3D modelling

Post mods you have finished or are working on here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 276
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1216 Post by sparky282 » Mar 14 2020

indeed you did I just totally forgot about it lol

Shame the The PLAN Type 071 and JMSDF Mashu will miss out on this release but we cant have everything

Nerei
General
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1217 Post by Nerei » Mar 14 2020

Like I said the main reason I am doing it like this is to try and actually get something finished. It is an artificial deadline yes but if I do not make any like this I will never finish anything. I will just keep on adding to the list of models I "should" finish first.

I am open to including Mashu and 071 and delay a bit if that is what people prefer I do. I can accept either option. The main goal really is to avoid an effective indefinite delay.


Also should I mention that I have never watched Top Gun? I actually had to search a bit to get the Top Gun references.
Yes I am not good at watching movies and you would be surprised at how little I actually know about that subject...
I am however fairly decent if the topic was say nuclear weapons from the 1950's and other facts that to most are 100% useless pretty in all situations ^_-

sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 276
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1218 Post by sparky282 » Mar 14 2020

I'd be up for a bit of a delay the Mashu and 071 are so different compared to anything else we have in-game I look forward to all your models but this 2 especially.

Haha I've not seen a few films I really should of but topgun isn't one of them wore the tape out :lol:

I know they're not really military planes as such but would you consider doing a Boeing 747 and or Airbus Beluga.

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1219 Post by milivoje02 » Mar 14 2020

Hey Nerei have you ever thought to make a Supreme Tiger plane? Everyone has it(fictitious unit) and it would be interesting to make it futuristic.
And documentary films? I do a lot of video editing in that genre. Are you familiar with the work in After effect?

Nerei
General
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1220 Post by Nerei » Mar 14 2020

sparky282 wrote:
Mar 14 2020
I know they're not really military planes as such but would you consider doing a Boeing 747 and or Airbus Beluga.
Technically I have no plans to make a 747. I do however have plans to make both a C-33 and KC-33A. Those are basically militarised versions of the 747 in a cargo and aerial tanker configuration respectively.
The C-33 is based on the 400F and the KC-33A on the 200.

The main visual difference between between a 400 and 400F is the 2nd floor is much shorter on the freight aircraft. The fuselage of the 400F resembles the 200 more than the 400 passenger variants.
The wing-shape of the 400F and 200 is different but removing the winglets of the 400F will probably be enough to make it resemble a 200.
A KC-33A aerial tanker would also be useful for representing the IIAF/IRIAF 747 aerial tankers.

Another good reason for going with the C-33/400F over say a 400 or 400ER is that the Boeing YAL-1 aerial laser is build on a 400F so making one would just mean replacing the nose of the C-33.
Visually the 400F and 8F is also closer to each other than the Freight and passenger variants of the 400 and 8 are to each other.

Not sure if I ever want to make one as I am not sure there is even anything to use it for (okay seriously has that ever stopped me before?) but the US E4 aerial command post is also based on the 200 series 747 so building one from a C-33/400F is far easier than a 400.

Also the C-33 would be easier to adapt to represent earlier 747 variants like say a 200F. Again stripping it of the winglets would probably go a long way.

If it was not obvious I have actually put a bit of time into this.


I should probably also add that one of the reasons I picked a freight aircraft is that I consider the passenger variant to be quite pointless as all they can carry are ULD's and passengers. Really it would probably be better if the 747 variants in-game was the C-33/400F and 8F.

I have an incomplete model of the C-33. Note however that the model itself is not even done so it still got some way to go.
Image


While on hypothetical cargo aircraft I also want to make a Douglas D-906 at some point. That was Douglas bid for the CX-HLS program that eventually resulted in the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. It resembles that aircraft a bit but unlike the C-5 that has a T tail this one has the tailplane mounted on the fuselage and it has 6 engines.
Like the YB-60 it might also be usable as representation for fictive aircraft.


As for the A300 or A330 Beluga I am probably more inclined to just make say a A300-600F or A330-200F. Then again the A330 is really just stripping the A330 MRTT of its fuel boom and repainting it.

It would be easier to justify if the game considered cargo shape but it does not. That is also why it is interesting that the the A300 cargo aircraft is an A300-600 Beluga and not just a A300-600F.
It is the same reason why I think it is funny that we have both a 747-400ER (the passenger variant) and a 747-400 FCL (specialised 747 cargo aircraft for transporting 787 parts).
400F (or 400ERF) and 8F.

milivoje02 wrote:
Mar 14 2020
Hey Nerei have you ever thought to make a Supreme Tiger plane? Everyone has it(fictitious unit) and it would be interesting to make it futuristic.
And documentary films? I do a lot of video editing in that genre. Are you familiar with the work in After effect?
I tend to rarely make fictive models. I have made a few but they tend to be taking something existing and using it as a template. A good example is that I have taken some pieces of the Type 052C, 055 and an incomplete 052D and thrown them together into a roughly Kirov sized large guided missile cruiser. A bit like model 1683 which is basically me doing the same with JMSDF vessels.

I would probably find something obscure like say the KAI KF-X C200 concept. Pretty sure it was discarded for the C100 variants so it would likely not have any practical application for the actual KAI KF-X. It would probably make a decent model for a fictive aircraft.
I mean I could also make a futuristic looking A10 like aircraft but honestly for this in particular case the stealth rating and speed really does not fit with that. The C200 might be a decent fit though.
Not that I could not do that at some point but it will be a bit into the future.

One of the advantages of taking an existing design is that it is probably aerodynamically stable.


Documentaries are more me though my favourite tends to be podcasts and audiobooks. That way I can better work at the same time.
Still I might actually go out of my way to watch something covering topics I find interesting.
That is more than I can say for movies. I cannot remember when I was last excited for one of those.

I used after effects a few times back in school. There where however people far more capable with it than me so I stuck with tasks more suited to my skillset.

sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 276
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1221 Post by sparky282 » Mar 15 2020

Nerei wrote:
Mar 14 2020
sparky282 wrote:
Mar 14 2020
I know they're not really military planes as such but would you consider doing a Boeing 747 and or Airbus Beluga.
Technically I have no plans to make a 747. I do however have plans to make both a C-33 and KC-33A. Those are basically militarised versions of the 747 in a cargo and aerial tanker configuration respectively.
The C-33 is based on the 400F and the KC-33A on the 200.

The main visual difference between between a 400 and 400F is the 2nd floor is much shorter on the freight aircraft. The fuselage of the 400F resembles the 200 more than the 400 passenger variants.
The wing-shape of the 400F and 200 is different but removing the winglets of the 400F will probably be enough to make it resemble a 200.
A KC-33A aerial tanker would also be useful for representing the IIAF/IRIAF 747 aerial tankers.

Another good reason for going with the C-33/400F over say a 400 or 400ER is that the Boeing YAL-1 aerial laser is build on a 400F so making one would just mean replacing the nose of the C-33.
Visually the 400F and 8F is also closer to each other than the Freight and passenger variants of the 400 and 8 are to each other.

Not sure if I ever want to make one as I am not sure there is even anything to use it for (okay seriously has that ever stopped me before?) but the US E4 aerial command post is also based on the 200 series 747 so building one from a C-33/400F is far easier than a 400.

Also the C-33 would be easier to adapt to represent earlier 747 variants like say a 200F. Again stripping it of the winglets would probably go a long way.

If it was not obvious I have actually put a bit of time into this.


I should probably also add that one of the reasons I picked a freight aircraft is that I consider the passenger variant to be quite pointless as all they can carry are ULD's and passengers. Really it would probably be better if the 747 variants in-game was the C-33/400F and 8F.

I have an incomplete model of the C-33. Note however that the model itself is not even done so it still got some way to go.


While on hypothetical cargo aircraft I also want to make a Douglas D-906 at some point. That was Douglas bid for the CX-HLS program that eventually resulted in the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. It resembles that aircraft a bit but unlike the C-5 that has a T tail this one has the tailplane mounted on the fuselage and it has 6 engines.
Like the YB-60 it might also be usable as representation for fictive aircraft.


As for the A300 or A330 Beluga I am probably more inclined to just make say a A300-600F or A330-200F. Then again the A330 is really just stripping the A330 MRTT of its fuel boom and repainting it.

It would be easier to justify if the game considered cargo shape but it does not. That is also why it is interesting that the the A300 cargo aircraft is an A300-600 Beluga and not just a A300-600F.
It is the same reason why I think it is funny that we have both a 747-400ER (the passenger variant) and a 747-400 FCL (specialised 747 cargo aircraft for transporting 787 parts).
400F (or 400ERF) and 8F.

milivoje02 wrote:
Mar 14 2020
Hey Nerei have you ever thought to make a Supreme Tiger plane? Everyone has it(fictitious unit) and it would be interesting to make it futuristic.
And documentary films? I do a lot of video editing in that genre. Are you familiar with the work in After effect?
I tend to rarely make fictive models. I have made a few but they tend to be taking something existing and using it as a template. A good example is that I have taken some pieces of the Type 052C, 055 and an incomplete 052D and thrown them together into a roughly Kirov sized large guided missile cruiser. A bit like model 1683 which is basically me doing the same with JMSDF vessels.

I would probably find something obscure like say the KAI KF-X C200 concept. Pretty sure it was discarded for the C100 variants so it would likely not have any practical application for the actual KAI KF-X. It would probably make a decent model for a fictive aircraft.
I mean I could also make a futuristic looking A10 like aircraft but honestly for this in particular case the stealth rating and speed really does not fit with that. The C200 might be a decent fit though.
Not that I could not do that at some point but it will be a bit into the future.

Documentaries are more me though my favourite tends to be podcasts and audiobooks. That way I can better work at the same time.
Still I might actually go out of my way to watch something covering topics I find interesting.
That is more than I can say for movies. I cannot remember when I was last excited for one of those.

I used after effects a few times back in school. There where however people far more capable with it than me so I stuck with tasks more suited to my skillset.
Wow haha I wasn't expecting so much with it not really being a military plane, although the version your making is. I love the detail you look into these things however for me its not as important if you look at the current model we have in-game for the 747 you can most likely understand why I will use whichever model you create to cover all in game versions.

I guess the A330-200F would be easier for you and I'd be more than happy with that I could just use it to replace the beluga unit and rename it to suit.
Douglas D-906 would be a pretty cool plane to have in-game and useful I would say as well.
KAI KF-X C200 was a nice looking plane they went for a simpler design but with the few other fictive 6th-7th gen planes you have done it could cover most the future interceptors in-game

Now that BG have announced the final update when it's out I'm going to merge your models with that final game version so people without the skill and knowledge can get your fantastic models which are not in the base game.
I spoke with you about doing this before but never got round to it.
I'll also be releasing the changes I make to the game mainly unit files to another mod there are so many units missing I've added a lot over the years.

Nerei
General
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1222 Post by Nerei » Mar 15 2020

I really try and look things up like that for a few reasons. One part is the utility of the model e.g. what else can I do with it that is relevant. The other part is how useful is the model in general. Also I just like reading.
The 400ER in particular and the LCF to some extend also falls on these points so I see little reason to make either of them.
I lost my current install but if/when I recreate it the 400ER and LCF is going in favour of the C-33/400F/400ERF and 8F.


I think the only outright fictive aircraft I have made is 1659. I have made aircraft that never got beyond prototype like the YF-23 or YB-60 and aircraft that never left the drawing board such as the NATF but I think that is the only one with no real world connection.


Also US variant of the F-14.
Image
Not much left to do with it. Still need to do a Z and default one though.

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1223 Post by milivoje02 » Mar 15 2020

Nerei wrote:
Mar 15 2020
I really try and look things up like that for a few reasons. One part is the utility of the model e.g. what else can I do with it that is relevant. The other part is how useful is the model in general. Also I just like reading.
The 400ER in particular and the LCF to some extend also falls on these points so I see little reason to make either of them.
I lost my current install but if/when I recreate it the 400ER and LCF is going in favour of the C-33/400F/400ERF and 8F.


I think the only outright fictive aircraft I have made is 1659. I have made aircraft that never got beyond prototype like the YF-23 or YB-60 and aircraft that never left the drawing board such as the NATF but I think that is the only one with no real world connection.


Also US variant of the F-14.
Image
Not much left to do with it. Still need to do a Z and default one though.
F 14 looks perfect. I was hoping for a pirate head on its tail but this logo its cool too.
I hope that there will be an improvement in meshes design for T55 in game and all model with that meshes(you desingde is great). And and the same for meshes design of Supreme Tiger and all units with that mesh...
Have you tried making Nora b 52 self-propelled howitzer?
I have a similar style of work,with documentaries and soundtracks in the background.
And let me ask you. How realistic is the use of nuclear bombs in the game in your opinion? Because the nuclear powers in the game often capitulate and the nuke arsenal do not use it to prevent it...

Nerei
General
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1224 Post by Nerei » Mar 16 2020

milivoje02 wrote:
Mar 15 2020
F 14 looks perfect. I was hoping for a pirate head on its tail but this logo its cool too.
I hope that there will be an improvement in meshes design for T55 in game and all model with that meshes(you desingde is great). And and the same for meshes design of Supreme Tiger and all units with that mesh...
Have you tried making Nora b 52 self-propelled howitzer?
I have a similar style of work,with documentaries and soundtracks in the background.
And let me ask you. How realistic is the use of nuclear bombs in the game in your opinion? Because the nuclear powers in the game often capitulate and the nuke arsenal do not use it to prevent it...
One of reason I did not go for VFA-103 Jolly Rogers but VFA-143 is that I already used them for the NATF. I try and avoid making the aircraft too identical if I can and black tail with Jolly Rogers is probably a bit too specific.

Image
Sidenote: Fix shading on NATF.

I generally want to make more wheeled HSP's so yes the B-52 Nora is one of the vehicles I have considered making.
The main limitation with making the Nora is that I do not have proper orthographic illustrations. I have looked once but the best I found was this:
Image
Another HSP I have considered making is the Caesar.

I will try and cover nuclear weapons is a separate post as that is going to be long.

Nerei
General
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1225 Post by Nerei » Mar 16 2020

milivoje02 wrote:
Mar 15 2020
And let me ask you. How realistic is the use of nuclear bombs in the game in your opinion? Because the nuclear powers in the game often capitulate and the nuke arsenal do not use it to prevent it...
With regards to nuclear weapons there is really two questions. Is the AI usage of nuclear weapons realistic and is nuclear weapons themselves realistic? As mentioned this is going to be long.


If we look at how the AI uses nuclear weapons I would say it is mainly not covering all doctrines.
Only retaliating against a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons is definitely an option. Second strike is a decent deterrence to an opponent trying to cripple a nation in a surprise first strike.
But it is not the only option.

If you want one extreme then outgoing UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbin is a good example (yes he was not elected but still it is valid to consider as he was up for election).
The UK prime minister writes a letter (letter of last resort) to the captain of the ballistic missile submarines detailing what they should do in case the UK leadership is destroyed in a nuclear war.
Corbin has publicly stated that he would not authorise the usage of nuclear weapons. Unless the captain goes against the wishes of the (likely dead) Prime Minister the UK under Corbin would not have retaliated against a nuclear attack despite having the capabilities to do so.


On the other extreme you got the Eisenhower administrations massive retaliation doctrine.
This basically states that agression against the US or its allies will be met with massive nuclear retaliation and it also contains enough ambiguity about what might meet the requirements for such a strike.
It includes the idea that the opponent should not be alone in dictating the escalation. Also it fully believes that local defences alone cannot contain full scale soviet agression so local defences have to be backed up by nuclear arms.

Basically in massive retaliation a full scale push by the USSR in the Fulda gap would likely be met with some form of nuclear retaliation. Most likely extreme.
It really is not that different from first strike.
It is also a good deterrence as long as the opponent does not try and call it bluff.


You can also consider the typical reason why smaller autocratic nations acquire nuclear weapons. To nations like the DPRK their nuclear stock is basically life insurance. It's existence is there to ensure aggression against them by a conventionally much stronger nation (e.g. the US) is too costly to be deemed feasible.
Would Kim Jong Un hesitate turning Seoul into a glass crater if he deemed that to be necessary to either ensure the survival of the regime or to make the US and its allies pay for conquering the DPRK? My guess is he would happily do it.


Really all are valid strategies and by no means an exhaustive list. Limited escalation and retaliation is also entirely valid. The way the game does it is not wrong it is just too limited in options and means that as a player I can ignore wasting resources on nuclear weapons unless I plan a first strike.




Next there is the accuracy (or realism) of the weapons themselves. Here there are the limitations on the engine itself as well as their stats.

The first thing to keep in mind is that just saying nuclear bomb is like just saying cannon. You are not saying if it is the 460mm main battery of the Yamato or a 20mm Vulcan you are referring to. The difference between a world war 2 nuclear bomb and the thermonuclear weapons of the early cold war is massive.


Consider the bombing of Hiroshima. This was a roughly 15 kiloton Mk-1 nuclear bomb.
Image
Remember each hex is 16km in diameter so the edges of the hex is out at around 8700 yards give or take. There is plenty of areas for people to survive in a hex.

Really representing this somewhat localised destruction in the engine is problematic. Attacking an entire hex literally does that. It is hard to cause massive but localised destruction. That makes setting the stats for say a Hiroshima style Mk-1 freefall nuclear bomb difficult. Considering a few runs of B-36D's bombing a hex will do comparable damage it is probably too low though (12 B-36D can bring a bit over 200 tonnes of high explosives from what I remember if we ignore the casings).


As mentioned though the difference between Mk-1 and a thermonuclear bomb is massive. Orders of magnitude massive.

By the mid 1950's the largest US weapons had a yield of around 1000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. In 1960 the US started manufacture of the Mk. 41 freefall bomb. At 25 megaton it is among the largest weapons to ever enter service.

These weapons are in a completely different league. Typically the 20psi overpressure area is regarded as the zone of total destruction where lethality approaches 100%
The Mk. 41 can create such conditions in nearly the entire hex (we are assuming detonation height to optimise destruction inside the hex). Several hexes away the thermal radiation will be enough to give exposed humans 3rd degree burns. Inside the hex it will be 10-20 times higher or more.
The game however does not represent freefall nuclear bombs past the early to mid 1950's. That alone I would say is an oversight. We can however look at a smaller but still quite large weapon.

The largest in-game weapon we know the yield of for certain is the LGM-25C Titan II. It carried the W53 warhead with a yield of 9 megaton. It can create conditions like the ones described above in around half the surface area of a hex. The rest of the hex will not exactly be sunshine and happiness either as it will likely take at least a 10 psi overpressure shockwave.
Non-hardened structures like say most industrial or residential buildings will not be able to take this. 5 psi overpressure is typically set as their limit and that is well into neighbouring hexes.

Now does nuclear weapons like the LGM-25C do anything like this? No not at all. If any structures are anything less than critically damaged after you drop a Titan II on a hex the weapon is not strong enough. The exception is structures like missile silos which would require a ground detonation fairly close to it.
If my goal was to kill infantry a few runs with B-36D's dropping conventional bombs will be just as effective. Flattening structures would take a few more trips for the B-36D's. That means the either the nuclear weapon is underperforming, the B-36 is overperforming or both. Personally I go with both.

Another interesting fact is that battleships like A-150 are better at sinking ships than the detonation of a 20kt bomb. I would say Operation Crossroads proves nuclear weapons to be fairly decent against ships. The Baker test sank 2 battleships and an aircraft carrier amongst other.

Also a problem is that the population is generally not harmed until the facilities are destroyed. In reality a very large nuclear weapon will kill nearly all exposed humans in a hex and those in non-hardened structures will not fare much better.
Detonating a nuclear weapon like a Titan II or SS-18 Satan/R-36 in say New York or Tokyo would leave millions dead.


I once did tried to estimate fort attack based on overpressure radius with the 10KT weapon as the baseline.
The interesting part was that the free-fall bombs followed the curve I got fairly well but the large ICBM's where significantly lower than my curve would have them. The LGM-25C Titan II in my setup got a fort attack of over 24000. When I tried with suface area the Titan II got above 200K fort attack.


So to summarise I would say the strategy the AI uses is not wrong as such. The problem is that is the only strategy it uses. Strategies like massive retaliation is missing and it would be nice if it could also use that. If it had a more varied approach it would make nuclear weapons more interesting and less something I can ignore unless I want to do first strikes.

As for their stats the problem is representing massive localised destruction is hard with how the engine handles damage. For larger nuclear weapons like say thermonuclear bombs their damage is just too low. With those there is less the issue with the damage having to be localised. They really should just flatten an attacked hex.
Also I find the complete lack of freefall thermonuclear weapons to be a bit disappointing. Bombers delivered megaton range freefall nuclear bombs where a significant part of the nuclear deterrence well into the 1960's and aircraft like the B-1 Lancer (a 1970's aircraft) where intended to deliver freefall nuclear bombs amongst other. The transition from freefall weapons to missiles should be much more gradual than it currently is.

All this said nuclear weapons are not the part that annoys me the most. That title probably falls to nuclear vs conventional marine propulsion (or simply put how the game screw over nuclear propulsion).

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1226 Post by milivoje02 » Mar 16 2020

Nerei wrote:
Mar 16 2020
milivoje02 wrote:
Mar 15 2020
And let me ask you. How realistic is the use of nuclear bombs in the game in your opinion? Because the nuclear powers in the game often capitulate and the nuke arsenal do not use it to prevent it...
With regards to nuclear weapons there is really two questions. Is the AI usage of nuclear weapons realistic and is nuclear weapons themselves realistic? As mentioned this is going to be long.


If we look at how the AI uses nuclear weapons I would say it is mainly not covering all doctrines.
Only retaliating against a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons is definitely an option. Second strike is a decent deterrence to an opponent trying to cripple a nation in a surprise first strike.
But it is not the only option.

If you want one extreme then outgoing UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbin is a good example (yes he was not elected but still it is valid to consider as he was up for election).
The UK prime minister writes a letter (letter of last resort) to the captain of the ballistic missile submarines detailing what they should do in case the UK leadership is destroyed in a nuclear war.
Corbin has publicly stated that he would not authorise the usage of nuclear weapons. Unless the captain goes against the wishes of the (likely dead) Prime Minister the UK under Corbin would not have retaliated against a nuclear attack despite having the capabilities to do so.


On the other extreme you got the Eisenhower administrations massive retaliation doctrine.
This basically states that agression against the US or its allies will be met with massive nuclear retaliation and it also contains enough ambiguity about what might meet the requirements for such a strike.
It includes the idea that the opponent should not be alone in dictating the escalation. Also it fully believes that local defences alone cannot contain full scale soviet agression so local defences have to be backed up by nuclear arms.

Basically in massive retaliation a full scale push by the USSR in the Fulda gap would likely be met with some form of nuclear retaliation. Most likely extreme.
It really is not that different from first strike.
It is also a good deterrence as long as the opponent does not try and call it bluff.


You can also consider the typical reason why smaller autocratic nations acquire nuclear weapons. To nations like the DPRK their nuclear stock is basically life insurance. It's existence is there to ensure aggression against them by a conventionally much stronger nation (e.g. the US) is too costly to be deemed feasible.
Would Kim Jong Un hesitate turning Seoul into a glass crater if he deemed that to be necessary to either ensure the survival of the regime or to make the US and its allies pay for conquering the DPRK? My guess is he would happily do it.


Really all are valid strategies and by no means an exhaustive list. Limited escalation and retaliation is also entirely valid. The way the game does it is not wrong it is just too limited in options and means that as a player I can ignore wasting resources on nuclear weapons unless I plan a first strike.




Next there is the accuracy (or realism) of the weapons themselves. Here there are the limitations on the engine itself as well as their stats.

The first thing to keep in mind is that just saying nuclear bomb is like just saying cannon. You are not saying if it is the 460mm main battery of the Yamato or a 20mm Vulcan you are referring to. The difference between a world war 2 nuclear bomb and the thermonuclear weapons of the early cold war is massive.


Consider the bombing of Hiroshima. This was a roughly 15 kiloton Mk-1 nuclear bomb.
Image
Remember each hex is 16km in diameter so the edges of the hex is out at around 8700 yards give or take. There is plenty of areas for people to survive in a hex.

Really representing this somewhat localised destruction in the engine is problematic. Attacking an entire hex literally does that. It is hard to cause massive but localised destruction. That makes setting the stats for say a Hiroshima style Mk-1 freefall nuclear bomb difficult. Considering a few runs of B-36D's bombing a hex will do comparable damage it is probably too low though (12 B-36D can bring a bit over 200 tonnes of high explosives from what I remember if we ignore the casings).


As mentioned though the difference between Mk-1 and a thermonuclear bomb is massive. Orders of magnitude massive.

By the mid 1950's the largest US weapons had a yield of around 1000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. In 1960 the US started manufacture of the Mk. 41 freefall bomb. At 25 megaton it is among the largest weapons to ever enter service.

These weapons are in a completely different league. Typically the 20psi overpressure area is regarded as the zone of total destruction where lethality approaches 100%
The Mk. 41 can create such conditions in nearly the entire hex (we are assuming detonation height to optimise destruction inside the hex). Several hexes away the thermal radiation will be enough to give exposed humans 3rd degree burns. Inside the hex it will be 10-20 times higher or more.
The game however does not represent freefall nuclear bombs past the early to mid 1950's. That alone I would say is an oversight. We can however look at a smaller but still quite large weapon.

The largest in-game weapon we know the yield of for certain is the LGM-25C Titan II. It carried the W53 warhead with a yield of 9 megaton. It can create conditions like the ones described above in around half the surface area of a hex. The rest of the hex will not exactly be sunshine and happiness either as it will likely take at least a 10 psi overpressure shockwave.
Non-hardened structures like say most industrial or residential buildings will not be able to take this. 5 psi overpressure is typically set as their limit and that is well into neighbouring hexes.

Now does nuclear weapons like the LGM-25C do anything like this? No not at all. If any structures are anything less than critically damaged after you drop a Titan II on a hex the weapon is not strong enough. The exception is structures like missile silos which would require a ground detonation fairly close to it.
If my goal was to kill infantry a few runs with B-36D's dropping conventional bombs will be just as effective. Flattening structures would take a few more trips for the B-36D's. That means the either the nuclear weapon is underperforming, the B-36 is overperforming or both. Personally I go with both.

Another interesting fact is that battleships like A-150 are better at sinking ships than the detonation of a 20kt bomb. I would say Operation Crossroads proves nuclear weapons to be fairly decent against ships. The Baker test sank 2 battleships and an aircraft carrier amongst other.

Also a problem is that the population is generally not harmed until the facilities are destroyed. In reality a very large nuclear weapon will kill nearly all exposed humans in a hex and those in non-hardened structures will not fare much better.
Detonating a nuclear weapon like a Titan II or SS-18 Satan/R-36 in say New York or Tokyo would leave millions dead.


I once did tried to estimate fort attack based on overpressure radius with the 10KT weapon as the baseline.
The interesting part was that the free-fall bombs followed the curve I got fairly well but the large ICBM's where significantly lower than my curve would have them. The LGM-25C Titan II in my setup got a fort attack of over 24000. When I tried with suface area the Titan II got above 200K fort attack.


So to summarise I would say the strategy the AI uses is not wrong as such. The problem is that is the only strategy it uses. Strategies like massive retaliation is missing and it would be nice if it could also use that. If it had a more varied approach it would make nuclear weapons more interesting and less something I can ignore unless I want to do first strikes.

As for their stats the problem is representing massive localised destruction is hard with how the engine handles damage. For larger nuclear weapons like say thermonuclear bombs their damage is just too low. With those there is less the issue with the damage having to be localised. They really should just flatten an attacked hex.
Also I find the complete lack of freefall thermonuclear weapons to be a bit disappointing. Bombers delivered megaton range freefall nuclear bombs where a significant part of the nuclear deterrence well into the 1960's and aircraft like the B-1 Lancer (a 1970's aircraft) where intended to deliver freefall nuclear bombs amongst other. The transition from freefall weapons to missiles should be much more gradual than it currently is.

All this said nuclear weapons are not the part that annoys me the most. That title probably falls to nuclear vs conventional marine propulsion (or simply put how the game screw over nuclear propulsion).
Such a question is difficult to cover with a short answer.
There have been many cases in history that observation technology reported the first strike that turned out not to be .luckily...
The last world war ended 75 years ago and peace has not been disturbed since then because of nuclear weapons. The cost of destruction and pollution is too high. Nuclear pollution is, in my opinion, not realistic in the game,disaster in Cernobil was 34 ears ago and access is still forbidden. Humanity has the knowledge to use nuclear technology but not me to control and conserve as needed.
Because if there were an exchange of 2000-4000 warheads the impact of radiation spread around the world and it will bee a game over in biological sense. Turned out that the nuclear weapon guarantor of the sovereignty of every ideology.
I wonder when some technology will come that will have as drastic an impact on humanity as nuclear technology has.
The spirit of time is unified in the game from ww1 to the modern scenario. And that may be a problem. because developing weapons is in proportion to the challenge and crisis the country is in. look at the rapid development of weapons during ww2. Within timeline of 6 ears countries have devolop several generations of weapons had literally run over by the end of the war. Then the rapid development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. And now, in the modern age, there is not so much rapid innovation because there are no such challenges.
Generally doctrin of AI in game shoud bee to prevent capitulation at all costs(use nukes) and yet negotiations do not exist as an option in the game and it raises a lot of realism topics.

Nerei
General
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1227 Post by Nerei » Mar 18 2020

I think fallout and the like could be grouped with general pollution which the next version of Supreme ruler really should consider (not going to expect it for ultimate as it is quite a significant change).
From a practical perspective if we have to clean up contaminant like say mercury, lead and other types of pollution, Cobalt 60 or say isotopes of strontium and caesium is not that important. All are hazardous to humans and could probably be treated identical.

Nuclear weapons and the apocalyptic MAD scenarios they allow for certainly have contributed to the NATO and the Warsaw pact not colliding head first in Germany as the cost of doing so would be extreme.
They do however also allow for much more rapid destruction with an all out war lasting only a few hours before most of the infrastructure in the involved countries have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The problem as I see it is that this is not an option. The fear of bombing civilization back to the stone age is not really something that exist in the cold war scenario.
As for the AI carrying out a first strike to save itself at the risk of an all out nuclear war I would say it should not do it all the time. Personally I would say each leader should have a predefined doctrine for handling nuclear weapons which should include the approach Jeremy Corbin wanted to take if he had become Prime Minister which would be to not use them in any case.
It should however also include the Eisenhower approach with massive retaliation and a lot of options in between with say limited escalation or 2nd strike only also being options.

For all of this to matter though the large strategic nuclear weapons should also be be quite a bit more destructive than they are right now. Right now they mostly feel like an easy way to destroy your diplomatic relations to save a few bomber crews. Really it does not take many B-36D's to do the same damage that nuclear weapons do.

If I where to pick some technology that have had as much influence on humanity as nuclear fission well I would say the device I am typing on right now is a good bet. The digital revolution and the AI development that follow it has shaped the latter parts of the 20th century quite a bit and is only going to be much, much more impactful in the 21st. Unless we get an AI uprising it will not be as apocalyptic as nuclear weapons but it will radically shape our daily life.

Technological development in general is quite interesting if we look at weapons. Try and compare the P-51 Mustang to a F-35 Lighting II. The P-51 took only a few years from inception to introduction. The JSF program took over a decade from start to first flight (though the X-35 was some years earlier) with nearly another decade before it entered service. Naturally we can argue about inefficiencies in the development of the F-35 but in general the trend is that weapons development takes a lot longer and produces much more expensive and complex weapons.
Recent Chinese and Russian aircraft are showing the same trend. They take a long time to develop and cost a lot of money to build.
I saw estimates for what the next generation of fighter aircraft might cost. If these predictions are right it might reach the point where smaller nations will have a hard time maintaining a modern air force.



I have not had as much time to work on models the last few days. Time has been a bit limited but I have mostly finished the F-14
Image
The Z regional texture is based on IRIAF aircraft and the default texture is inspired by US Aggressor paintschemes.

Nerei
General
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1228 Post by Nerei » Mar 24 2020

I got some of the details done for the Matsu. Still need a bit of detailing on the bridge and forward deck structures. Should however not be too much work.
Also I found a couple of battleships and a Typhoon class SSBN that where basically done so I decided to finish them. Nagato might need a few tweaks still.
I might also do a few colour tweaks but ultimately that is just tweaking a few colour layers.
Attachments
ships.png

sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 276
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1229 Post by sparky282 » Mar 25 2020

Matsu looks brilliant will definitely be useful for other similar looking ships as well!

Typhoon will also be a nice addition

Nerei
General
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

#1230 Post by Nerei » Mar 25 2020

I do have a few plans for other auxiliary vessels such as the Sacramento and the aforementioned PLAN replenishment vessels.
Having some military cargo or container ships would also be interesting I think.
Likewise having civilian cargo ships and RORO ferries might be good. In times of war most navies would bolster their sealift capabilities with requisitioned merchant vessels.

The challenge with all of these is finding decent reference (though for civilian ships I can just make a frankenship). There appears to be a general idea that aircraft carriers and battleships are cool while auxiliaries are not worth considering.


Also it would be nice if there where a proper usage for say repair vessels and hospital ships.

Other than that if we stick with somewhat obscure vessels I would like to make some modern landing crafts or amphibious transports.


Actually looking at the list of in-game transport ships it is quite funny how all the good ones (as in largest cargo capacity) are replenishment ships.
Ignoring the LHA-18 Chichijima (which really should be in carriers) and the L-5 Hamilton (which I am fairly certain is fictive) I think there is only really the Algol amongst the 20 largest cargo ships that are not a replenishment ship.

I think I will make a list of tankers that are capable of conducting amphibious assaults. There are quite a few really and they definitely should not be capable of doing this.

Post Reply

Return to “Modding Show & Tell”