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

[Eagle Driver]

I do not think multiplayer would be much of an issue. If implemented, it would be easy to add something to the mission editor or even the options screen to completely take them out of the game if you so choose. Surely this would be the case for the most part in multiplayer. However, I think that as a single-player thing, it would be a nice option to have as a severe blow to an enemy airbase or naval force. Honestly, I don't think sinking a Nimitz Class ship is possible IRL without use of nuclear weapons, you sometimes simply need that one-hit knockout (admitted, it would be submarine-delivered in that instance). Also it should be clear precisely what a nuclear weapon is capable of. If you drop a nuke, it's not going to level the map, it's going to level Simferopol' airbase and the surrounding area, lots of gameplay still open, plus the added complexities of EMP and radiation that some players may very well enjoy the challenge of.

As for the fact that there hasn't been nuclear conflict in 60 years: that's because there haven't been two nuclear-capable countries going at it in all that time. You have to admit, neither the US or Russia has gone in a very serious all-out campaign against a worthy adversary where nuclear power might become a viable option. DCS, on the other hand, simulates a conflict that might, if the mission builder so chooses, involve a nuclear strike.

I now present to you a video, demonstrating in a very emotional way, a possible scenario that could be used with nuclear weapons in DCS. The video is made with Flaming Cliffs, good editing software, and a lot of time. I did not make it, I just like it.

[Force_Feedback]

Soviet made SADMs (the one that caused a media panic some years ago) weigh like 25kg and have a kiloton yield, now that's a bang for the buck...

And dude, the first ka-50 videos WILL include Jack Bauer doing something so badass that you all will piss your pants.

[VMFA117_Poko]

I voted "No, nuclear weapon is too serious subject..."

[fable2omg]

Well I don't know about you guys maybe it's because I was born in 1993 so I never felt the cold war, but nukes sound awesome! I wish I could drop a RN-24 with the MiG-21 in a perfect LABS maneuver and just see the screen turn white as I fly away from the explosion.

[Aginor]

I chose option 4. And a bit of 3 actually.

I don't want nukes.

[shyjonathan1588]

No, but not for morality or realism reasons. I'm skeptical about nukes playing nice with all the countless other, more fundamental, things being simulated in DCS. It just seems like an invitation for more bugs. I value bug fixes more than rolling out new features.

[USARStarkey]

I cant believe anyone actually voted no because of "desensitizing effect." Seriously? You could vote no to the whole game with that logic

[cichlidfan]

This is seven year old thread. :lol:

[secret1962]

Old thread hehe... anyway nukes shouldn't be removed from the missions... it'd make a sense to intercept an aircraft. There could be a script which tells if an aircraft is inbound with a nuke, and you'd need to intercept it.

[Beagle One]

This poll ist disgusting! Why is it still up?

[JaBoG32_Prinzartus]

I cant believe anyone actually voted no because of "desensitizing effect." Seriously? You could vote no to the whole game with that logic

 

+1

[magoo]

To can't actually get hurt from it. It is just simulation. I would like to make my own missions with it in play. It is fun game. You just adding fun. Online can ban in room if want. Auto kick right? So relax and let's nuke some stuff.:D

[Booger]

It's not unrealistic due to inventory or even lack of (which really is a weak argument), it's unrealistic due to the feasibility of deploying them.

 

Besides, trumping/overpowering always (ALWAYS) equates to idiotic ass-hattery. I'm glad someone has already mentioned Falcon...

 

Do you want in on the flight tonight? It'll be a challenging one.

just use nukes!

Nukes are lame.

ur lame.

Seriously, we have 11 people and need only one more.

so no nuke?

It'll lag the hell out of everyone on the server.

It'll be funny lol.

Never mind.

jkjk

......

hallo?

[outlawal2]

As always, YES it should be an option because nukes do exist in the wild...

 

Then let the mission builders and server owners decide whether they want to use them in their missions and they can choose to restrict their use and "ass-hattery" with mission design..

 

As for the Air Quake crowd, natural selection will balance things out.. If too may folks are jerks with it, no one will play those missions / servers and eventually mission builders will do a better job of creating suitable missions that utilize the nukes on a limited and more appropriate basis..

[cichlidfan]

Let ED get the weapons we have working correctly before wasting time on this.

[Isegrim]

This threat is Waaaayyyy Off from KA-50 Thematic can it be moved please.

[Slazi]

Thread needs to be moved for sure.

 

Nukes should be in the game, but disabled in multiplayer by default. An option only server admins can turn on explicitly.

[Raptor9]

To reiterate what previous posters have said:

 

1) Why is this in the Ka-50 section?

2) MLRS strikes cause FPS hits...can't imagine what a nuclear explosion would do.