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

[Weta43]

If it's Ru vs Nato, then once you commit to first strike, it's not 1 or 2 warheads, it's armagedon - & everybody can just pack up & go home to wait till they start to vomit & bleed.

 

That's a realistic scenario for nuclear war in Europe.

 

Anything less than that is just fantasy to play with the mushroom cloud effect.

[Eagle Driver]

A massive strike like that may well lead to an instant surrender I think. If I was Russia and Moscow disappeared, with Uncle Sam holding another thousand of those to my head, I sure as hell wouldn't point mine at him. I think the whole idea of reacting to a nuclear attack with another nuclear attack is stupid in light of the obvious consequences. Example, the Japanese in WWII were under a month away from deploying a dirty bomb in San Francisco harbor (recalling from a distant History Channel show, bear with me). Obviously, they didn't, they knew that if they continued resisting, they'd be torn apart by more atomic weapons. I don't think any logical person on this planet would volutarily destroy the world, including themselves, "for revenge". What does all of this have to do with DCS? Well, it means that the inclusion of nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily means the entire map has to look like a glowing green version of the moon.

[Haegar]

If you where right the "balance of terror" would not work. But it did till today.

I would count on the idea that politicans always think logical...

[Weta43]

A massive strike like that may well lead to an instant surrender I think. If I was Russia and Moscow disappeared, with Uncle Sam holding another thousand of those to my head, I sure as hell wouldn't point mine at him.

 

And - as an American - do you think that if Russia managed that first strike & removed ~ say the whole Boston, New York, Washington conurbation from the face of the map & left a smoldering hole spewing radioactive ashes across the Eastern Seaboard in its place ~ Do you think that your government would say "we surrender", & start printing Rubles & Russian textbooks, or would it be more likely to launch a massive retaliatory strike against every Russian city they could hit (prompting a further wave of missiles from Russia & the end of the world as we know it) ?

 

Hmmm - Now what would Donald Rumsfield do ? (or whever Putin's placeholder till he can run again is)

 

That's what the fuss about the interceptor system in Poland is & why there was an international treaty against developing such a system - you can't have Mutual Assured Destruction if one side has a shield, & if you have a shield, but they don't - what's to stop you using them 'just a little bit to hurry things up'.

However - returning to the world as it is, till there is a credible anti-balistic missile shield, no super power can afford to risk using nuclear weapons against another, which is why having them in BS is a waste of modeling & coding time.

[159th_Viper]

....having them in BS is a waste of modeling & coding time.

 

Agreed 100%

 

I'd rather they spend the time Fine-Tuning my Vikhr Pods :gun_sniper:

[Sundowner.pl]

That's what the fuss about the interceptor system in Poland is & why there was an international treaty against developing such a system - you can't have Mutual Assured Destruction if one side has a shield, & if you have a shield, but they don't - what's to stop you using them 'just a little bit to hurry things up'.

However - returning to the world as it is, till there is a credible anti-balistic missile shield, no super power can afford to risk using nuclear weapons against another, which is why having them in BS is a waste of modeling & coding time.

You must be kidding me. Since 2002 there is no treaty against anti ICBMs weaponry. And it was about protecting missile sites, not entire nations or cities - that's why in 1995 Russians put their A-135 system near Moscow into service.

 

Anyway you must be delusional if you think that American GMD can protect anything from full power strike. There will be 12 missiles in Poland, somewhat 32 in US. What's at most 44 missiles blown from the sky when the other guy have them hundreds ? GMD is not against Russian nuclear power, its at most against few 'accidentally' fired missiles (let it be pure accidental or terrorist attack).

[Weta43]

you must be delusional if you think that American GMD can protect anything from full power strike.

Yes, which is why I wrote

till there is a credible anti-balistic missile shield

 

But it's the thin edge of the wedge, and if you believe the line about its primary purpose being to intercept missiles from rogue states - You're more delusional than I am :-)

[Boberro]

IMO nuke is needed cause when we are planning mission we (also) plan WAR. Imagine example Ukraine-Russia war. When Russia loses it has no any other way to defend except dropping nuke. So imo it is needed.

[Sundowner.pl]

Defend ? Against Ukraine ? If it was a WAR between Russia and Ukraine, it would be over in few days, without using nukes, it would be just flooded with tanks and soldiers. It's not a war, it's a middle-scale conflict, no nukes needed here.

[Yellonet]

Take a deep breath people, we're all friends here, talking about potential scenarios in a computer game. Just count to ten and ask yourself if this is worth getting upset about.

Also you're going OT ;)

[golfsierra2]

!

 

!!

 

(I second that)

[Force_Feedback]

Strange assumption to think a nation would launch nukes in the first place (contaminating the earth with fall-out, essentially f-ing themselves as well). Just as stupid to think that a single nuclear attack on Moscow/Washington would cause either side to surrender, pfft, the best response would include launching every damn missile at them becasue you're mad (a lot of pun intended).

Sorry, considereing even the slightest real use for nuclear weapons means a few things:

-you want to create jobs by upgrading your arsenal

-you think that having the edge, the other nations will let you go your merry way

 

What you get in return: a new step in evolution, oh wait, there won't be any DNA left, oh, that's a shame, your arrogance killed off mankind, way to go US/Russia/China/GB/France.

 

The only use for such weapons is political, they can as well have green jello instead of plutonium/uranium/other isotopes, too bad there's counter-intelligence out there.

 

BTW, Defcon is a fun game to play.

[-akyla-]

Agreed 100%

 

I'd rather they spend the time Fine-Tuning my Vikhr Pods :gun_sniper:

!Same here!

[leafer]

Only if in the aftermath, the nuclear wasteland in BS rejuvenates itself with non pastel colors dotted with endless lil' trees that grow up to be SpeedTree. And the water like so...all the while gaining fps.

 

If not, NO!

[Grimes]

I'd like to choose "option 5 - No, It's a helicopter(other combat aircraft) simulator. Not an RTS. The pilot isn't Jack Bauer who has 24 hours to stop a nuclear bomb from taking out a city. I will never feel the need to have a nuke strapped to my aircraft. There shouldn't even be a debate over this topic. Having a thermonuclear weapon, IN A HELICOPTER FLIGHT SIM no less, is just a bad idea."

 

Not that thermonuclear war isn't fun. Defcon was an instant classic. I don't know how many RTS games that use nuclear weapons in them, but it works because they aren't meant to be ultra realistic with the fallout damaging half the planet.

[159th_Viper]

.....And the water like so....

 

Now that looks Vaguely Familiar.....:music_whistling:

[Eagle Driver]

Okay, look. A lot of people here are saying it's a helo sim so we shouldn't concern ourselves with nukes. I have formulated a list of other things that should not be included under this logic, because they do not directly relate to a helo sim.

- Mk.84

- Su-27

- MiG-29

- BetAB [anything]

- Mk.20

- RBK-250

- RBK-500AO

- AIM-120

- R-27XX

- R-77

- AIM-7

- RIM-66

- RIM-7

- Mk.82

- MiG-31

- F-15C

- F-15E

- F-16C

- F/A-18C

- F-14A

- MiG-23

- MiG-27

- All ships

- All airbases

- All cities

- All trees

- All clouds

- More than 200nm of land in any direction from a central point

 

You have to admit, without all this stuff, we could have a damn good Ka-50 experience, blasting tanks... again... and again.... and again. But if we don't include all aspects of modern warfare, then mission builders won't have complete scenarios to work with. The war around you won't be living, it will just be molded around you, inflating the importance of helicopter warfare and thus sacrificing realism! Isn't high-fidelity realism what we're aiming for here? If we want it to be real, we need to make it real, and a simulation of modern combat cannot be realistic if it is notablly incomplete, such as the lack of the major driving factor behind the largest potential conflict in the history of mankind!

[Avimimus]

I agree with the general point here. A helo pilot would be more vulnerable to nuclear weapons than a fighter pilot and would have to take them into account. In addition we should recognise that we are playing at wargames that inherently include the nuclear card. Leaving it out is irresponsible (to history and to the potential risk).

 

I think I may post a new poll in a few months to see if people answer differently (eg. refering to not having nukes as being desensitizing, breakind down FPS, Gameplay, Realistic modelling) etc.

 

What do you think?

[Red Wyvern]

It's modeling modern warfare, and what if the helo's can't carry them? It wouldn't just be a cool thing to add to the sim, but it would also add more realism. I voted yes.

[SUBS17]

Even people can carry nukes.:music_whistling: They come in all sizes.

[TheMoose]

I admit in real life Nuke=Not good="bleep" lol. It’s a weapon of deterrence. But this is a game after all. In world of conflict, the game, they do have nice graphics and pose some tactical advantage of using one. I might suggest an atomic weapon instead of a nuke, since the range and devastation are different. But I recap. In a game ok. Lets keep it as such.

 

Either way. I can live without such a feature in this sim IMO.

 

Cheers

[SUBS17]

If it's Ru vs Nato, then once you commit to first strike, it's not 1 or 2 warheads, it's armagedon - & everybody can just pack up & go home to wait till they start to vomit & bleed.

 

That's a realistic scenario for nuclear war in Europe.

 

Anything less than that is just fantasy to play with the mushroom cloud effect.

 

Thats just one possible scenario that you could use in DCS to feature nukes there is also terrorists tring to use one and you have to intercept the convoy. Or another possibility is dropping off special forces behind enemy lines to use Nuclear demolitions charges(68kg) to destroy a top secret facility where the KA50 is escorting the Mi24 thats carrying the Spetznaz guys. Theres plenty of scenarios out there but I wouldn't place it high on the list of features but I certainly wouldn't complain if DCS did feature nukes at some point or any other weapon for that matter since it is a computer flight sim and such devices do exist. MOAB and FOAB could also be good weapons to model as well.

[Grimes]

You guys are arguing that nuclear weapons are as much as part of modern warfare and should be included. I understand many of your points towards this topic. You guys are right, nuclear weapons do have an effect on the modern battlefield. What you are wrong about is what that effect is. We live in a world where a nuke hasn't been used in anger in over 60 years. What remains is the threat of a nuclear war. Yes it would make for an intriguing backdrop behind a single player campaign. In fact I almost went for the 2nd answer. But what of multiplayer? That wouldn't be fun. It would be like LO is now when you get shot down. You get taken to the map screen. But the problem is you can't recover? Why because that airbase you took off from just got blown to bits and is currently radioactive.

 

"Digital Combat Simulator"

There is nothing "combat" about nuclear war. Sure you could be on the ground attempting to stop one inside a silo, or be in a bomber tasked with taking out a city. That might be combat until the point in which the bomb is dropped, but once it is there isn't even a point in fighting anymore.

 

@ Eagle. Yes this is a helo sim. You are right some of those objects might not interact with a helo and they all can interact more so on the larger scheme of things. THe problem with nuclear weapons is that they don't really interact with anything. They are use once. Come in contact with an object once. And both get destroyed once. There is no interaction there. Only a really really really not fun game.

[TheMoose]

You guys are arguing that nuclear weapons are as much as part of modern warfare and should be included. I understand many of your points towards this topic. You guys are right, nuclear weapons do have an effect on the modern battlefield. What you are wrong about is what that effect is. We live in a world where a nuke hasn't been used in anger in over 60 years. What remains is the threat of a nuclear war. Yes it would make for an intriguing backdrop behind a single player campaign. In fact I almost went for the 2nd answer. But what of multiplayer? That wouldn't be fun. It would be like LO is now when you get shot down. You get taken to the map screen. But the problem is you can't recover? Why because that airbase you took off from just got blown to bits and is currently radioactive.

 

"Digital Combat Simulator"

There is nothing "combat" about nuclear war. Sure you could be on the ground attempting to stop one inside a silo, or be in a bomber tasked with taking out a city. That might be combat until the point in which the bomb is dropped, but once it is there isn't even a point in fighting anymore.

 

@ Eagle. Yes this is a helo sim. You are right some of those objects might not interact with a helo and they all can interact more so on the larger scheme of things. THe problem with nuclear weapons is that they don't really interact with anything. They are use once. Come in contact with an object once. And both get destroyed once. There is no interaction there. Only a really really really not fun game.

 

I would agree. There are no real winners in a real life situation. But to some extent, this isn’t real life. But I admit, this is more incline into a sim compared to a game. So since in real life it’s more of a deterrence, then it should not be implemented.

 

Let’s be careful that this thread does not go political. This subject is highly volatile and prone for high feeling responses and opinions. So let’s choose our replies wisely as such.

 

Regards,

 

 

Moose

[Avimimus]

I agree about multiplayer and the risks of this becoming political.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of backdrop to a campaign. Nuclear weapons provide some deterrence and tremendous risk. In order to be realistic it may be a good idea to model both. It is important that we keep in mind that the "games" we play are not real life and that there are real consequences.

 

Not modeling nuclear weapons makes it easier to envision the role of nukes as SUBS17 mentioned 68kg bunker busting weapons and forget about what could actually happen if there was another Crimean war.

 

Just my thoughts,