Best nuclear device to make or use

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Polsie
Corporal
Posts: 7
Joined: Nov 20 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Polsie »

IceCold wrote:They did have 10s of thousands of Nukes yes, but they were also all aimed at different parts of the world. 1 or 2 nukes per city should be more then enough to kill off just about anything there, whether it's the blast it self or the Radiation afterwards.
A nuke like that were used in WWII are supposed to crush a city, but they haven't done that.
And yes, the USSR and USA has more than 10.000 nukes aimed at all parts of the world (likely allies of their enemy)
Niko465
Colonel
Posts: 252
Joined: Dec 18 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Niko465 »

Polsie wrote:
IceCold wrote:They did have 10s of thousands of Nukes yes, but they were also all aimed at different parts of the world. 1 or 2 nukes per city should be more then enough to kill off just about anything there, whether it's the blast it self or the Radiation afterwards.
A nuke like that were used in WWII are supposed to crush a city, but they haven't done that.
And yes, the USSR and USA has more than 10.000 nukes aimed at all parts of the world (likely allies of their enemy)
But mostly aimed on the enemy itself :D
Nicolau Abraão Rojas
Brazillian United Front
South East State
scutshake
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
Joined: Nov 16 2012
Human: Yes
Location: England

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by scutshake »

All i wanted to know was what is the best nuke for the game i didn't want to know how many nukes USA and the Soviets had LOL ^_^
Niko465
Colonel
Posts: 252
Joined: Dec 18 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Niko465 »

scutshake wrote:All i wanted to know was what is the best nuke for the game i didn't want to know how many nukes USA and the Soviets had LOL ^_^
If you want total nuclear war, silo. If you want to nuke specific targets, Land or sub lauchable. The best.. It doesen't matter, the strongest nuke missile is as strong as a nuclear bomb.
Nicolau Abraão Rojas
Brazillian United Front
South East State
scutshake
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
Joined: Nov 16 2012
Human: Yes
Location: England

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by scutshake »

Ok thanks :)
Niko465
Colonel
Posts: 252
Joined: Dec 18 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Niko465 »

scutshake wrote:Ok thanks :)
Well the range of the missiles is the only important factor. A bomb must be dropped, a Satan can reach any target on earth from Moscow
Nicolau Abraão Rojas
Brazillian United Front
South East State
IamBecomeDeath
Corporal
Posts: 5
Joined: Nov 03 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by IamBecomeDeath »

Balthagor wrote: I would challenge that destroying all the foundations of all the buildings in a city should be extremely difficult, even with nukes. A hex is 16x16km, that is a lot of area even for a nuke.

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20
And I would challenge your logic, and by extension the game's, that to completely incapacitate a city you need to blow it into particles smaller than dust.

In a city like New York if even a small nuke goes off(100Kt), it can potentially(depends on things like where in New York, at what altitute the burst etc) disable all or part of the utilities networks, blowing out all the windows in a wide radii and cause random fires left and right. That is without factoring in the radiation.

A modern, or Cold War era, school, hospital, or other public service building that has no heating or insulation for protection from the environment, that has no running water or power and half its staff are suffering from radiation poisoning, exhaustion or whatever AT THE SAME TIME that the people need their services the most, then that school or hospital is for all intends and purposes DESTROYED even though the sturdy structure that houses it might have sustained endurable or even minimal damage. And it would be the lack of such services would lead to most casualties NOT the blasts, or their immediate effects, themselves.

And that is what your game fails utterly to model. Which would be alright for most games but not a Cold War(that might go Hot) simulator. Makes sense now? I believe if you people really put your minds into this you can make it work, but it just doesn't yet.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Balthagor »

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Aragos
General
Posts: 1431
Joined: Jan 13 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Aragos »

I'd only add fellows, that most of the damage isn't from the burst (ground or air). It is from the fires that start afterwards and are exacerbated by cut water mains, powerlines, etc.

Effectively, it is the fires that form the bulk of the fallout as well (ash). A ground burst adds in dirt as well; to do the most damage Cold War nuke planners focused on air bursts (they cover more area, damage more and cause larger fires).

To some extent, the same is true for conventional strategic bombing (Tokyo, 1945) but it requires more aircraft and sustained (around-the-clock) bombing to keep the fires going.
IamBecomeDeath
Corporal
Posts: 5
Joined: Nov 03 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by IamBecomeDeath »

@Aragos
You make some very good points there and I won't dispute them. Wildfires would indeed be a source of great disaster in any nuclear exchange scenario.
I purposefully left them almost completely out, because I suppose that coding in wildfires and their effects would be a pain in the butt and might require some sort of major overhaul, not to mention it would give the devs one more excuse not to get off their butts and do some work.

@Balthagor
Yes but agreeing to disagree, and generally debating things over and over again doesn't make my game any better I noticed.

Coding in power or water shortages and even limited radiation effects(not including weather effects as some other poster suggested in another thread) should be more than doable, judging how the game seems to work. Facilities already consume power, water and various goods. It shouldn't be too hard to reduce the max amount of such utilities they receive depending how far they are from a specific ground zero. Overlays(facilities affected by more than one blast) should also be easy to calculate.

I suppose I could mod all this myself if I taught myself how, but I am no programmer and in no mood to become one! Also I paid for the damn thing and I believe the guys I paid are obliged to do it.

Finally, yes I know the game fails equally on many other levels that need fixing. But indeed there should be some priorities. A Cold War simulator that fails to model nuclear war is like a spaceship that won't go into outer space.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Balthagor »

But you're debating <with me> and I'm just one part of the studio. Your comments on the forum will get the same weight as everyone else's and get consideration by the studio.

And speaking personally, I look at what we've accomplished both at release and with updates since then and feel no sense of obligation beyond what we've achieved. But that's me personally.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
IamBecomeDeath
Corporal
Posts: 5
Joined: Nov 03 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by IamBecomeDeath »

For starters you will have to excuse me for using a certain tone with you, I do understand everything is not *your* fault, but you have to understand that I can't casually drop a line to any of the *other guys* that make up your studio and talk about things that matter to me. You are here, it's your username in bright red font, you get to listen to the music...if you provide me with an e-mail address for any of the guys in the workshop I'll definitely stop bugging you personally, though...

Anyway...why is it that everybody's opinion carry the same weight, again? I say start a poll or something and let the opinion of the majority be heard. All would vote which aspect of the game they wanna see reworked/fixed/whatever for the next upcoming update. I believe it makes sense from your standpoint as a business as well, since any business wants to keep the majority of their paying customers happy at any time. Additionally, it would narrow down the list of given tasks for any upcoming update, drastically increasing the odds your devs might successfully complete said tasks.

Finally, I can understand how you would feel all warm and fuzzy about your own product, but if you ask me you guys have been releasing more or less the same game since SR2010...but hey, that's just me...personally...and doesn't mean it can't still be a great game
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Balthagor »

Well, info@battlegoat.com is always accessible. But posting here is the proper venue. My explanation is simply to say why I might not continue to participate in a certain discussion. On some forum issues, I agree 100% with the forum opinion but am the only one in the studio on that side of the argument so coming here to play devil's advocate is an exercise in frustration.

Also, for polls, any user can post (and many users have posted) a thread with a poll. However, don't be fooled into thinking that active forum members is close to even 50% of our customers. We only have 5000 members here and (thankfully) have sold many more copies than that. Forum posts are a limited feedback resource.
IamBecomeDeath wrote:...more or less the same game since SR2010...
Well, it is a series. Of course they are very similar. That's part of the plan. However, I'd challenge anyone to deny that we've made leaps and bounds in the capabilities of the engine since then.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Chesehead
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 637
Joined: Apr 19 2009

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Chesehead »

Aragos wrote:I'd only add fellows, that most of the damage isn't from the burst (ground or air). It is from the fires that start afterwards and are exacerbated by cut water mains, powerlines, etc.

Effectively, it is the fires that form the bulk of the fallout as well (ash). A ground burst adds in dirt as well; to do the most damage Cold War nuke planners focused on air bursts (they cover more area, damage more and cause larger fires).

To some extent, the same is true for conventional strategic bombing (Tokyo, 1945) but it requires more aircraft and sustained (around-the-clock) bombing to keep the fires going.
For the sake of the game though, you would simply need to worry about over-pressurization and high tempriture thermal effects for a 16 mile radius roughly. This could be done with a weapons from 50-100 meg's or MRV/MIRV technology. I do feel that the game does not adiquetly factor in advances in weapon accuracy, size reduction, and multiple warheads into the damage equation, since 3 100kt weapons will do greater damage then a single 300 kt device. Therefore, some of the heavy Soviet ICBM's with upwards of 10 MIRV's in the megaton range should easyily be able to overpressurize a hex and most all buildings in it. There comes an issue with hardened sites, but most of those were military, and perhaps could be factored in with their defensive statisitics.
Aragos
General
Posts: 1431
Joined: Jan 13 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Best nuclear device to make or use

Post by Aragos »

Chesehead wrote:
Aragos wrote:I'd only add fellows, that most of the damage isn't from the burst (ground or air). It is from the fires that start afterwards and are exacerbated by cut water mains, powerlines, etc.

Effectively, it is the fires that form the bulk of the fallout as well (ash). A ground burst adds in dirt as well; to do the most damage Cold War nuke planners focused on air bursts (they cover more area, damage more and cause larger fires).

To some extent, the same is true for conventional strategic bombing (Tokyo, 1945) but it requires more aircraft and sustained (around-the-clock) bombing to keep the fires going.
For the sake of the game though, you would simply need to worry about over-pressurization and high tempriture thermal effects for a 16 mile radius roughly. This could be done with a weapons from 50-100 meg's or MRV/MIRV technology. I do feel that the game does not adiquetly factor in advances in weapon accuracy, size reduction, and multiple warheads into the damage equation, since 3 100kt weapons will do greater damage then a single 300 kt device. Therefore, some of the heavy Soviet ICBM's with upwards of 10 MIRV's in the megaton range should easyily be able to overpressurize a hex and most all buildings in it. There comes an issue with hardened sites, but most of those were military, and perhaps could be factored in with their defensive statisitics.

Good points; my main point was that the destruction of a city using a nuke is more than the calculation of blast effects. In the SR series, nukes are basically calculated on the same scale as an artillery round or conventional missile--they do X amount of damage, etc. In many ways, that is more the way military planners in the early Cold War calculated the use of tac nukes.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRCW”