In HoI2, the AI was incapable of using nukes as far as I know. Will that change in HoI3?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Bloody well hope so, although only three or four nations should be able to construct and test them within the game's time frame.
The devs have been talking about their new AI that follows the same rules as the human player, so it better be able to do so :rofl:
I am fairly sure it will happen. I dunno where i read it, but it was either a blog or some twitter message where this was mentioned at least in a half-sentence.
What would be way more important though is proper targeting. While asking for a bomb right before a landing might be too much, but strategic bombing (like nuking Berlin/Tokyo) or OMG HUGE STACK-bombing should be possible. i hope.
Uhh imagine a Japanese Bomb though *shudder*
What would be way more important though is proper targeting. While asking for a bomb right before a landing might be too much, but strategic bombing (like nuking Berlin/Tokyo) or OMG HUGE STACK-bombing should be possible. i hope.
Uhh imagine a Japanese Bomb though *shudder*
Just as a question, does anyone know why the Allies didn't drop the first bomb on Tokyo? It seems that in HoI, the best places to drop nukes are often capitals due to their high ICs, role as super-supply depots, etc.
I just really hope that nukes will reflect the reality by having more effects than just an IC/Infrastructure loss: dissent increase, loss of support for reigning party, etc.
I don't think Paradox would consider it due to their no terrorbombing rule, but it seems to me that nukes are the exception to the rule. Making them so damaging and devastating would not be 'glorifying' such events but instead would make them more of a sobering reminder.
But at least with the smaller province size their severe damage to units in the province will actuall make a little more sense. And in the end, this is another example of a touchy subject that could be handled by modders.
I just really hope that nukes will reflect the reality by having more effects than just an IC/Infrastructure loss: dissent increase, loss of support for reigning party, etc.
I don't think Paradox would consider it due to their no terrorbombing rule, but it seems to me that nukes are the exception to the rule. Making them so damaging and devastating would not be 'glorifying' such events but instead would make them more of a sobering reminder.
But at least with the smaller province size their severe damage to units in the province will actuall make a little more sense. And in the end, this is another example of a touchy subject that could be handled by modders.
Because they wanted to scare the emperor and the japenese government into surrendering? If they had dropped the bomb on Tokyo, the civilian government would have been wiped out, and I don't think the military would have been overly keen on surrendering either before or after that.
Just a guess, of course.
I was pretty sure it was something similiar, but I wouldn't be suprised if other things like the weather, the quality of the AA defense, the need to record the explosion, etc. also played a part in it.
But then, that does bring up an interesting point: should nukes have a chance to kill members of a nations leadership?
Lets say the Americans bomb Berlin. There could be a tiny % chance for each minister (say with the exception if the top two guys to prevent weird situations like the UK not having a Monarch) when you bomb the capital.
Those that could be killed should also take into account all the available ministers at that time. For instance, even if Jodl isn't Germany's chief of Staff, if he is selectable for the role he has a chance of dying. But those who are not possible selections (those ministers from other parties or who have not made it up there yet are immune).
This should, of course, be a very rare occurance. One should not wipe out an enemy players government every time they drop a nuke.
As if bombing of two medium sized cities was not enough of a mass murder.
The question should be, why the hell bomb places where dozens of thousands of civilians would be killed outright?
Why not drop the bomb on a military base and threaten to drop another one on Tokyo. I would have tried that.
If I recall correctly, the criteria:
1) Whether or not the city had already been subject to heavy bombing (no use bombing an already destroyed city)
2) Large, urban area
3) A place where it would create effective damage
The result was either Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, or Kokura.
These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made.
Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.
However, Nagasaki was chosen because of weather in the area, as well as someone in government wishing for Kyoto not to be destroyed (he admired the city).
Either way, it killed a hell of a lot of people, and I think constitutes as war crimes. But they won the war, victors write history, and get away with such things. Don't even get me started on the flattening of Germany's 36 most populated cities.....
1) Whether or not the city had already been subject to heavy bombing (no use bombing an already destroyed city)
2) Large, urban area
3) A place where it would create effective damage
The result was either Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, or Kokura.
These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made.
Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.
However, Nagasaki was chosen because of weather in the area, as well as someone in government wishing for Kyoto not to be destroyed (he admired the city).
Either way, it killed a hell of a lot of people, and I think constitutes as war crimes. But they won the war, victors write history, and get away with such things. Don't even get me started on the flattening of Germany's 36 most populated cities.....
you just copy/pasted wikipedia, so you probably did not actually "recall" this information. Nagasaki was a secondary target after the primary, Kokura, was covered in smoke from a nearby bombing.
1. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were secondary targets, the primaries were too obscured with cloud cover to drop the weapons accurately.
2. Both had legitimate military targets in the city.
3. Japan had repeatedly demonstrated complete disregard for proper treatment of prisoners; there are more than enough cases of Japanese military personnel summarily executing prisoners, torture, and repeatedly violating the Geneva convention. Just ask the survivors of the Bataan Death March. Also, Japan had slaughtered Chinese and Korean civilians, they were mass murderers themselves, but in almost every case never stood trial.
4. The balance of inflicting massive damage on two relatively small cities versus the end result of an actual invasion shows that the US would have probably suffered nearly one million casualties. That was not acceptable to the government still trying to prosecute a war who's popularity was waning. Not to mention the number of civilian casualties expected from the Japanese should such an invasion occur.
5. Because of all of the above, dropping two bombs for a "mere" (and I do not use that term lightly) 200k of casualties was preferable to the alternative.
6. I won't argue the strategic bombing campaigns. Those were grossly ineffective, and they're the reason the US does everything it can to use smart weapons today.
Now that the history is out of the way....
I would like to see the AI be able to use nukes, and I'd like to see that minister thing that was suggested: especially for something like a Cold War scenario, "Would it be possible for a first strike that would make a nuclear war winnable"? Could the balance of ICBMs/SLBMs/air-dropped nukes be such that a disarming first-strike be possible? Something along the lines of a 'Red Storm Rising' scenario would be cool as well.
2. Both had legitimate military targets in the city.
3. Japan had repeatedly demonstrated complete disregard for proper treatment of prisoners; there are more than enough cases of Japanese military personnel summarily executing prisoners, torture, and repeatedly violating the Geneva convention. Just ask the survivors of the Bataan Death March. Also, Japan had slaughtered Chinese and Korean civilians, they were mass murderers themselves, but in almost every case never stood trial.
4. The balance of inflicting massive damage on two relatively small cities versus the end result of an actual invasion shows that the US would have probably suffered nearly one million casualties. That was not acceptable to the government still trying to prosecute a war who's popularity was waning. Not to mention the number of civilian casualties expected from the Japanese should such an invasion occur.
5. Because of all of the above, dropping two bombs for a "mere" (and I do not use that term lightly) 200k of casualties was preferable to the alternative.
6. I won't argue the strategic bombing campaigns. Those were grossly ineffective, and they're the reason the US does everything it can to use smart weapons today.
Now that the history is out of the way....
I would like to see the AI be able to use nukes, and I'd like to see that minister thing that was suggested: especially for something like a Cold War scenario, "Would it be possible for a first strike that would make a nuclear war winnable"? Could the balance of ICBMs/SLBMs/air-dropped nukes be such that a disarming first-strike be possible? Something along the lines of a 'Red Storm Rising' scenario would be cool as well.
"Mass Murder" isn't a term that I readily accept with that. You are trying to make more of a political statement than anything. You act like the US was THE ONLY ONE that killed civilians in the war. That's what I hate now days. The world is to damn soft and wishy-washy. People are going to die especially in time of war. I understand that its hard to grasp but that will never change. As long as there is a human race there will be war. And the history, will be determined by the winner.
As posted earlier.
Nagasaki was a secondary target. And only so because the criteria for use of the bomb was that it be done by visual targetting and not by radar targetting.
Nagasaki almost was spared... they had to do 3 runs to get a marginal Visual targetting... and even with that they were off by 1.5 miles of the exact drop target.
It is a fascinating read the story of the Kokura (Nagasaki) mission... the mistakes made by the pilot, the wasted fuel issues.... etc.
Nagasaki was a secondary target. And only so because the criteria for use of the bomb was that it be done by visual targetting and not by radar targetting.
Nagasaki almost was spared... they had to do 3 runs to get a marginal Visual targetting... and even with that they were off by 1.5 miles of the exact drop target.
It is a fascinating read the story of the Kokura (Nagasaki) mission... the mistakes made by the pilot, the wasted fuel issues.... etc.
Casualty estimates for the Japanese alone, in the event of Operation Downfall (U.S. invasion of Japan) were between 5 and 12 million, obviously far, far higher than those actually inflicted at the two bomb sites. This should be recalled when discussing the morality of Truman's decision. From a utilitarian outlook (i.e. the traditional guiding philosophy of the U.S. government) it was the morally correct option (see Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, for a clearer perspective).
Back on topic,
i) Choosing A-bomb targets, for the AI or the player, will be quite a bit more difficult now that there are so many more provinces. Each individual province, with some exceptions (e.g. Ploesti), will now have lower strategic value, and units will in most cases be more spread out, so uber-stack targets may be hard to come by.
ii) How the AI will conduct its Atomic research will be interesting to see, as no other country but the U.S. could have afforded a Manhattan-esque project during the war without sacrificing a huge amount of their military budget, thereby reducing their combat capability to a great degree, and hence possibly/probably losing the war in their vain attempt to win it by extraordinary means. Certainly a tricky programming task, and one I do not envy.
Back on topic,
i) Choosing A-bomb targets, for the AI or the player, will be quite a bit more difficult now that there are so many more provinces. Each individual province, with some exceptions (e.g. Ploesti), will now have lower strategic value, and units will in most cases be more spread out, so uber-stack targets may be hard to come by.
ii) How the AI will conduct its Atomic research will be interesting to see, as no other country but the U.S. could have afforded a Manhattan-esque project during the war without sacrificing a huge amount of their military budget, thereby reducing their combat capability to a great degree, and hence possibly/probably losing the war in their vain attempt to win it by extraordinary means. Certainly a tricky programming task, and one I do not envy.
Just wanted to post before this thread gets locked...
The AI in Ho2 WAS able to use nukes. Of course, it was necessary to:
a. Research nuclear technology
b. Build reactors
c. Have a way of delivering.
Given the right instructions (build/research .txt files), the AI could achieve these goals.
After the AI obtained a nuke and a means of delivery, it would always choose it's target based on IC / manpower (IIRC). There are mods out there where the AI manages to build and deliver nukes.
Of course, the AI couldn't make decisions like bombing tactical targets with nukes...
The AI in Ho2 WAS able to use nukes. Of course, it was necessary to:
a. Research nuclear technology
b. Build reactors
c. Have a way of delivering.
Given the right instructions (build/research .txt files), the AI could achieve these goals.
After the AI obtained a nuke and a means of delivery, it would always choose it's target based on IC / manpower (IIRC). There are mods out there where the AI manages to build and deliver nukes.
Of course, the AI couldn't make decisions like bombing tactical targets with nukes...
Someone with the facts
Thank you for restating it. Sometimes young people forget why decisions were made and look at the outcome. It was an unfortunate but necessary decision.ON TOPIC: From everything that I've understood from the devs the AI is leaps and bounds over the AI we saw in HOI2-1. I am hoping that we do see an AI US developing and using Nukes in order to accomplish its mission of protecting the status quo, which is the allies fundamental mission as far as faction are concerned in HOI3. Maybe we need a software company to develop SKYNET. I would love to see a challenging AI. Refer to the Terminator franchise for information on SKYNET