Missiles

Post by **Balthagor** » Nov 27 2003

Sorry that I didn't reply to this one right away, missed it. No, we haven't tried any of the nuclear missiles yet. I've only just started with the balancing and so many other things have required my attention lately. I'll keep you posted though.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Nov 30 2003

As soon as you have detonated the first nuke could you please show a screenshot of it?

Another thing about MIRVs:
MIRVs are not only there to increase the damage per yield or to spread the damage.
There are also said to help penetrate possible defenses against missiles.
Multiple MIRVs would descend to the target together with lots of decoys and jammers launched by the MIRV bus.

So...I would argue since more modern missiles have the most MIRVs(and probably a lot of "penetration aids") they would also have a better chance penetrating missile defenses.
Are you taking this into account?

A question about missile movement:
Lets assume we are on the wolrd map and Russia and the USA are throwing missiles at each other...would these missiles travel over the north pole?

And now for something completely different

:
What about nuclear tipped air-defense missiles?
As far as I know both the Russians and the USA played with the idea of using this kind of weapon against masses of incoming enemy bombers.

[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-11-30 07:00 ]

Redshadow · Post by **Redshadow** » Nov 30 2003

I suppose that those nuke tipped missles would have been effective against waves of B-29s back in the 50's...but what would their beneit be today? I can't recal a recent war where enough Aircraft were stacked so close together (i.e. massive bombing raids of WWII) that this weapon would be worth the nuclear fallout raining down upon your populous.

~Red

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 01 2003

I don't think we're going to use any nuclear tipped anti air missiles. Wouldn't fit well we the design.

As for the MIRVs, I'll talk with George about it some more and see what we'll do. We may not get them balanced until the beta starts. If we increase the defense value of MIRVs that would mean the would better survive to reach the target. That's one idea anyway.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 01 2003

On 2003-12-01 11:44, Balthagor wrote:
I don't think we're going to use any nuclear tipped anti air missiles. Wouldn't fit well we the design.

Thats OK,and besides Redshadow has convinced me that these weapons just no longer fit into our time.
They may be usefull to against missiles,at least Russia has a few Galosh ABMs in service,but if it would cause problems to implement then I can see your point.

As for the MIRVs, I'll talk with George about it some more and see what we'll do. We may not get them balanced until the beta starts. If we increase the defense value of MIRVs that would mean the would better survive to reach the target. That's one idea anyway.

Now Im a little confused...so are MIRVs still "real" units?

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Dec 02 2003

Don't know what you guy's will think? But this thread has prompted me to think that there may still be a case for air bust nukes and nukes detonated in the stratosphere to 'kill' off enemy communications for a while.

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 02 2003

To Juergen, the MIRVs where never really gone, it's just that we used the missile that fired the MIRVs as one unit with the MIRVs. So I was suggesting that a Trident with MIRVs have a higher defense than a strategic missile without.

To Dust off, I can almost guarantee that there will not be time to impliment air burst nukes. Feel free to leave us details though and we'll see about perhaps adding them after release.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 02 2003

Its great to hear that MIRVS are still there

However I have some questions:

"it's just that we used the missile that
fired the MIRVs as one unit with the MIRVs"

Im not sure what you mean,could you explain more?

So as I take it the damage received at the hex is still done by the MIRV,right?

There are different kind of MIRVs with different strenghts,right?

Is the problem with the SLBMs solved so that these missiles can also have MIRVs?

[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-12-02 10:50 ]

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 03 2003

I'm gonna have to look at this a bit more before I can really answer. In the mean time, have you downloaded the latest equipment file specifically the missiles sheet to review the information we have so far? I'd appreciate if you could pick out a missile or two as an example.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 03 2003

In fact I already have taken a small look at it and did notice that some of the missiles I suggested adding (some of them I was told that they were already in) are not in the database

For example:
SS-N-23 Skiff
Jericho 1+2
others can be found somewhere in this thread

I actually wanted to tell you in my last reply but I thought that the data file might be by mistake an older file.

And while Im at it I do have an database related question:
What exactly means "strat nuke" and "tac nuke"?

As soon as possible I will take some time and look at some values like range and speed and compare them with data from some internet sites.

In fact there already is something I have noticed while reading your war correspondence(quite good btw

) :
It was mentioned that cruise missiles were used with at least some or a lot of succes against tanks.
As far as I know cruise missiles are used to attack targets with fixed position...so I take it they wouldnt be fit to take out tanks since they would need an additional target system.
And besides they are also fired only against targets of importance (bases,airports,industrial key points),against tanks they might be waisted.

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 03 2003

hold that thought... it looks like none of the updated unit spreadsheets uploaded properly. Those are all the old spreadsheets. I'll get that fixed this afternoon...

Strat - strategic
Tac - Tactical

This is really only to have a quick not of large yield vs. small yield.

As for the cruise missile comment, I'm probably using the wrong term. The missile units are all sorts of "land attack/theater" missiles

[ This Message was edited by: Balthagor on 2003-12-03 12:25 ]

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 05 2003

I have got the newest data and I have got some time

I have taken a quick look and as of now I cant detect any missile missing and the data for speed and range seem to be "about right"

There is something I have noticed though:
The SS-N-17 Snipe,SS-N-23 Skiff and the
SS-N-20 Sturgeon are designated as "missile" instead of "balistic missile"
Does this have any effect other than the name?

Another question regarding the game mechanics:

What kind of target (soft,hard,fort) are certain upgrades,could you give me list with the upgrades along with what kind of target they are?

For example:
I would say that missile silos should be regarded as "hard targets",while farms would likely be "soft targets" because they consist of lightly armoured (or not at all) targets on a lot of space.

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 05 2003

Glad to know that the missile list is looking so complete. Iâ€™ve still got more to add but I think I was able to get the core selection down easily. As for the missile vs. ballistic missile, units with a cargo capacity carry missiles and ballistic missiles will be fired from silos. Certain missiles will exist in both list such as the Trident but you will have to decide which trident youâ€™re building; silo or sub launched. They wonâ€™t be interchangeable.

As to the mechanics, youâ€™ve missed a piece of the puzzle. Hard and soft are designations for units. Fort stands for Fortification. All structures have a fortification value and units/missiles that can attack structures directly will have a fortification attack value. So a â€œbunker busterâ€ style missile would have a high fortification value with a good soft attack and low hard attack value. In your example, the silo would simply have a higher fortification value.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 08 2003

If I have found some new information about units or found a unit that is missing how shall I report this?

While Im at it...
I havent seen any free fall nuclear or chemical bombs yet.
As far as I remember they are planed to be "missile units".
Just like the MOAB which is already in...although I wonder if this weapon will be considered a small nuke or a conventional weapon.

Another thing:
All of the "Harpoon" missiles have "Naval Submar Attack" values.
Doesnt that mean that these missiles could attack submarines,or do I understand something wrong?
Of course Harpoon missiles cant attack submarines.

BTW
If you are thinking "Why didnt he notice this a little quicker?",well I recently upgraded my computer and I thought it would just take a day or two...I was wrong

[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-12-08 16:37 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-12-09 08:10 ]

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Dec 09 2003

"One last question. If the attacker fires a nuclear tipped missle for example, and a screening destroyer shoots it down 3 hexes from the target, great, no damage. But what if the only unit that can provide a screen is stacked in the same hex as the target? This would mean, if successful, the missile was destroyed very close to its target and might actually have armed. Our first thought is to take poetic licence on this and say that all missiles arm a fraction of a second before impact, but we do lose some realism due to the fact that blowing up an incoming nuclear missile after it is armed makes a bit of a bangâ€¦ Do we get away with overlooking this? "

Okay , since i am enjoying this missile thread alot,and since it is about missiles,i'm going to pull the qoute above from the thread it was in and place it here.
Then im going to ask if there has been a decision of this yet .Sooooo.
Has there been a decision on this yet ?
Hey look at that, i did

heheheheh.