AI doesnt care for nuclear bombs?

[GenWargrey]

Im in my ironman normal game at 1947,defeated sowjet union and now besieging uk,i allready dropped 5 nuclear bombs on them,london and other major cities.do they really dont care?because after the first bomb that newspaper appears which says about they could maybe surrender.

[Fastmine[NOR]]

I nuked paris and some other citys in my game as USSR, AI gives no fu*ks about your nukes.

[8mm Solutions]

Nukes mostly do hits to national unity. They aren't war winners but if the enemy is on the ropes it can be enough to push them over to surrender.

[maxrbx]

Originally posted by GenWargrey:

Im in my ironman normal game at 1947,defeated sowjet union and now besieging uk,i allready dropped 5 nuclear bombs on them,london and other major cities.do they really dont care?because after the first bomb that newspaper appears which says about they could maybe surrender.

Well obviously there's an issue with the nuke system. The AI seems stronger and more willing to fight when they get nuked. It's a stupid system that needs to be fixed.

Nuclear bombs should be powerful, yet expensive. Wasting maybe 1 Nuke should be devastating? National unity? Ok, remove 50% then.

[Noel]

Originally posted by maxrbx:

Originally posted by GenWargrey:

Im in my ironman normal game at 1947,defeated sowjet union and now besieging uk,i allready dropped 5 nuclear bombs on them,london and other major cities.do they really dont care?because after the first bomb that newspaper appears which says about they could maybe surrender.

Well obviously there's an issue with the nuke system. The AI seems stronger and more willing to fight when they get nuked. It's a stupid system that needs to be fixed.

Nuclear bombs should be powerful, yet expensive. Wasting maybe 1 Nuke should be devastating? National unity? Ok, remove 50% then.

But why? WWII nukes weren't that strong

[BoydofZINJ]

Historically, the United States did not use nukes at the beginning of the war orr against MILITARY targets. They used it on civilians... and it lowered the nations resolve. However, it was not enough. Japan had to be nuked again... again... not against military targets... but a civilian city.

I was taking Brazil with Mexico and they were putting a good defense. I launched a nuke on their troops and their troops suffered attrition for a few turns. I took more provinces and their nation unity was almost breaking. I used a nuke on their main city and they gave up. But i was controlling about 90% of Brazil.

[Camerons101]

At the moment nukes are far to easy to get to allow them to do too much. I agree they need a change but they need to change far more than just the effect of the nuke; what they would change exactly to make them more useful while preventing them from just becoming an I win button, I don't know. At the moment though getting nukes is pretty easy so even if you wasted some time with them you should hopefully be able to recover and win reguardless.

[N'Zoth]

Issue is lets say UK has 95% national unity. You drop 5 nukes which drops national unity by 20%. Now they are at 75% national unity. Unless 75% of their victory points are occupied they won't surrender. You would have to drop 19 nukes on them.

That being said I think nukes should do somewhere between 15%-25% national unity damage. Along with wrecking that provinces factories/infastructure. A bomb like "Fat man" dropped on a cluster of factories would obviously cripple them and make them unusable due to fallout. But shouldn't do "Full" damage. Say you drop it on an area like Hannover for instance, if it has 5 military factories, and should automatically remove 2-3 of them. And halve the manpower that region produces. While bombs like "Fat man" aren't near as powerful as a modern day "Tsar bomb" the destruction still covers a good 10-20 mile radius.

[Adam Apples]

Yeah or maybe nukes should do exponential or increasing kinda unity damage (as I suspect it would). First one delivers 10%, next 20 and so on... I feel like getting nuked 3 or 4 times would be a massive demotivater to a countries willingness to fight.

[shiel]

Originally posted by SirNoelRules:

Originally posted by maxrbx:

Well obviously there's an issue with the nuke system. The AI seems stronger and more willing to fight when they get nuked. It's a stupid system that needs to be fixed.

Nuclear bombs should be powerful, yet expensive. Wasting maybe 1 Nuke should be devastating? National unity? Ok, remove 50% then.

But why? WWII nukes weren't that strong

It's not necessarily about their actual power. It's about what they represented. They should be extremely demoralizing. Look at real life, Japan was the most stubborn foe the allies faced. They were fully willing to die to the last man to defend objectives that were completely beyond hope of being defended. Drop a couple nukes on their civilians and they surrender. This is after years of firebombing entire cities with no result. The nuke was the ultimate WW2 trump card and should have devastating effect on the moral of whatever country they are used on ingame as well.

I agree that they should be priced rather obscenely though as just about any nation that had one dropped on it would probably have dropped to their knees and begged to end the bloodshed in real life.

[Noel]

Originally posted by shiel:

Originally posted by SirNoelRules:

But why? WWII nukes weren't that strong

It's not necessarily about their actual power. It's about what they represented. They should be extremely demoralizing. Look at real life, Japan was the most stubborn foe the allies faced. They were fully willing to die to the last man to defend objectives that were completely beyond hope of being defended. Drop a couple nukes on their civilians and they surrender. This is after years of firebombing entire cities with no result. The nuke was the ultimate WW2 trump card and should have devastating effect on the moral of whatever country they are used on ingame as well.

I agree that they should be priced rather obscenely though as just about any nation that had one dropped on it would probably have dropped to their knees and begged to end the bloodshed in real life.

Japan was on its last legs when the bombs fell, they were even willing to surender so long as it wasn't unconditional. The nukes were just the final way of the allies to tell Japan that unconditional surrender was their only option

[maxrbx]

Originally posted by SirNoelRules:

Originally posted by maxrbx:

Well obviously there's an issue with the nuke system. The AI seems stronger and more willing to fight when they get nuked. It's a stupid system that needs to be fixed.

Nuclear bombs should be powerful, yet expensive. Wasting maybe 1 Nuke should be devastating? National unity? Ok, remove 50% then.

But why? WWII nukes weren't that strong

"WWII nukes weren't that strong" they should be. That's the whole point of investing time and effort into making them. And they should be expensive while being powerful.

[Noel]

Originally posted by maxrbx:

Originally posted by SirNoelRules:

But why? WWII nukes weren't that strong

"WWII nukes weren't that strong" they should be. That's the whole point of investing time and effort into making them. And they should be expensive while being powerful.

tell that to the people behind the manhattan project.

[ORION]

Originally posted by SirNoelRules:

Originally posted by maxrbx:

"WWII nukes weren't that strong" they should be. That's the whole point of investing time and effort into making them. And they should be expensive while being powerful.

tell that to the people behind the manhattan project.

Don't worry in HOI4 a large project like the manhatten project is not needed....Even Bolivia can beat the USA to the bomb

[bonanza king]

Originally posted by maxrbx:

Originally posted by SirNoelRules:

But why? WWII nukes weren't that strong

"WWII nukes weren't that strong" they should be. That's the whole point of investing time and effort into making them. And they should be expensive while being powerful.

I think the nukes should be a little more difficult to get. The requirements to deploy are ok. As for effect I find it ok as well but barely. I feel the current system for nukes is in place to make multiplayer a tad bit more balanced among the major powers. The drop in national unity is more useful I find than overrunning a few divisions especially for large countires like the USA, Russia and China. As someone mentioned it avoids the instant "I win" red button of doom. It also provides the oppssing country a chance to keep up the fight and maybe turn things around given 70% air superiority is required for nukes. It shouldn't win a war but provide that last nudge of like come on you know its over lets save each other time and blood. I employ them as last blows when I don't want to reach remote VP's. If they are gonna buff the amount of national unity a nuke would affect or have it do "actual" damage then they should a whole lot more costlier to attain to reflect the sheer amount of resources the US and UK devoted to the manhatten project.

Maybe have Uranium as a resource? And just have a handful of locations with low output ( like 4 or 5) that you'd have to fight to control if you want nukes. Kinda how like the Congo was one of the few sources of Uranium ore for the allies who had to invest heavily to secure enough for the bombs while trying to not tip the Germans off.

[EthanT]

Think of this from a game balance perspective, if you would. How fun would the game be if all you had to do was move a carrier into range for air superiority, then drop 5 nukes and instant win against anyone? Would you want to play that game? What if the AI did it? You're 90% through a war and someone sneaks 5 nukes on you. Now you surrender. Was that fun?