Turing off the atomic bombs

[Zaku]

I found that dropping nukes was a little too easy, Johan was just spamming them almost.
There should be a downside for whoever drops the bombs so that it's not just a nobrainer.
Like a loss of national unity if you are already ahead in warscore.
Or maybe even a permanent reduction in max unity if you choose to throw nukes to sort of represent opening pandoras box.

Was there any popular upheaval in the US after dropping the nukes on Japan? I don't remember any of the sort, quite the opposite, people celebrated on the streets because they won the war. I don't see why HOI4 should penalize the player with an unrealistic and arbitary national unity hit for the nation who drops it.

Also, you can't spam nukes because it takes a long time to build them. Johan was just exploiting a bug I think to mess with Daniel.

 

[trionwolf]

personally I'm on the side of nukes, i like the historical impact they made. Look at it this way the US had won the war and rather then sacrificing an estimated million men on the US side and an theoretically large amount on the Japanese they dropped 2 bombs and forced them out of the war. I can see why people would think that is derpy but i think the option should be present. Plus by 1945 when you should be able to start getting them don't you think most games will be won or lost already?

an aside does anyone know if USSR had a nuclear program, ive never heard about one?

 

[kalauer]

Sakharov. But wiki has it all.

I also thought about a NU-hit for nuking countries but it would either seriously hinder the use or do nothing at all. Maybe a temporary malus would work, but I think NU is the wrong Approach.

Maybe you add some unrest in homeland and occupied territory, hitting your supply lines. Or some overall modifiers reducing your IC. In any way, I think there should be penalties for using nukes but I don't know which one would be possible to balance.

 

[trionwolf]

Sakharov. But wiki has it all.

I also thought about a NU-hit for nuking countries but it would either seriously hinder the use or do nothing at all. Maybe a temporary malus would work, but I think NU is the wrong Approach.

Maybe you add some unrest in homeland and occupied territory, hitting your supply lines. Or some overall modifiers reducing your IC. In any way, I think there should be penalties for using nukes but I don't know which one would be possible to balance.

out of curiosity why should the attacking nation get a malus for using one? today i could see it with the prevalent information on the effects of a nuclear detonation (ie radiation sickness) at the time it was seen as a means to an end. in which the means justify the ends it was total war with victory at any cost

 

[brnja]

Also, if some mod extend timeline until 1958 for example. It would be nice to see war between SSSR an America without nukes.

 

[Augustus93]

Just insert a "player= yes" or "AI= no"(I am pretty sure that AI=no is a valid trigger) for the requirements of the nuclear techs and get on with your business.

 

[kalauer]

out of curiosity why should the attacking nation get a malus for using one? today i could see it with the prevalent information on the effects of a nuclear detonation (ie radiation sickness) at the time it was seen as a means to an end. in which the means justify the ends it was total war with victory at any cost

As usual, I would seperate gameplay and realism:

gameplay: Include a harm for the nuking side to have a counterweight against nuke spamming which seems very much possible, if one reactor means 1 bomb per year (see last MP-WWW). Building 24 reactors seems doable for e.g. USA which seems to result in a kind of ridiculous nuke-a-palooza.

realism: Immediately after the first tests, scientists knew exactly what they did, see Oppenheimer's famous quote from the baghavid-gita. And while popular reaction to the use of nukes against Japan may have been positive (I am not so sure about the unanimous character of it, though), subsequent nuking over months or years (as we might very well see in game) would certainly have lead to opposition, domestic and international. At least I believe so.

So the returns may not be relevant after two or three bombs, but after 20, they should be painful, at least noticable, in a way to make the dropping party consider.

Alternatively, one might consider to make nukes cost IC (which would be issue of balancing, of course). This would serve kind of the same Goal, to limit the use. At the moment, they seem to be free once the reactors are built.

edit: Additionally, we should Keep in mind that the representation of nukes in anything but realistic. For example, in WW2, noone would have evernuked the capital of an enemy nation. Yet this seems to be the first thing to do in HoI4 when considering NU-Impact. So we should look at it as a game-mechanism rather than a representation of reality.

 

[Zaku]

So the returns may not be relevant after two or three bombs, but after 20, they should be painful, at least noticable, in a way to make the dropping party consider.

If a nation does not surrender while taking 20 nukes to the face then the bombs should recieve a buff instead a nerf.
Being able to drop 20 nukes on a nation suggest that:
- The attacker has complete air superiority.
- The attacker has TONS of nuclear reactors(Every reactor creates a nuke/year)
- This also means that the nuker has massive industrial advantage. (Reactors are very expensive.)

 

[kalauer]

If a nation does not surrender while taking 20 nukes to the face then the bombs should recieve a buff instead a nerf.
Being able to drop 20 nukes on a nation suggest that:
- The attacker has complete air superiority.
- The attacker has TONS of nuclear reactors(Every reactor creates a nuke/year)
- This also means that the nuker has massive industrial advantage. (Reactors are very expensive.)

Since nukes can only reduce NU (and possible not to 0 I would guess), and not conquer stuff for you, it is anything but sure whether surrender after x nukes is garuanteed. The Thing with the air superiority has been discussed in the teleporting Bombers-thread and is unsettling regarding the nuke-mechanics. Getting air superiority somewhere seems to be the easy part. "Complete" is not correct, we have seen it in the last MP-WWW.

The IC-capacity point is just balancing, unless researching nukes should be mandatory. But one Thing is sure: after some nukes, the attacker will have a big IC-Advantage since the enemy's should be destroyed. He doesn't have to have it before, maybe he just focused early on nukes. Imagine USA cutting massively on troops and in 1945 starting to nuke occupied Europe from Britain or any acquired outpost in reach. Not that far fetched, I believe.

edit: So unless heavy focus on nukes should be a viable strategy, which seems gamey to me, there should be some Returns on using them.

And, while the enemy might not auto-surrender after 20 nukes, he won't be able to fight back due to missing IC. There is more to nukes than NU-hits.

 

[Zaku]

The IC-capacity point is just balancing, unless researching nukes should be mandatory. But one Thing is sure: after some nukes, the attacker will have a big IC-Advantage since the enemy's should be destroyed. He doesn't have to have it before, maybe he just focused early on nukes. Imagine USA cutting massively on troops and in 1945 starting to nuke occupied Europe from Britain or any acquired outpost in reach. Not that far fetched, I believe.

You can't carpet bomb a nation with nukes, they are created in a very slow rate. Even if you have 12 reactors, which is a huge industrial investment you only get 1 per month.

Besides, you need to have the IC advantage BEFORE you drop the bomb, as I said reactros are supposed to be costly. You can focus them early but that sactrifices your military buildup.

 

[kalauer]

You can't carpet bomb a nation with nukes, they are created in a very slow rate. Even if you have 12 reactors, which is a huge industrial investment you only get 1 per month.

I know. I said that 2 posts ago. But I beg to differ in the interpretation: one a month is not very slow. And as I said: it seems feasible to me to have more than 12 reactors as a Major if you intend to do so.

 

[Zaku]

I know. I said that 2 posts ago. But I beg to differ in the interpretation: one a month is not very slow. And as I said: it seems feasible to me to have more than 12 reactors as a Major if you intend to do so.

So then what's your point? You said that after 20 nukes the one who drops them should get a penalty(for whatever reason). I said that if a nation is able to fight after 20 nukes they need a buff and not a nerf.
Also, since most likely you won't be able to build and drop 20 nukes there is no reason to apply a penalty there. A beaten enemy should surrender after 2-3.

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

So, unless there is a rediculous bug in the game, Nukes in any form are a hilarious afterthought and waste of time.

If you're buiilding them it's because you're already beating your opponent so badly you want the satisfation of teabagging their corpse before the victory screen...

By 44 either all of Eurpoe and Asia is in Axis hands with the Russian industry turned to German purposes and Japan owns the entirety of the pacific or the American beat stick is being liberally applied and Germany + Japan are in full retreat to their capital.

If the USA player is wasting any effort on Nukes vs countering the IJN and providing troops to secure the British Iles they are doing it horribly wrong. Remember, vs humans the Axis isn't going to go full Ret@rd and will work to bring down one power at a time.

I'll take a Nuke in Berlin any day vs 30 mechanized divisions in Northern France...

 

[Zaku]

If you're buiilding them it's because you're already beating your opponent so badly you want the satisfation of teabagging their corpse before the victory screen...

Well that's kinda the design idea behind them. This quote is from the 49th DD.

Hits national unity making the target nation more likely to surrender (amount depends on victory point worth and infrastructure level, so you cant just nuke some island they don't care about). This is really their primary use: to force surrender on a stubborn enemy.

 

[kalauer]

So then what's your point? You said that after 20 nukes the one who drops them should get a penalty(for whatever reason). I said that if a nation is able to fight after 20 nukes they need a buff and not a nerf.
Also, since most likely you won't be able to build and drop 20 nukes there is no reason to apply a penalty there. A beaten enemy should surrender after 2-3.

That's not what I said. I said that the negative effect should be there from the beginning but small and that it should increase in way that after some amount of nukes the nuking nation must weight the impact it does on the enemy against the one it sustains itself. The point is that if spamming nukes was a viable strategy (due to no negative effects other than using up-front IC), it would possibly spoil the game. I gave two reasons for the negative return: in terms of realism and gameplay. If you did not understand them, please inquire. But pretending I did not give any is just bad style.

Your claim a beaten enemy should surrender after 2-3 nukes is just a case of Little relevance for my point. While it depends on how you define "beaten", the NU hit should be enough if you already hold significant cores of him. So this is granted. But that is not my point.

How do you deal with nuking a Nation that is otherwise perfectly up to par or even stronger than you? Should they surrender after 2-3 nukes? I would say no. And since I differ in the perception of the amount if nukes you can have, to me, mass-nuking seems very plausible to happen and thus be an issue.

You claiming it is "most likely" that you won't be able to build 20 nukes seems bold to me. When unlocking nukes early 1945, you still have at least 36 months left in the game. Having built 6 reactors beforehand (which is not much; if one had the strategy to do so from early on, he could have many more!), you can drop 18 bombs, not even considering the construction of even more reactors. I am not entirely sure but it seems to me that reactor tech is 1943, allowing for the construction two years ahead. Now you tell me again it is "most unlikely" to drop 20 nukes.

 

[Zaku]

That's not what I said. I said that the negative effect should be there from the beginning but small and that it should increase in way that after some amount of nukes the nuking nation must weight the impact it does on the enemy against the one it sustains itself. The point is that if spamming nukes was a viable strategy (due to no negative effects other than using up-front IC), it would possibly spoil the game. I gave two reasons for the negative return: in terms of realism and gameplay. If you did not understand them, please inquire. But pretending I did not give any is just bad style.

I read your two reasons, I just don't agree with them.
1. Realism: Realistically the US dropped down 2 bombs, then people celebrated in the US.
2. Gameplay:
Scenario A. You are winning the war, you drop down a few bombs to finish off a stubborn enemy. This is the realistic scenario, no need to implement a penalty for nukes here.
Scenario B. You are loosing the war, you try to come back by dropping down a number of bombs. You planned for this event for years and invested a lot in it. All your hope of winning lies in this because the enemy has a much bigger army(he didn't focus on nukes, and built up a huge military instead). Somehow you manage to break the enemy air superiority by focusing all your fighters in a few states, and you drop the bombs. Then you get hit in the face with the penalty pushing you even deeper in your grave.
Scenario C. Both you and your opponent have nukes. You bomb each other, and sooner or later one side begins to crumble.

How do you deal with nuking a Nation that is otherwise perfectly up to par or even stronger than you? Should they surrender after 2-3 nukes? I would say no. And since I differ in the perception of the amount if nukes you can have, to me, mass-nuking seems very plausible to happen and thus be an issue.

Of course not, but if you are weaker to an enemy, and start focusing your industry on building up nukes they will beat you to a pulp in convetional warfare, or they will have more nukes then you.

You claiming it is "most likely" that you won't be able to build 20 nukes seems bold to me. When unlocking nukes early 1945, you still have at least 36 months left in the game. Having built 6 reactors beforehand (which is not much; if one had the strategy to do so from early on, he could have many more!), you can drop 18 bombs, not even considering the construction of even more reactors. I am not entirely sure but it seems to me that reactor tech is 1943, allowing for the construction two years ahead. Now you tell me again it is "most unlikely" to drop 20 nukes.

Yes, building and dropping 20 nukes is most unlikely. It may happen, but it should not happen often if the game is balanced well.

 

[kalauer]

By 44 either all of Eurpoe and Asia is in Axis hands with the Russian industry turned to German purposes and Japan owns the entirety of the pacific or the American beat stick is being liberally applied and Germany + Japan are in full retreat to their capital....

Okay, if your think the game must be decided in 1944, that is your opinion. I sure hope it is not that railroaded. And apart from the WWW, which was stated to be an AI/Balance issue, I have no reason to believe it must be.

 

[kalauer]

I read your two reasons, I just don't agree with them.

I figured that much and it is something I can live with.

1. Realism: Realistically the US dropped down 2 bombs, then people celebrated in the US.

So much I agreed on, at least qualitatively. I doubt it would be true for continued nuking over a longer time span.

2. Gameplay:
Scenario A. You are winning the war, you drop down a few bombs to finish off a stubborn enemy. This is the realistic scenario.
Scenario B. You are loosing the war, you try to come back by dropping down dozens of bombs. You planned for this event for years and invested a lot in it. All your hope of winning lies in this because the enemy has a much bigger army(he didn't focus on nukes, and built up a huge military instead). Somehow you manage to break the enemy air superiority by focusing all your fighters in a few states, and you drop the bombs. Then you get hit in the face with the penalty pushing you even deeper in your grave.
Scenario C. Both you and your opponent has nukes. You bomb each other, and sooner or later one side begins to crumble.

Agree on A. That's an easy one, as nukes were designed to work that way.
On B, I agree with your analysis but not with your implied eveluation (I assume you suggest the "get hit in the face" should not happen). I think this strategy would be very gamey and thus should not be viable. So minimizing the core element of the game (conventional warfare) in favor of a side element (or rather complete devotion to it) should not be a winning strategy. As it is right now, I believe it could be. Hence my proposal on a return Impact or another method of limiting nukes (may very well also happen by balancing costs, but this could make obtaining nukes impossible for "normal" builds) .
C: This would mean that nukes replace conventional troops as main asset. Similar argumentation as in B: Should not happen.

Scenario D: Slight advantage in conventional armies of side X and strategic positioning ove side Y, but essentially a slow stalemate. Side Y defended mostly and thus has had reserves on IC, while X was expanding and fighting, thus having better troops. But not enough to immediately overwhelm Y; Needs time to invade, maneuver etc. But Y used the IC to build up nukes. Should Y be allowed to spam nukes infinitely or should there be a counterweight? I believe the latter to be true.

Of course not, but if you are weaker to an enemy, and start focusing your industry on building up nukes they will beat you to a pulp in convetional warfare, or they will have more nukes then you.

Not necessarily, see my Scenario D. Being ahead in conventional does not grant immediate victory. See WWW Germany against Britain.

Yes, building and dropping 20 nukes is most unlikely. It may happen, but not often in a balanced match.

I don't know how you still come to this. 6 reactors mean 18 nukes, as I said in my last post. Maybe you overstimate the cost of the reactors. They cost (WWW Japan 3) 15000 IC. A civilian factory costs 7200. Not viable to build 6 of those from 1943 to 1945?!

 

[Zaku]

I just checked the stats on the buildings in the fist Japanese WWW.
1 reactor costs 15000 IC. 1 military factory costs 3600 IC. If you want 12 reactors(1 nuke every month) you need to sacrifice building 50 military factory. That's a friggin huge investment.

EDIT: 3 Civilian factories take a little more then a year(368days) to finish with 15 building them. That means 1 reactor finishes in about 2/3 years.

 

[Zaku]

I don't know how you still come to this. 6 reactors mean 18 nukes, as I said in my last post. Maybe you overstimate the cost of the reactors. They cost (WWW Japan 3) 15000 IC. A civilian factory costs 7200. Not viable to build 6 of those from 1943 to 1945?!

I didn't say it is not viable to build that many, I just said it's unlikely that you'll build that many. The games are usually won or lost in the hoi series by 1943-44. Besides Johan focused on Nukes in the WWW, and how many nukes did he have by the year 1945?

For the rest of your post: I still don't see the need for a penalty vs nuke users. I won't argue any more, I already made my points. I feel like the slow building and research time plus the large cost of reactors are good enough.