did I miss something? Please add in an answer!


My proposal:

1. Effect of NU should be modable! Else a higher effect as strategic bombing as it is a "little differnt story" as with conventional stuff.

2. Effect on buildings and infra should last longer as the prov(parts of it) is contaminated and thus "going back to live" is harder. (Additional value for "hit with super-cruel weapons"- would make tactical stuff also possible if available for the whole game..)

3. Effect of Ressources should be not that heavy, as with the current economy model the hit of the capital is to severe IMHO.

3. Damage to land troops is ok, but maybe an additional modifier for attrition of provinces is nice to have, so that the contamination of that prov could be modeled. These additional modifier should be time dependent. So it would last only a time that is given by the effect of being nuked or even weather?
Damage against naval target should be devastating..
Also against massed Bombers it should work "wonders".. (But that could fell apart maybe.. :wacko

4. A new value for "super-cruel weapons" use like threat. That effects the diplo like threat does it now already.
Or just raise the threat for everyone. Just a bit higher as much military stuff would do already. So some nukes count for x Divisions and nukes used even more.

And please stay on topic!

Kind regards,
Chromos

 

[Ksyr]

Alright, so, the revised edition


1. Using a war-winning weapon that nobody else has does and should change the attitudes of other nations towards the nation with the bomb. A gradual increase in the penalty should be introduced, meerly to stop the idea of using nukes to kill infrastructure in a province.

2. I still think that there should be a severe relations penalty for using nukes. For example, the world should hate me if I bomb a German controled Paris more than if I create a mushroom cloud over Berlin.

3. I think its agreed that nuke missions should have at least a 50.50 chance to fail, making air control that bit more important.

1. How many bombs do you have in the timeframe of the game? I've never had enough to even consider using them merely for killing infrastructure.

2. Interesting. A nuke on Paris might be seen as an attack on the french, not the Germans. There was conventional bombing of french cities and there has been some resentment later. Nuking a city like paris makes it hard to claim you were aiming for military targets.

3. No. The nukes worked when they were supposed to. If the enemy isn't trying to shoot it down then there shouldn't be 50% chance of failure.

 

[Ksyr]

but i think the bomb would be only armed shortly before the drop. unarmed a nuclear bomb is "harmless".

Yes, they had several systems in place to make sure the bomb didn't go off too early. As far as I know only little boy where constructed so it could possible explode due to a crash.

The questions is "so what if the nuke crashed and didn't explode on enemy territory?" Was there a sign on the bomb saying "Secret super weapon. Do not destroy. Call your best scientists"?

 

[Dev]

Ameicans, British, Nazi, Comies, Japanese are same. All in for money and power. All made war crimes.

There is actually a reverse effect if threat becomes too big, people are more wiling to be your friend. And allighn to you.

Also will forse others to rush their nucke reserch.

You make zero sense, the Americans gave Europe money after WW2 was over...

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

You make zero sense, the Americans gave Europe money after WW2 was over...

Lets not turn this in to a historical debate. Keep it related to the game.

 

[Battlecry]

-Well provided there's an on_action trigger for nuclear bombings, you could have a worldwide event that fires to increase threat. With flags etc. to determine how many nukes have been used, you could have the level of threat increase with each firing. So the first bomb or two might not have much effect, but nuking every city in a country would have the world screaming for your blood. I think it's doable...

-I'd also agree that the resource effect of nuking the capital should be drastically reduced. The concentration of resources in the capital is a game abstraction - it's not like anybody actually kept their entire strategic reserves in the capital.

Note: 1940s type a-bombs would almost certainly not detonate on impact even if they were armed. The mechanisms which ensure that all compression explosives go off at the same time (absolutely essential) were very fragile, and the shock of impact would ruin the effect. You'd have a blasted mess of uranium or plutonium, nothing more. In a sphere type warhead (Fat Man), deformation of the sphere would be near-instantaneous and prevent a chain reaction.

 

[Leon_Aditzu]

yes increase the threat to everyone if you play ”eu3 or victoria2 with nukes”,and are big chances of wars against former allies in the same year after you win the war, but you play hoi3 and alliances are permanent. you couldn't ban your ally like in like in hoi2

 

[Ricox]

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.

Not trying to bring anything into off-topic, but please get your facts straight. Lend Lease was aid without any payback and seriously - Americans threathening the British with nuclear bombs? Where have you heard that?

1. USA and UK are long-term allies and are on friendly terms with eachother.
2. UK has nuclear warheads just like US.
3. If US would threathen UK with nuclear weapons, then NATO would collapse within days and there would be massive political and possibly military conflict popping up and all US diplomatic efforts with Russia could possibly be gone as US and Russia have always feared eachother's nuclear arsenal.

And seriously, are you really from United Kingdom or I understood you wrong? English is apparently your first language, yet your English level is worse than mine considering my age and the fact that it's my third language.

Anyways, now that I think about, threat impact from nuking does indeed seem useless considering the game's timeline. Perhaps a nuke dropped on a nation would instantly cause a strategic effect to pop up which lowers that nation's national unity and manpower (I really doubt anyone would want to fight againist weapons that they can't do anything about) and also give a negative national unity penalty to nations bordering the nuked nation IF the neighbouring country has 0 or less relations with the nuking country? That would perhaps model the fact that civilians fear that such weapons will be on their country and they're a neighbour of the nuked nation so they probably know what happend there.

@Battlecry: The Japanese didn't even try to intercept those bombers, because they apparently thought that it was a simple scouting mission.

 

[Ksyr]

@Leon
Hoi3 spans only 12 years and the time period have a lot more democratic nations where the leaders will have a hard(er) time going to war against their allies or kicking them out.

 

[Battlecry]

Now that it's been brought to mind, I would have to agree that the game's timespan makes threat gains from using nukes pretty worthless. At the very least, if there is an on_action trigger, we could at play around with some ideas (including all the current event/decision effects).

 

[Rancher]

I agree with Irishfafnir, Paradox could find many more things to improve rather than something I would suspect very few players actually use or even want to. Can I suggest more attention to the naval game and supply?

 

[Danmark Rising]

Through a quick PM I asked about modding nukes. The only part that's moddable for them is this line in the defines.lua file.

NUKE_UNITY_IMPACT	= 1.0,		-- impact from being nukes.

Maybe what we should really be requesting is not that the Devs change nukes for us, but ask them to make them more moddable.

Maybe make a NUKE_IMPACT = Nuke.txt

and then in the nuke.txt file we can set our own effects.

It would probably also give a little more flexibility to mods focusing on Post WWII events.