Nuclear explosion effects

chancellor · Post by **chancellor** » May 09 2004

I'd like to hear an answer about both the MIRVs and the radiation effects of nukes.

Also would it be possible to "research" new warheads such as neutron bombs etc?

Oh, also, will there be tactical nukes?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chancellor on 2004-05-09 18:39 ]</font>

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 13 2004

BattleGoat wrote:Unit Week... Aircraft Carriers, Close Combat, Bridging, Mine Layers, etc... will not be in the Beta Update that will be available this week, but they should be in the next one (schedule still to be announced).

Nukes and Chemical weaponry will probably be in the update after that. So we will be getting into more detailed discussions of these pretty soon.

- David

Wouldnt now be a good time for that discussion?

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 16 2004

Ah I see, the devs waited for me to start this discussion with some questions

,why didnt I think of that earlier I wonder...

It was mentioned some time ago that the fallout created was independent of the yield of the nuke.
Is this still the case?

There was also some discussion about the longevitiy of the radioactive isotopes and wether the radiation of the field will decline or not,any news on this?

blackheart · Post by **blackheart** » Dec 16 2004

Speaking of nukes, are there "dirty" bombs or anything like that? Low yield, massive radiation? Also, is there any Bio or Chem WMDs?

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Dec 17 2004

Yes to bio and chemical weapons.

Dont know about know if theres a "dirty bomb" in game.

Post by **George Geczy** » Dec 17 2004

There is no plan to include 'dirty' bombs - I don't think there is any official military device that is designed around that concept.

As far as everything else goes, it is just a tad early to get in to the discussion - nukes will not be in Beta8, unfortunately.

-- George.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 17 2004

-nukes will not be in Beta8, unfortunately

Damn!
That ruins christmas and new years eve for me

If I had to take a guess,
Beta 8 is just another "pretty new buttons that do nothing release ".
"wrapping up the final features"?
Is there some feature cut I wasnt aware of?

I dont get it, nukes are weapons just like the others and need their ammount of fixing and tweaking.
Now they wont get that.

Legend · Post by **Legend** » Dec 17 2004

Nuclear bombs have been cut. haha. Just kidding.

Don't worry, nukes will be there by beta 17, at the latest. Then you'll be able to test them...

Post by **George Geczy** » Dec 17 2004

Don't worry, nukes will certainly show up in Supreme Ruler 2010.

There are a couple of reasons why nukes can make it as a "late feature" add:

1) They are not intended to be the main form of gameplay. In default scenario settings we do NOT encourage the use of nukes by players as a valid strategy, and we will be using the World Market sanctions and retaliation to enforce that.

2) We will also be using the Missile Defense Shield feature as a counter to nukes, in a way that is probably far more effective than what the real US MDI has managed so far

3) Due to points 1 and 2, there isn't really a lot of "balacing" needed for nukes. Not nearly as much as for other elements of the game. The nukes go boom, people and units die. We need to get the damage levels right, but that's just one formula. A ground unit attack can involve dozens of formulas (ie experience, entrenchment, supression, artillery effects, speed, efficiency, research effects, and that's just from the top of my head). There are a couple of contributing factors to nuke damage to units (such as NBC protection, training, and some research items), but not nearly that many.

-- George.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 17 2004

Thanks for picking up the dicussion

1)
The WM ist certainly an interesting concept that I hope to see in the beta soon.
As I understand it the WM will also punish regular conventional attacks so the player will have to estimate how much an attack (be that conventional or otherwise) will gain him.

2)
The missile shield however will only serve to nerf the nukes and not other forms of attack.
Please dont "nerf" the nukes too much they already arent that easy to aquire and besides the destruction of upgrades that could have been used instead of being destroyed can also be considered a punishment.
The radiation effect will also make that loss permament.

Besides...the missile shield will not protect a country against all kind of nuclear weapons.
Missile shields,as their names suggest,are made to shot down ICBMs in flight but they arent as usefull against cruise missiles which stick to the ground and are useless against free fall bombs.
And considering the price/performancy relationship of them (as well as the missile defense) a player would do well to have some of them.

So some nukes will always "get through" as so to speak.

3)
You are correct that other forms of attack like the ground attack are more complex than nuke attacks.
But the outcomes of a nuclear war are more extreme.

ainsworth74 · Post by **ainsworth74** » Feb 14 2005

Also to do with Juergens point 2 missle sheilds should not be able to take down cruise missles and the like, also don't have it like Rise of Nations where missle shields protect units on the opposite side of the map outside your territory, perhaps it would be better to protect every thing in side your territory and within a 1 hex radius. And if there are a huge number of missles say 200 or more (if you can get that many I don't know) perhaps allow a small number through like 10-14 of them because it would have to be a very amazing shield to stop that many missles at once!

Ains

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Feb 19 2005

Well the effeciency of the missile defense shield is certainly an important balancing factor,both ICBMs and the missile shield must be worth their price.

As far as the technical side is concerned I presume that the missile shield can only engage missiles that are designated as "balistic missile" ,is that correct?

Since the game already distinguishes different kind of missiles that would make sense.

Post by **George Geczy** » Feb 19 2005

Yes, the missile shield is intended against high-altiitude ballistic missiles.

Short range, lower altitude ballistic missiles (ie SCUDs) and very low altitude cruise missiles are both intended for interception by anti-air, such as Patriots, air defense sites, etc.

So yes, there is a counter for every type of nuke launch, but as in anything the defenses can be overwhelmed.

It's the same type of argument that is often made about the US missile shield: "Sure, you'll eventually be able to intercept a single missile with near-100% accuracy, but what about when China launches 100 nukes mixed in with 1000 decoys?" (Replace "China" with your own personal favourite rogue nation, if you wish

)

-- George.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Mar 22 2005

Yes decoys and jammers are pretty common in moderm ICBMs and SLBMs and I think this is one of the point where more moderm missiles should have the edge over older missiles like SCUDs.
It should be far more difficult to shoot modern missiles down.

Anything new about the implementation of multiple warhead missiles?

It was mentioned that these missiles were supposed to have a higher "strenght" than 1 so that a single missile is pratically a bundle of smaller warheads.
At least that was the plan once.

Another approach I suggested was to increase the area of effect and lower the damage,this advantage however would be blurred by larger maps where this missiles will most likely be used...and one could also argue that the multiple warheads could all be used for the very same target to increase efficiency.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Mar 30 2005

Balthagor wrote:
"yes, nukes are flying"

Well then I guess its time to discuss their balancing.