paulwyrd Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Hi All I am wondering if anyone has contemplated nuclear research? Either replacing (probably rockets) or adding a new capability. In the game the pop of Hiroshima being bombed turns up, but if Germany is winning in Europe, then USA could quickly drop a couple of atomics on the Axis to even the odds. Just a brief thought and question. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 or if germany is winning, maybe they could drop some nukes on london and moscow. for that matter, why not have chemical warfare too? :-p 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Paulwyrd it has been brought up in SC2 and SC P.T.O.It is just a scripted event in P.T.O. because all the Allies would do is go allout for the A-Bomb get them and just then KABOOOOM and the game is over.Not alot of fun.I guess some of thes moders could design it into the game though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsmm Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 arado you're last statement interests me greatly "I guess some of these moders could design it into the game though" Mind elaborating on this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Scottsmm wouldnt it be possible(I know this would take ALOT of research)to base the quest for the A-Bomb on the areas the Axis conquered because of the specialty raw materials they would need that werent available(in other words the Axis couldnt even begin to start their attempt untill they had secured all the necessary raw materials needed from the conquered nations)?.You would also have to look into what the overall cost of the whole attempt would be.Base the amount of mpps needed to be spent on it. Actually the more I think about it the more complicated this would be to include for the Axis.What about the scientists that ''worked''on the project but actually delayed it because they didnt want Hitler to get the Atomic bomb. Then you have ultra which helped tell the Allies where the testing would have been done and where and when the Germans were shipping heavy water from Norway.Ok my mistake.To complicated to attempt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhucul Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Its getting worked on now for upcoming projects. The best solution seems to be to replace rockets with special weapons. We are currently determining how to best represent this so as to make it easy for Hubert to make the changes to include it. Nations will not be able to "purchase" special weapons units. Their arrival will be scripted. USA: Abomb UK: Chemical weapons or special operations units (SAS) Germany: Strategic Rockets (v1,v2) Japan: Kamikazes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsmm Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 It's not that I thought it was too complicated, or a bad idea. I was just wondering what you’re thoughts were on it arado. It looks like something that would be very interesting to try and attempt it's just I think I would end up helping whoever ended up working on it at best. It's a good idea, but as you stated it would consume great quantities of time working on it, and then you're faced with the question of whether or not it was worth it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Scottsmm I think it would be worth it for Germany to attempt if she had any real chance of getting it before the Allies did.From what ive read on the subject there was practiclly no hope for Germany because of what I mentioned earlier. dhucul as far as the Brits.developing chemical weapons,both sides had them but they were never used(im aware of the Nazis use on the jews and others) for obvious reasons.If chemical weapons are added to the game then(imho)it would make it very unhistorical.Germany had a chemical weapon ability I believe similar to sarin gas and they didnt use it.I know the Allies tried with Anthrax.If you havent done already you should check into what the Japanese tried.Look up their experiments they did at the city of Mukden(I think thats how you spell it).If anyone was going to use them it would have been Japan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsmm Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 If Japan used them I would suspect the Allies would at least reconsider their views of a non-chemical warfare, and this could lead to them using them in the Pacific Theater but not in the European Theater. Fact is Hitler, Mussolini, and other leaders experienced the effects of chemical warfare and they knew if they used chemical weapons then there enemies who they viewed as inferior would use their chemical weapons on them. So in their minds it wasn't a very smart idea to trade this Aryan superman for an average Joe figure. Of course though this didn’t stop Hitler from using chemical extermination weapons on his defenseless opponents, whether they were Jews, POW’s, gypsies, homosexuals, or his political opponents. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Scottsmm if you get a chance look up what the Japanese did at Mukden.They tried all kinds of stuff. They even tried to unleash a bunch of rats loaded with Bubonic plague on the Allies(I cant remember where it was). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsmm Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Well if they wanted to unleash the plague on us then I think the use of the Atomic bombs on Japanese citizens was justified. That's the problem with being number 1 you always have to play be the rules, while your opponents do things like releasing the plague on you. It's seen throughout history if you look back, The Brits wanted to look good in their war against us so they banned the execution of women and children. Although there were plenty eccentric British Officers who disregarded the order and went about killing 4 year olds and their mothers... Anyway back to the subject of what the Japanese did at Mukden, I'll take a look and do a little research on what the Japanese did at Mukden. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Ive always felt the Americans did the right thing by dropping the Atomic bomb no matter what Japan was up to.The Japanese started it and they got it.You have to think how many lives would have been lost if the Allies had attacked Japan.Also,how do you think U.S.govt at the time would have been viewed if the public found out that there was a weapon available that would end the war almost instantly without any Allied loss of life and wasnt used? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 how bout a jurassic park option? the germans did a lot of study on genetics, so maybe at tech level 5, you could have t-rex units parachuted into england and russia. course that would take a very big parachute. lol.. forgive me ya'll, i love clowning around in serious discussions. please continue... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I scripted rockets different for every power in my global scenario Japan has kamakazi (with graphic) and stats Germany has v1-v2 (with graphic) and stats USA has 1 and only 1 a-bomb (with graphic) and stats it comes out in 1945 as a reinforcement so you cant build it. Its depleted and costs a lot to rebuild so basically the US player has the option to build it. Its max value on everything but super vulnearable on defense. Thats the only reasonable way I thought of how to do it. But straight research no way. Because who wouldnt shoot for it? Its either an economic advantage or its not. Plain and simple. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.