Been wondering for a while if Nukes were worth the effort. Had a friend of mine attack an army of mine to get some idea of damage per explosion. He used the first level nuke bomber.
See my 3 links.
Overall damage from two attacks on one army was just over 50%, plus damage to province which I didn't include here as target was army. Considering each plane/missile is a one time attack not sure if its worth investing into unless it is a very long game.
I normally don't use them because my blitzkrieg tactics overrun the enemy before I can launch anything. I normally have then in reserve in case somebody attacks me by surprise, and I launch 1 of the nuclear rockets and warn them I have more, and then they back off. It affects other players psychologically more than anything else. However, if a big enemy force is still and it's a bit of a pain in the ass, launch it and it can do some damage. However, I prefer using tac bombers and ships to bomb an enemy force.
The past is a foreign country.
14 Jul 2015, 12:20
Well No any other non-nuclear weapon in the game can take out that amount of weapons (6 medium tanks in one strike though , so you cannot say that investing in nuclear armament is worthless, it is risky though
14 Jul 2015, 13:13
The real use of a nuke is to destroy their main industrial cities. Any units they kill is a bonus.
14 Jul 2015, 13:41
I think nukes are used to destroy a cities ability to contribute to the war effort, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both were stratigic targets.
Destroy the industry, decrease morale thus decrease resource income, and damage buildings the city or province will be useless for a time being.
"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none" -imperium thought of the day
14 Jul 2015, 14:02
Indeed in my first game I finished a while ago I ended the last phases of the game by dropping a nuke on one of my enemies major cities each day to cripple their ability to make an effective defense force, since they neglected to build up their colonies with industry I only had a few targets to hit in their core regions, my first nuclear test was on their only major shipbuilding area where they were spitting out battleships, and in 1 hit the damage I did would have take a week to rebuild, quite a fair trade off of resources on the nuke for damage done.
14 Jul 2015, 14:24
I love nukes. In two of my games, I am trying(and succeeding) in making nukes my first line defense from behind the lines :3
Forum ArmyField Marshall Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
14 Jul 2015, 14:56 (edited)
I also conducted similar tests. in one test I had a small anomaly. I did not make pictures, but all of the results I recorded
[code='Test']number\type\loss\moral\result
-
1 hit
-
3 armcar1 -1(-33%) -36% -58%
1 armcar2 -1(-100%) -100%
4 ltank -3(-75%) -30% -82,5%
24 mtank -12(-50%) -7% -53,5%
7 htank -3(-42%) -6% -45,5%
5 antitank -4(-80%) -30% -86%
4 aa1 -3(-75%) -30% -82,5%
1 aa2 -0(-0) -70% -70%
1 inf1 -0(-0) -74% -74%
25 inf3 -16(-64%) -9% -67%
1 polic -0(-0) -90% -90%
6 railgun -3(-50%) -27% -63,5%
4 rocket -4(-100%) -100%
-
2 hit
-
2 armcar1 -1(-50%) -35% -67,5%
1 ltank -0(-0) -10% -10%
12 mtank -6(-50%) -6%
4 htank -1(-25%) -26%
1 antitank -0(-0) -60%
1 aa1 -0(-0) -60%
1 aa2 -1(-100%)
1 inf1 -1(-100%)
9 inf3 -5(-55%) -6%
1 polic -1(-100%)
3 ruilgun -2(-66%) +7% O_o[/code]railway gun after the nuclear attack has increased the morale at +7
14 Jul 2015, 14:59
Typeda English mate?
Forum ArmyField Marshall Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
14 Jul 2015, 15:02
Ohhhh, okay. Now rename
14 Jul 2015, 15:02
This explains the Russian superiority
14 Jul 2015, 15:48
V1nd1cat0r wrote:
just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both were stratigic targets.
Wrong. The U.S. launched the bombs because they wanted to show Japan their weapon superiority and wanted to decrease moral. They dropped the atomic bombs there because they wee middle-sized cities. Even after the bombs, Japan refused to surrender. Japan only surrendered when the USSR joined the war against them and when the U.S threatened to drop the bomb on Tokyo.
The past is a foreign country.
14 Jul 2015, 15:58
I think you're both right. For the use of the bomb was not just one specific purpose, there were several reasons. Today there are no information that it was the final cause of Japan's surrender. But I think that this is unrelated to the this topic
14 Jul 2015, 17:36
Pablo22510 wrote:
V1nd1cat0r wrote:
just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both were stratigic targets.
Wrong. The U.S. launched the bombs because they wanted to show Japan their weapon superiority and wanted to decrease moral. They dropped the atomic bombs there because they wee middle-sized cities. Even after the bombs, Japan refused to surrender. Japan only surrendered when the USSR joined the war against them and when the U.S threatened to drop the bomb on Tokyo.
Actually the USSR was already at war with them and fought them in Northern China, some the veteran USSR troops from that campaign were sent to Stalingrad in the secret troop buildup to cut off the German army.
14 Jul 2015, 17:38
Iron Guard24 wrote:
Actually the USSR was already at war with them and fought them in Northern China, some the veteran USSR troops from that campaign were sent to Stalingrad in the secret troop buildup to cut off the German army.
I think you're talking about the Khalkin Gol affair. That was a conflict, yes, but after that Soviet-Japanese relations got better. They were at peace again. Then, in August 1945, the USSR declares war on Japan again.
The past is a foreign country.
14 Jul 2015, 17:45
Well thanks for clearing that up, it does explain how the USSR moved those troops from that theater to Stalingrad.
14 Jul 2015, 19:42
You guys know that Japan and Russia are still at war since WWII and they are both a bit touchy, right?
Forum ArmyField Marshall Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
14 Jul 2015, 19:48
I heard they never signed a peace treaty. so it is true then?
14 Jul 2015, 19:53
Yes.
Forum ArmyField Marshall Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
14 Jul 2015, 20:16
Iron Guard24 wrote:
I heard they never signed a peace treaty. so it is true then?
Yes. When Japan surrendered, she accepted all the conditions of the winners. It was the "unconditional surrender", in other words surrender "without discussing the conditions." But later, when the time came to sign a peace treaty with Russia - Japan (probably under pressure from the United States) show your Russian peace treaty only on the condition return territory of the South Kuril Islands, which were lost by Japan during the war. Without these conditions, Japan has refused to sign a peace treaty, in spite of all the efforts of Russia.
15 Jul 2015, 14:02
The nuke in my eyes is a great deterant against invasion. Mainly because of all the splash damage they do. Still Nukes should wipe out armies in the province that the nuke is dropped on, unless they are in the mountains otherwise, they are just wiped out. Also any Motorized or Mechinzed Infantry should become regular infantry because the EMP will short out the power train of the vehicles that they use.
