Nukes!

[unmerged(23633)]

Hi to all

The Ai should not use nukes again a country that also have nuke or the thechnologie to build some - so long the said country don't use them against the ai country

After all once you "know" what the effect of the atomic bomb are you would certainly not be bombed yourself by them.

second if 2 country that have nukes are at war their sould be an event for peace proposal (with minimal territory loose for the weaker)

ex
if one country counquer a lot of his ennmy provinces the other will say stop or i nuke you i have nothing to loose i am ready to do it
the other humm well i think their is a risk he use it well prepare negociations


sorry for my english

That is what i miss in hoi 1 (excellent game) about nukes

 

[unmerged(10262)]

Huh, people seems to fail to understand how powerful the firsts nukes really were. They should be treated like roughly 10 strategic bombers bombing a city once. Perhaps with some political effects on top of that.

 

[SecondReich]

Huh, people seems to fail to understand how powerful the firsts nukes really were. They should be treated like roughly 10 strategic bombers bombing a city once. Perhaps with some political effects on top of that.

Well, if that is all they are gonna be, then they shouldn't cost three hundred bazillion IC to research. As expensive as they are in HOI, they have to be superweapons!

 

[unmerged(10750)]

Well, if that is all they are gonna be, then they shouldn't cost three hundred bazillion IC to research. As expensive as they are in HOI, they have to be superweapons!

I think they should be war-ending weapons. But they shouldn't be tactical weapons.

As has been suggested, a large dissent hit on the targeted nation (25-30%) for each nuke would be a major punishment for getting hit, without unrealistically destroying stacks of troops.

 

[JRaup]

But in any case, this is a WW2 game that is supposed to reflect (at least partially) what really happened. Japan keeping on fighting despite having all it's homeland blasted to kingdom come is just insane.

Likewise, Germany severly damaged from nuclear attack would in all likelyhood collapse a lot earlier. What would happen if Germany in some scenario managed to develop nukes and bombed the US? What affect would the loss of several major american cities have? I sure dunno, but the likelyhood of their surrender would greatly increase IMO.

I do agree somewhat here. But it becomes a matter of scale, and some nebulous factors like "national character." It was far more devastating for Japan to lose Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than it was for Dresden to be bombed to rubbled, or even the fire bombing of Tokyo. There's a lot of "behind the scenes stuff" that has to be accounted for, that would have to be detailed for each particular nation. I don't see the USA or USSR just giving up if they lost Moscow or Washington. Nor do I see Germany collapsing that rapidly if Berlin goes up (and Hitler and compnay aren't there).

Then of course, there is the issue in HoI that ANYONE can build a bomb if you invest enough ICs into the techs. Even nations like Yemen and Ethiopia could if they lasted long enough. How realistic is that? Take Japan. They had a lot of industrial strength, but lacked the capabilities to build a bomb. Same for France (until the 1950's), or China. Look at what the US invested just to make two operational bombs. There really shouldn't be a high proliferation of nukes, as can happen in HoI. In fact, the advanced rate of production (2-3/year), often unbalances things badly.

ANd there is still the exploit potential. It would really bad if by regular strat bombing, a player could force an ahistorical early surrender, knowing that he only had to achieve certain levels of destruction.

 

[JRaup]

From what ive gathered so far is that all of you think the current nuke system should change yet no one is capable of coming up with a good alternative.

Lets say we retained the current system but toned the power of the nuke down and created some political effects? In such a situation it would be best to just handle it with events. In HoI1 you needed to look for specific parameters of provinces etc. But whats to say that HoI2 wont be improved and able to realise that the bomb dropped.

What im saying is that its too early to nitpick right now. We should wait until we're better informed on the abilitys of whats probably going to be an updated engine.

I agree. We're just tossing concepts around here, with no concrete idea as to how Johan and company are going to handle this. I also agree that some sort of political effect would need to be added to dropping the bomb, both for the user and the victim. But what that effect should be is dependant on how Paradox revises the whole diplomatic, domestic, and economic models used in game.

 

[unmerged(14393)]

Yes. If you´re hit with an A-bomb dissent should rise.
But it should also rise a bit for the ones using the bomb... For example I don´t see the American public accepting their government bombing Germany or japan back to the stone age with 10-30 nukes....

 

[JRaup]

I think they should be war-ending weapons. But they shouldn't be tactical weapons.

As has been suggested, a large dissent hit on the targeted nation (25-30%) for each nuke would be a major punishment for getting hit, without unrealistically destroying stacks of troops.

This was a question that was debated by those in power at the time. How to use those nukes. tactically or strategically? This was a key debate before the decision to use them was made. Where, and when, and to what purpose? Some argued that they should be used on large troop concentrations, and on heavily fortified areas. Others argued to use them more strategically, to thoroughly disrupt industrial output, command and control, communications, and transportation nets. In the end, Truman opted to go the strategic route, using teh nukes as weapons of terror. those early bombs were big nasty things, that caused a lot of destruction. It is quite right if any/all troops in a province that gets nuked should be KIA. Between the tests in New Mexico, and the two operationally dropped, I find it more than reasonable that units would get obliterated. Plus, I've actually seen units survive a nuke being dropped on them. don't ask me how, but I've seen it in game.

 

[unmerged(10750)]

In the end, Truman opted to go the strategic route, using teh nukes as weapons of terror. those early bombs were big nasty things, that caused a lot of destruction. It is quite right if any/all troops in a province that gets nuked should be KIA.

I don't see it. I could maybe understand one division being knocked out, maybe two or three (30-45 thousand men). But 10? 20? 30? That's what players are using nukes for - they're seeking out the largest troop concentrations and eradicating them. Remember, even the smallest province represents a pretty big geographical area, and there's no way that all the troops in the province are standing around in one place. One nuke simply couldn't have that kind of effect.

 

[cwhomer]

Then of course, there is the issue in HoI that ANYONE can build a bomb if you invest enough ICs into the techs. Even nations like Yemen and Ethiopia could if they lasted long enough. How realistic is that? Take Japan. They had a lot of industrial strength, but lacked the capabilities to build a bomb. Same for France (until the 1950's), or China. Look at what the US invested just to make two operational bombs. There really shouldn't be a high proliferation of nukes, as can happen in HoI. In fact, the advanced rate of production (2-3/year), often unbalances things badly.

I always thought there should be a resource for making bombs that was available only to the leaders of each faction (USA, USSR, GERMANY), and that the capability to make them could then be given to other non-hostile countries (Britain, China (later on), and Japan). That's what happened IRL. It would also give Germany an incentive to invade Norway, since that is where their access would be (IRL they invaded to get their hands on heavy water there).

Nukes should cause primarily economic damage, with a chance to somewhat hurt military units. Since the provinces will be smaller, this should be more realistic. And how will the attack-then-move change effect nukes tactical effectiveness? Could the allies have dropped a nuke on the front lines if there had been any stable fronts by the time nukes were ready? I don't think so, due the proximity of their own troops, but it's an interesting question to think about.

 

[OndGud]

However it's handeled I think there needs to be a "disable nuclear weapons" button. Imo they ruin the game.

I'm not interested in putting a lot of effort into a game that ends with a couple nukes then I win. They have to really nerf them from HoI1 for me to consider using them.

 

[SecondReich]

I'm sure Japan wishes there was a "deactivate nuclear weapons" button.

 

[SecondReich]

Besides, wouldn't the nuclear fallout eventually kill all the people in the units? All the survivors would be mutated and burnt, not really a fighting force...

From what I have heard, the fallout would eventually cover the size of an average american state, or maybe I am way off...thats just what I heard...

I don't find it unrealistic really.

 

[JRaup]

I don't see it. I could maybe understand one division being knocked out, maybe two or three (30-45 thousand men). But 10? 20? 30? That's what players are using nukes for - they're seeking out the largest troop concentrations and eradicating them. Remember, even the smallest province represents a pretty big geographical area, and there's no way that all the troops in the province are standing around in one place. One nuke simply couldn't have that kind of effect.

In part this is a conceptual issue. first off, if you try to pack in say, 120 infantry divisions into a province like Stalingrad (which the Soviets did in my last game), that a pretty tight fit. dropping a nuke would certainly make all of them non-combatants in a hurry. secondly, when a unit dies, it's not just all KIA. It means that the unit has lost all of its combat effectiveness, to the point it can't be rebuilt in the field. Dropping a nuke on a province, given the abstractions, would effectively eliminate the command aparatus, supply depots, poison food and water, destroy lots of equipment, and cause severe damage to the soldiers (not all of it immediate). This would reduce the capabilities of those units to zero. A child with a BB gun could steam roll them then. As such, those units are effectively "dead" in game terms. Third is what exactly a single game nuke represents. Is it one bomb? Two? Five? this has never been clearly stated AFAIK, and no matter what ratio you go with, it presents problems. If it's only one, then they are generally way over powered, especially as regards some provinces. If it's more than one, then they are under powered as regards certain provinces.

And of course, there is the whole tech issue. the vanilla HoI nuclear tech tree is too simplified, and too easy to get bombs, and "high quality" bombs early in the game, usually no later than 1943 (especially for the USA). So, it's not just one aspect that's the killer here. The combination of the map abstractions, combat abstractions, and the tech tree all make nukes far too viable in game, to use in any capacity.

 

[JRaup]

I always thought there should be a resource for making bombs that was available only to the leaders of each faction (USA, USSR, GERMANY), and that the capability to make them could then be given to other non-hostile countries (Britain, China (later on), and Japan). That's what happened IRL. It would also give Germany an incentive to invade Norway, since that is where their access would be (IRL they invaded to get their hands on heavy water there).

Nukes should cause primarily economic damage, with a chance to somewhat hurt military units. Since the provinces will be smaller, this should be more realistic. And how will the attack-then-move change effect nukes tactical effectiveness? Could the allies have dropped a nuke on the front lines if there had been any stable fronts by the time nukes were ready? I don't think so, due the proximity of their own troops, but it's an interesting question to think about.

Germany built the heavy water plant in Norway (after the had conquored them). Norway was invaded for several reasons, but the heavy water was not one of them actually (air fields was the biggest). They got their radioactive material from Belgium after they invaded.

Until I know more about how the map will be in HoI2, along with the tech tress, this is all pure speculation. smaller provinces would make the 1 bomb = 1 bomb ratio work more readily, but I can guarantee that there will still be issues as regards that aspect. There are just too many factors (and not enough hard info) to make a real determination on thinsg as yet.

 

[SecondReich]

In part this is a conceptual issue. first off, if you try to pack in say, 120 infantry divisions into a province like Stalingrad (which the Soviets did in my last game), that a pretty tight fit. dropping a nuke would certainly make all of them non-combatants in a hurry. secondly, when a unit dies, it's not just all KIA. It means that the unit has lost all of its combat effectiveness, to the point it can't be rebuilt in the field. Dropping a nuke on a province, given the abstractions, would effectively eliminate the command aparatus, supply depots, poison food and water, destroy lots of equipment, and cause severe damage to the soldiers (not all of it immediate). This would reduce the capabilities of those units to zero. A child with a BB gun could steam roll them then. As such, those units are effectively "dead" in game terms. Third is what exactly a single game nuke represents. Is it one bomb? Two? Five? this has never been clearly stated AFAIK, and no matter what ratio you go with, it presents problems. If it's only one, then they are generally way over powered, especially as regards some provinces. If it's more than one, then they are under powered as regards certain provinces.

EXACTLY!

 

[unmerged(10574)]

Maybe the effectivness of a Nuke could be put into a ratio based upon province size, number of divisions and other important factors.

Ie. Stalingrad represents one city plus maybe a bit of surrounding area. Nuke dropped there and KABOOM, bye bye everything.

If however it were dropped into a Siberian province with 1 division in it they would lose say 5 Strength.

The problem that arises here is that the nuke would be dropped in a tactically viable position, one of high population and Infrastructure level where most of the troops would be based.

 

[Cpack]

I agree in the proposal, that the auto rebuild of IC after strategic bombing was to fast, while improving IC manually with 360 days was much to long.

So autorebuild after strat bombing should last at least 3 month for 100% and manually improving IC max 180 days
(or totally change the System !!!!!)

One question:
I never used any nukes nor builded any tech for nukes in all my games.

So terrorbombing (as Dresden) is forbidden, while nuking is OK ?
Where is the difference between terrorbombing raids and nuking cities ?

I'm not totally against nukes, but I think that's a little bit inconsistent

What about abstracting nukes. If a nation has developed its first nuke, dissident hit for all enemies raise to 10%.
For every further nuke, additional 5%.

So after a while, opponents are forced to do everything to lower their dissident hit. Just a thought

 

[unmerged(10574)]

The thing about nukes and the terror bombings is that they are viewed in different lights in history. Nuclear Weapons were a major turning point in history which was hugely significant whereas the terrorbombings were used to demoralize the opposition and to "prevent any future wars by example".
Much like a topic that must not be mentioned, this is off limits.

 

[unmerged(10574)]

NOTE: I realize the implications of a nuclear bombing in comparission but note the historical importance.