Turing off the atomic bombs

[kalauer]

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 year to finish with 15 building them. That means 1 reactor finishes in about 2/3 years.

So we once again agree on the numbers but not on the Interpretation . That is something at least. 12 reactors would mean 36 nukes. That is quite some return on the investment. And if you consider how much IC you'd have in 1945, 50 Military factories do not seem that much to me compared to 36 nukes, meaning the enemy probably losing much more than 50. Even if one nuke only destroys the IC in the specific province (unclear how it is calculated, nukes go povince-wise, factories by state...), unless the enemy is really good dispersed in Terms of IC, you will destroy much more IC with 36 nukes than 50. Plus infra (binding IC), ORG+Equipment (binding IC), airfields, other buildings.

edit: Yeah, we probably won't agree on this.

 

[Zaku]

So we once again agree on the numbers but not on the Interpretation . That is something at least. 12 reactors would mean 36 nukes. That is quite some return on the investment. And if you consider how much IC you'd have in 1945, 50 Military factories do not seem that much to me compared to 36 nukes, meaning the enemy probably losing much more than 50. Even if one nuke only destroys the IC in the specific province (unclear how it is calculated, nukes go povince-wise, factories by state...), unless the enemy is really good dispersed in Terms of IC, you will destroy much more IC with 36 nukes than 50. Plus infra (binding IC), ORG+Equipment (binding IC), airfields, other buildings.

edit: Yeah, we probably won't agree on this.

In WWW11 You can see at 27:18 that 15 factory creates 6.41 spitfires each day.
That means one military factory creates around(very roughly) 150 Fighters/year, 50 builds 7500/year, that's 22500 for 3 years. You may have 36 nukes, but I have air superiority.

 

[kalauer]

In WWW11 You can see at 27:18 that 15 factory creates 6.41 spitfires each day.
That means one military factory creates around(very roughly) 150 Fighters/year, 50 builds 7500/year, that's 22500 for 3 years. You may have 36 nukes, but I have air superiority.

And whether These 22000 fighters are worth anything depends on how much fighters are in total in use. If you have 200k+20k against my 200k I would go with the nukes. If it was 20k+20k, I would guess due to the current mechanics, I could still get air superiority momentarily; enough to nuke your air fields (speaking of which, you would have to build additionally, but that is most likely negligible). But These are balancing issues which we can't judge finally now.

However, the possibility of nuke mass production until 1948 is there imo and does not seem appealing to me.

Edit: Besides, we are talking about building factories or reactors. So the 50 military factories would become available gradually, with a mean of 25 over the 3(edit:2) years available. As would the reactors, but for them, it is not important as they start to produce in 1945. And it's only 2 years: Researched reactor tech maybe April 1943, start producing nukes maybe April 1945. That makes 7500 fighters out of your 22500.

 

[inteljoe]

Do you think, there will be this option? So no country can use it.

It's a late stage tech. Chances are if your nation, or an enemy nation has the bomb and has a 75%+ air superiority over the territory they want to drop it in. Something has gone wrong on your part and the end of the war comes sooner than expected. It's a good way to prevent the usual slugfest that ensues after a player that has figured how to build massive amounts of troops with massive amounts of manpower to boot late in the game.

 

[Zaku]

Edit: Besides, we are talking about building factories or reactors. So the 50 military factories would become available gradually, with a mean of 25 over the 3(edit:2) years available. As would the reactors, but for them, it is not important as they start to produce in 1945. And it's only 2 years: Researched reactor tech maybe April 1943, start producing nukes maybe April 1945. That makes 7500 fighters out of your 22500.

Same logic goes for nuclear reactors as well. Also, If you build your reactors in 43 and only start producting nukes in 1945 then the gap is even larger. That's +2 years of fighter production(since you spend your IC in 1943 and not in 45.) I don't understand your math at all.
Mil factories: 1943-1948= 5 years = 37500 maybe scrap a year because you need to build the factories after all. That's still 30K
Reactors: start building in jan 1943, research tech by jan 1945. You have 3 years = 36 nukes.

If you have 200k+20k against my 200k I would go with the nukes.

If nations have 200K airplanes then there is something serously wrong with the prodruction system. USAF had 43K combat aircraft in service in 1945. (17K fighters)

 

[Sweed Raver]

Didn't they say during the stream that you simply cannot win a war with nuclear bombs alone? If so, then despite them having a super weapon, the fight is not yet lost.

 

[kalauer]

It's a late stage tech. Chances are if your nation, or an enemy nation has the bomb and has a 75%+ air superiority over the territory they want to drop it in. Something has gone wrong on your part and the end of the war comes sooner than expected. It's a good way to prevent the usual slugfest that ensues after a player that has figured how to build massive amounts of troops with massive amounts of manpower to boot late in the game.

Due to the current air combat System, one can Micro air superiority of 75% momentarily even if the enemy has a clear advantage in Terms of fighter count: The Defender must spread his Forces, while you could pick the attacked Region and concentrate your force. Unless you Play against Daniel , the enemy is unlikely to react fast enough, especially in late game where he possibly has a lot of space to cover.

Same goes for nuclear reactors as well.

It does, but doesN#t matter (as I said). I'll have an average of 6 reactors during the time span from 43 til 45. But in 45, I'll have 12, just as you have 50 Military factories. Difference is, that you are producing during 43 and 45, I am not. Thus you get the advantage in fighters. But you can only effectively use 25 Military factories on average during that time span, not 50.

If nations have 200K airplanes then there is something serously wrong with the prodruction system. USAF had 43K combat aircraft in service in 1945. (17K fighters)

Yes, it would. Let's hope it will not come to that. But as we made up an example about how many nukes one can have and how it would translate to fighters. This is quite a way to go to compare it to real values later. As you said, 50 (already existing) factories could produce 22,5k fighters in 3 years. We know that Germany has many more IC in 1943, the allies and communists should too. So it is game-wise possible to produce many more fighters than there were historically. And maybe "in Service" is not the right number to compare. How about "built"?

 

[kalauer]

Didn't they say during the stream that you simply cannot win a war with nuclear bombs alone? If so, then despite them having a super weapon, the fight is not yet lost.

Technically, you cant. You'd still have to have at least one vicoty point of the enemy. But imagine how Long this would take if you de-organized their troops and destroyed their infra, equipment and IC with nukes. Assuming you have a lot of them, of course. Not very long I would argue.

sorry for double post; can't find the Option to include quotes in Edits.

 

[Zaku]

But you can only effectively use 25 Military factories on average during that time span, not 50.

why?

Thus you get the advantage in fighters

That's my whole point. 50 mil factories is far more valuable then 12 reactors IMO.

 

[Sweed Raver]

I think we may also have to ask Daniel during WWW to build a radar station so that we can see how much it affects aerial combat. Might be enough to force the enemy to invest in rocket research as well, thus delaying said bombings? I believe that Johan said in the MP session that rockets could not be stopped by air superiority after all.

 

[kalauer]

I think we may also have to ask Daniel during WWW to build a radar station so that we can see how much it affects aerial combat. Might be enough to force the enemy to invest in rocket research as well, thus delaying said bombings? I believe that Johan said in the MP session that rockets could not be stopped by air superiority after all.

But they also can not carry nukes. Nukes have an extra mechanic that requires a strategic bomber. But please, if you can, ask him as muc has you can during WWW. Unfortunately, I can not be there live.

 

[Zaku]

Yes, it would. Let's hope it will not come to that. But as we made up an example about how many nukes one can have and how it would translate to fighters. This is quite a way to go to compare it to real values later. As you said, 50 (already existing) factories could produce 22,5k fighters in 3 years. We know that Germany has many more IC in 1943, the allies and communists should too. So it is game-wise possible to produce many more fighters than there were historically. And maybe "in Service" is not the right number to compare. How about "built"?

Johan has 4200 fighters, 1800 bombers, 1200 CAS in the last WWW.
Germany has 4900 planes in the 10th part of the WWW.
US player has between 10K and 12K(according to german decription.)

 

[kalauer]

Johan has 4200 fighters, 1800 bombers, 1200 CAS in the last WWW.
Germany has 4900 planes in the 10th part of the WWW.
US player has between 10K and 12K(according to german decription.)

Thanks for the research.

This shows that they clearly did not Focus on fighters or planes at all, as one would expect from an usual build. So the amount of fighters you mentioned earlier is really just theoretical. The 25 more factories over 2 years are most likely split maybe halfway or even in favor of ground Units.

Which would make it even easier to drop the nukes (although I still believe that achieving punctual air superiority is the smallest issue in this whole concept).

 

[kalauer]

Just noticed you added something. So to make it more clear:

Same logic goes for nuclear reactors as well. Also, If you build your reactors in 43 and only start producting nukes in 1945 then the gap is even larger. That's +2 years of fighter production(since you spend your IC in 1943 and not in 45.) I don't understand your math at all.
Mil factories: 1943-1948= 5 years = 37500 maybe scrap a year because you need to build the factories after all. That's still 30K
Reactors: start building in jan 1943, research tech by jan 1945. You have 3 years = 36 nukes.

why?

What I calculated is the Advantage you have by using your civil factories in early 1943 to build Military factories and then using These Military factories to produce palnes. That's how I understood your plan. Assuming we start at the same point regarding all aspects of the game in ealry 1943. I just looked it up and in WWW11 at 20:39, we see that a factory has an Output of 5 per day, which means that 15 civilian factories need only around 45 days per factory, which is considerably less time than I thought. Now to assume I can build my 12 reactors in two years, I would need 50 civilian factories. If you used the same amount of civilian factories to build your Military factories, you obviously needed the two years, as i did (since we Chose the values so that the IC-amount is the same). So on average, you have only half of the 50 factories over the two years.


So on average, that's 25 Military factories more than me between 1943 and 1945, in which you built 7500 fighers with these until 1945 (we should assume you split them as you pointed out with the WWW-figures, but let's put that aside for now).


I on the other hand, use my civilian factories to build reactors. It does not matter when they finish, if it is before 1945, which we know. In early 1945, we both used the same amount of civilian capacity over the two years. You have 50 Military IC and 7500 fighters more at this point in time. And that's where I end my math. Not because, as you might think, your increased IC would start to really kick in, but because the nukes I would start to drop would drastically reduce your IC immediately:

- destroyed mil+civ IC
-civ IC bound in reconstruction (IC+infra+airfields+radar ...)
-destroyed Equipment you would have to produce

It is hard to calculate from now on since it depends on how dispersed your industry is (not only tech-wise but also on the map). But I am quite sure that the 50 factories of yours are gone very soon, and more. And the 7500 fighters will not save you from getting nuked, even 15000 more would not. Remember we said 12 reactors. That's a nuke each month. That's even something more than Johan had in the last WWW MP Episode and Daniel could not do anything to fight back. And given the time to build structures, even if I only destroy 1 infrastructure, youoccupy 15 civilian factories for about 1 month (WWW Japan 2 at 7:40). But we saw from the last WWW MP that a nuke can destroy half the infra in a province (we did not see the buildings, I admit). So the infrastructure damage alone would probably occupy 75 civilian factories (assuming 50% of a 10/10 is destroyed) until the next bomb is dropped, making this a rather constant issue for you. Add the destroyed buildings and equipment and you must see that your IC will be strongly hindered, much more than the 50 Military factories were worth.

That's my whole point. 50 mil factories is far more valuable then 12 reactors IMO.

I understood that you think that. But I argue that your factories can not be defended against the nukes (inerception system) and if I target those, the 50 factories will be gone fast, either destroyed or busy with replacing equipment or repairing structures. For Impact of nukes check WWW11 at 1:04:27 (Madrid), 1:05:25 (Vienna) and, most interesting in Terms of buildings 39:05 (Rome). While the infra there was already destroyed, we see a bunch of factories nuked.

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

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.

I'm sorry but it's not opinion. If you don't understand the war will be long over by the end of 44 then I don't think you understand the game mechanics or total war in general. Germany lost the war on November 23rd, 1942. The fact that it was officiated on May 7th 1945 just speaks to the time it takes to go about the business of killing a super power, nothing else.

 

[kalauer]

I'm sorry but it's not opinion. If you don't understand the war will be long over by the end of 44 then I don't think you understand the game mechanics or total war in general. Germany lost the war on November 23rd, 1942. The fact that it was officiated on May 7th 1945 just speaks to the time it takes to go about the business of killing a super power, nothing else.

It is an opinion when you think the game should progress on rails aligned to history. My opinion is: it should not. I would watch a documentary if it was so.

But I am interested in your connection to the "game mechanics". Please elaborate how they force decision by 1944. And which one specifically. It is off-topic, but we reached kind of a dead end there anyway.

One more remark: Linking the result of WW2 to one particular event is bold, to say the least. Because it is always kind of arbitrary and uses a deterministic approach on history (if this or that did/ did not happen, then...). I might very well claim, Germany lost the war on June, the 22th 1941. It wouldn't be true, but not less true than your claim.

 

[Sweed Raver]

One more remark: Linking the result of WW2 to one particular event is bold, to say the least. Because it is always kind of arbitrary and uses a deterministic approach on history (if this or that did/ did not happen, then...). I might very well claim, Germany lost the war on June, the 22th 1941. It wouldn't be true, but not less true than your claim.

Many mistakes and bad decisions were made, and despite all of them, Germany still managed to hold out for many years and and even occupy most of Europe. Perhaps, if one or two of these mistakes were not to have been made, the war would have turned out differently. That is the whole point of alternative history, and games like these. One of the biggest changes in HoI4 compared to HoI3 is that the diplomatic and political aspect can be alternative to the real history, and not just the military and production aspects. That is the primary reason I am so looking forward to HoI4.

Personally, I would say they lost the war in the unsuccessful battle of Britain in 1940. Had the United Kingdom lost air superiority, then they would have likely at the very least signed a ceasefire, opening up the possibility for future peace negotiations. Instead, Germany decided after a successful bombing of Berlin, to switch focus from runway cratering to all out strategic (including civilian) bombing. This meant that United Kingdom got the time she needed in order to rebuild the runways that had previously been so badly damaged. According to Dr A Roberts, the runways were so badly damaged when the battle of Britain started, that the RAF estimated to be operational for only a few days (Source: Dr A Roberts - Why Hitler Lost the War: German Strategic Mistakes in WWII).

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

It is an opinion when you think the game should progress on rails aligned to history. My opinion is: it should not. I would watch a documentary if it was so.

But I am interested in your connection to the "game mechanics". Please elaborate how they force decision by 1944. And which one specifically. It is off-topic, but we reached kind of a dead end there anyway.

One more remark: Linking the result of WW2 to one particular event is bold, to say the least. Because it is always kind of arbitrary and uses a deterministic approach on history (if this or that did/ did not happen, then...). I might very well claim, Germany lost the war on June, the 22th 1941. It wouldn't be true, but not less true than your claim.

*laughs* Total war has almost nothing to do with battle field success. Operational level success can lead to territorial conessions and a favorable resolution to hostilities, as was the case in France in 1940, but in general it still requires the complete destruction of a nation's economy and man power before it will collapse. I don't feel like getting into a deep technical discussion, so you can live in fantasy land all you want, thinking that a brilliant tactical maneuver pocketing another few divisions in Russia will change what's going to happen when the USA enters against you.

And yes when the Russian's closed the pocket around Stalingrad it did signal the loss of the war for Germany. The hope of an operational victory against Russia, like they achieved with France, ended and the war became a straight up economic slug fest which Germany could never hope to win. Before this, while I firmly believe it to be delusional, there was still the potential that a German operational victory in the Russia could allow for Germany to broker a peace deal with the Allies recognizing their territorial acquisitions in the East for a return of Western Europe etc.

 

[FruitcakeFTW]

Regardless of people's views as to whether they want to use nukes or not, there are clearly a lot of people who don't to use nukes. It's debatable whether they are a majority or not, but there are clearly a lot of them. Giving people the option to turn them off nukes doesn't hurt those who still want to use them, but not having the option to turn off nukes would disappoint people who don't want them in their game.

So, the best course of action would be to just put in the option to switch nukes off, because that way everybody is happy, those who do want nukes, and those who don't.

 

[kalauer]

*laughs* Total war has almost nothing to do with battle field success. Operational level success can lead to territorial conessions and a favorable resolution to hostilities, as was the case in France in 1940, but in general it still requires the complete destruction of a nation's economy and man power before it will collapse.

I fail to see the connection to my questions regarding your claim. Or any point raised, for that matter. But nice to know you are amused.

I don't feel like getting into a deep technical discussion, so you can live in fantasy land all you want, thinking that a brilliant tactical maneuver pocketing another few divisions in Russia will change what's going to happen when the USA enters against you.

So you feel more like putting your opinion out there, claiming it was the absolute truth and backing out when you are asked to explain it. Fair enough, i can live with that. At least that way I know for sure how much I should value it.

On the more content-side: You assume that USA does enter the war against Germany and that SU or GB will be alive by then. But you just miss the point that this is anything but sure in HoI. So your whole argumentation, obviously (to me at least) based on some belief you were an expert in history and military strategy, is useless (even if you were that expert, which I doubt since experts do not tend to brag with their knowledge) if you are unable to relate it to the game. And so far, I feel you didn't.

And yes when the Russian's closed the pocket around Stalingrad it did signal the loss of the war for Germany. The hope of an operational victory against Russia, like they achieved with France, ended and the war became a straight up economic slug fest which Germany could never hope to win. Before this, while I firmly believe it to be delusional, there was still the potential that a German operational victory in the Russia could allow for Germany to broker a peace deal with the Allies recognizing their territorial acquisitions in the East for a return of Western Europe etc.

What to say... I agree this is a possible and plausible point of view, not the only one but good enough. Yet again you assume that player-controlled Germany somehow re-enacts the loss of the 6.Army? Just for the lolz? While you are free to do so, I figure most people would try to avoid it. So again, I can not see the connection between your statements regarding WW2 and the game HoI4.