Nuclear weapons in DCS (what wouldn't you like to see?)

[Avimimus]

Thinking about the backup analogue equipment that was expected to be required after delivering a tactical weapon (due to the electro-magnetic pulse) and the sheer horror which our war games dance along the edges of makes one ask... Is it time to "stop worrying and learn to love the bomb"?

 

These polls will be going up in groups of three once every two weeks.

To comment/design future polls see: http://forum.digitalcombatsimulator....read.php?t=198

[Ratgnagna]

No! Inhuman bomb... Too much of civil are there dead.

[Boberro]

I voted for nuke. We have XXI century. Today nuke bomb is standard. So to get full realism nuke must be :)

[Malleus]

Wouldn't be realistic, IMO. Plus, apart from being spectacular, it wouldn't make the sim more interesting. No point speding dev resources on it.

[Force_Feedback]

Not to mention that there is hardly any info on the Russian aircraft nuclear bombs (even the names are classified), as is with all the chemical and biological bombs and warheads. Unless you want to see someone from ED die in dubious circumstances :s

[Boberro]

General rule of nuclear explosion is known. Nobody ask about top-secret something example chemical process of same explosion. There is know when nuke explodes there is nothing except ruins. That is a lot for create atomic bomb. IMO sim will be still realistic, cause PLAYER decides when use it. Unrealistic will be when there will be no atomic bomb... (Russia has it so many till they getting rusty.)

[Avimimus]

There are some pictures and rough estimates for the effect of tactical weapons. In my personal opinion the difference between 2.2 and 2.25 kilotons won't be noticed (its not an Amraam - the mechanics are known).

 

I would like to see nuclear weapons modeled in at least the second option. With the kind of wargames we are playing there is a real possibility of the world ending. It would add to campaign gameplay if failures (or successes) at some points could lead to a bad outcome.

[Vekkinho]

Ka-50 can't carry any Nukes, so what's the point!

[Cyb0rg]

My vote : NO.

 

Nuclear Suck!

[urze]

My vote : NO.

 

Nuclear Suck!

 

!

[joey45]

now its getting intresting... the 2nd one....:D:thumbup:

[Wdigman]

Voted no at this time since it is unlikely that helos or the ground pounders coming out will encounter nukes during a mission or campaign in this theatere.

 

Maybe with new maps, DCS is modular so maybe we will see a bomber or two then this issue will become more relavant.

 

It would be interesting though to have the weapons platforms to deliver WMDs, Skud Frogs etc, these likely would be kept off the front lines in battle but for the end game option you could end a campaign by not takng it out.

 

Dont know much about the ground vehicals that are capable of delivering WMDs but it seem that in todays world the number of them are unfortunately growing.

[l.e.x]

For a lost Campaign i could imagine it for an End Scene or something, but i don't want to drop a Nuke in any Sim myself and don't want it to be dropped during a Campaign, or a Mission.

 

As far as realism goes, but i see absolutely no fun factor in doing that.

 

my 2 cents.

 

Greetz!

[EricJ]

I agree, when I was younger I was freaked to no end by those jokers. Besides, anybody who needs a nuke in a sim needs to perfect their ground attack skillz..

[Weta43]

I can't see that - once you'd watched the mushroom cloud a couple of times - it would add anything interesting to the game

[Haegar]

Anyone here wants to sit in a Black Shark, a Warthog or an Apache and throwing little atomic bombs around?

 

Honestly, someday we might get fastmovers who are build for this insanity, but this lies so far in the future that I refuse to think about it.

 

Senseless vote ... senseless as most votes here ... (except the pinup one :thumbup: )

[MBot]

Unless we get a Fulda-Gap scenario someday with a flyable aircraft like the Su-17 that was supposed to drop nukes in that case, I say no. Not realistic, highly unplausible and little gameplay value.

[HellMutt]

It would probably also be a big change to the way damage is handled and the damage model. Can you imagine dropping a nuclear weapon, see the mushroom cloud. You go back for a look-see and there's only ONE tank smoking and the other ones are still happilly rolling forward...

 

And if it were done correctly = you throw a few nukes and the war is over. now, where's the fun in that ?

 

So it's "no" for me...

[tacit_blue]

It doesn't make any sense to use a nuke. This is the last step ... what's after?? I realy don't wanna know... my 2 cents.

Another option would be a the "Mother of all Bombs", I mean the RU side has it and the US too. Not long ago the Russians tested one as official business with the international press around and I guess u can watch it on youtube.com!!

[brewber19]

MOABs? Voila!

 

Russian: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hafVxEgfx4E

 

US (has better footage): http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0

 

Pretty big bombs though, won't be strapping one of those to a 50 or 25T any time soon.

 

I'm non-nuclear, certainly not strategic cos they're pointless other than as an interdiction/intercept mission idea...and there are other things you could use instead...and non-tactical either because the current gfx/explosions are "ok" but not earth-shattering (pun intended).

 

Kinda pointless and especially so for BS. Might be less pointless when a strike a/c arrives and by then we'd hope for higher fidelity gfx also.

 

It doesn't make any sense to use a nuke. This is the last step ... what's after?? I realy don't wanna know... my 2 cents.

Another option would be a the "Mother of all Bombs", I mean the RU side has it and the US too. Not long ago the Russians tested one as official business with the international press around and I guess u can watch it on youtube.com!!

[Geier]

No, its'not realistic

[Ramstein]

a B2 bomber or B52 with no nuke capability? wtf?? all for political correctness run amuck? We also have this BS with WWII sims where the B29 is left neutered :cry:

[X-man]

Why isnt it realistic?? They exist in thier inventory, so in a alternate universe, a conflict might arise with them beeing involved...

 

I would like to see an option of having the AGM-86 and Kh-65 armed with Nuclear warheads. However, im not interested in dropping them myself...

[SUBS17]

The nuclear option adds a different edge to normal flightsim missions you have the effects of EMP,Flash, Blast and fallout to contend with. There have been a few sims in the past where you could use them for example Falcon you can drop them and Harpoon they were handy to take out submarines.(nuclear torpedos/depthcharges). For a campaign if you dropped one then that area becomes an obstacle plus your pilots have to wear NBC kit. NBC weapons can be delivered by helicopter although it would likely be a time delayed weapon. In a campaign an objective might be to intercept the bomber carrying the nuke or to escort it eg F/A-18 interceptor Or it could be a deepstrike specops mission such as sneaking behind enemy lines to destroy a convoy or storage facility. The effects in F4 and in F/A-18 interceptor were just a white flash with an area of damage which could do for a nuclear effect in a mission of course a big mushroom cloud would be ideal such as one of the mods for FS2004. Theres a bit of info at the Russian atomic weapons museum.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwarhead.html

[Eagle Driver]

I think the lobby of people who think it's unrealistic are not thinking this through. After all, what DCS is simulating is a scenerio of Russia v. NATO most of the time, and that's something that hasn't happened yet IRL, but came really close to more than once. You have to realize, to the best of my knowledge, since LittleBoy and FatMan, niether the US or Russia has been in a full-on conflict against a worthy opponent. It's always been smaller geurilla conflicts in Vietnam or Afghanistan, or wiping Saddam off the map like a gnat. But if two military superpowers with nuclear arms clashed, nuclear war is not outside the realm of reality. Sure, none of us WANT that to happen IRL, but if we leave them out because of that, let's get rid of all the bombs, they kill people too! Maybe the AGM's, they kill people. Guns, rockets, civilian traffic, death is sadly a part of life on earth and paritcularly in a simulation of modern warfare. Heavy bombers are mostly built for nuclear conflict in the first place, Spirit, Stratofortress, Lancer, Bear, Blackjack, all of them were originally designed for nuclear all-out war of Russia v. NATO, and we can't deny that.

 

Also, the argument against adding them because DCS is Hokum-centric is the same logic that would drive one to not model air-to-air missiles in the game. We won't use it, but it will still be used in modern warfare, and that's what DCS is really simulating.