The nuclear poll (version 2)

[159th_Viper]

And deal with the NukFanBoi club intent on Razing the Map a coupla sec's after Mission-Start..............Thanx but No Thanx.

 

:pilotfly:

[504Goon]

Maybe for AI/Mission triggers only? Certainly not as player usable, at least in MP, as it would cause a whole lot of problems.

 

For example, missions where intercepting enemy bombers would be much more interesting, at least when failed..:)

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

I vote 10, 9, 8, 7 in that order.....

[Cornbread]

Maybe for AI/Mission triggers only? Certainly not as player usable, at least in MP, as it would cause a whole lot of problems.

 

For example, missions where intercepting enemy bombers would be much more interesting, at least when failed..:)

 

 

I agree, that might make for an interesting scenario. I voted yes, but I would say that:

 

1. It should be reserved for later iterations of the DCS engine,

 

2. Tactical nukes only, and

 

3. Strict limitations should be placed on the number you can have in your arsenal.

 

I think it would make a lot more sense when/if the dynamic campaign comes to fruition, no?

[RedTiger]

I voted for the first choice, about it being there because its part of some aircrafts' arsenal. Obviously its out of scope for Black Shark.

 

I'm pretty sure the only nukes that would get modeled are tactical ones. "Razing the map"? Nope. "Try razing an entire airbase" or "razing a small population center".

 

As for multiplayer vs. single player, obviously there's no reason not to put them in SP since the player should be allowed to do whatever they want. I still think they should be included in multiplayer, assuming that the air defenses in DCS are up the the task of defeating a super-sonic bomb run (unlike LOMAC). If the mission designer doesn't use the defenses correctly and no one can shoot down the aircraft with the nukes...oh well, you lose. This is the point, right?

[Yellonet]

With the modularity of DCS in mind, and the possibility that it will be an easy game to mod, wouldn't some modders be able to create a nuclear weapon for the game? Personally I think it would be fun as a novelty to drop a few nukes and watch the devastation, but it's not something that the devs should prioritize in any way. At all.

[S77th-konkussion]

Yes- but with mission editor controls built in to prevent behavior as described by 159 Viper.

 

If anyone here was in Nova's L3 you may remember those.. lame.. I can't even describe it... nuke DM's where blithering.... idiots.... literally tried to take each other out with unlimited nukes. Quite possibly the most nonsensical moronic theatre ever seen - even in an arcade game like L3.

[Vekkinho]

Map size is a bit too small for Nukes, isn't it?!

[SUBS17]

No theres plenty of room for nukes on the map:thumbup: they are in varying yeilds even the KA50 can carry one if they wanted too eg a special forces type mission - fly to enemy factory and drop off a Spetznaz guy with a nuke then fly back to base. Or mission intercept the terrorist convoy before a nuke is used against a friendly town. Nukes can be modeled too even FSX has mods that can show one going off. Its not impossible and adds more to the mission options.

[monotwix]

I voted yes for Q.2.

I don’t really know how much programming resources it would take to model a nuclear bomb but the devastation it makes is not a secret there is enough info out there to model a pretty accurate bomb i.e. the distraction radius in relation to Kts or Mega Tons of an explosion including the twin shockwave phenomena.

Just for an example of how it could be done: you might know that every unit object in Lo has it’s life number which associated with it’s distraction and that the destruction level reduces along the radius from the point of detonation… so if you cover a 10kt=5 km circle over a military town then it’s all about the maths from there.

To simulate a war under international treaties, the use of those weapons would not be allowed and to simulate the cold war where B-52 vs. TU-142 would be interesting IMO.

It doesn’t have to be one way, if you don’t like it don’t use it don’t do it, having an option to try and do is a good thing (there is only one map remember).

[GGTharos]

Having an option to do it is not a good thing.

Where the is multiplay there are cheaters, and unless you want your entire formation owned by a single AIM-120N, you might reconsider nuclear weapons :D

 

If you want to simulate a nuke detonating as part of the conditions for failing your mission, a trigger and appropriate message and sound file might as well do.

 

For nuclear warfare simulation, there's always DEFCON.

[monotwix]

I do realise that you can’t simulate the entire nuclear holocaust but only parts of it and the associated threat.

Just read the question 2 on the poll demit.

Now what is and what isn’t simulated in current multiplayer correctly?

[GGTharos]

I think you didn't bother reading what I wrote. I read the poll. There's no room for nukes in this simulation IMHO. :)

Except maybe 5 or 6 :)

[RedTiger]

Having an option to do it is not a good thing.

Where the is multiplay there are cheaters, and unless you want your entire formation owned by a single AIM-120N, you might reconsider nuclear weapons :D

 

If you want to simulate a nuke detonating as part of the conditions for failing your mission, a trigger and appropriate message and sound file might as well do.

 

For nuclear warfare simulation, there's always DEFCON.

 

Maybe you have other reasons against it, but to play devils advocate, what else should we limit just because its possible to cheat with? :P

 

I'm being facetious, but excluding perfectly realistic things just because someone would cheat with them just sounds like keeping multiplayer intact at the expense of all else, and that is something I'll never agree with. I'd rather give people the ability to have them and let those who feel the need to police to police away!

 

OTOH, I can see the point that the weapons-grade tomfoolery that could happen from nukes in multiplayer is at such a level that it could really ruin everyone's day. I'd still rather leave this up to those running the game or server, but I don't envy their job at policing that!

Edited June 18, 2008 by RedTiger

[Bucic]

Having an option to do it is not a good thing.

Where the is multiplay there are cheaters, and unless you want your entire formation owned by a single AIM-120N, you might reconsider nuclear weapons :D

 

If you want to simulate a nuke detonating as part of the conditions for failing your mission, a trigger and appropriate message and sound file might as well do.

 

For nuclear warfare simulation, there's always DEFCON.

 

Now when nuke-lovers are warmed up I can say what I was really going to say at the beginning. A screen flashing to white followed by dramatic debrifing will do :D

 

Edit:

OT - I remember the time of C64 F-119 Stealth Fighter. Black screen with the sign "Canopy blown. Hold on!" It was just fine :pilotfly:

Edited June 18, 2008 by Bucic

[GGTharos]

Let's just say I've seen such things happen in Operation Flashpoint - albeit with smaller weapons. Then again, a 2000lb LGB spawning above your head suddenly isn't much different from an AIM-120N detonating half a click away after you thought the n00b that shot it from 60nm away was kidding himself when he thought it would hit you :D

[RedTiger]

Anyone can feel free to respond to my post just above this one, but the more I think about this, the more I really see this is never going to happen. Falcon 4.0 has nukes, but they are perpetually "out of stock" in the campaign (on purpose ;) ) and they're worth little more than a novelty in terms of tactical engagment creation.

 

Yeah...nevermind...not going to happen and there's little reason to have them...

 

EDIT: (GG beat me before I could post this )

 

2nd EDIT: This doesn't change how I feel about excluding them things from MP just because they can be used by cheaters. TBH, if they could be in but were only for single player missions, not surprisingly if you know me, I'd be ok with that. Again, I don't think ED will see much of a point behind it though.

Edited June 18, 2008 by RedTiger

[monotwix]

It’s hard to simulate a weapon and it’s even harder to simulate a war zone.

As for an option to have a mission built around a nuclear weapon is not a crime.

The problem might be in the sims identity where it could end up being short of a flight sim.

 

Edit: The right dose of venom however can actually heal or shall I say make some things better.

 

Edited June 18, 2008 by monotwix

[Prophet]

I just see no purpose.

[monotwix]

I just see no purpose.

That's becouse there is none to see.

Would you like to see it? No you cant there is no such option.

[X-man]

I dont care much about dropping (or shooting) nukes myself, but maybe for the big bombers? If you fail intercept them them, you'll see a big result :)

[Prophet]

That might not be so bad an idea X-man.

 

I just see no purpose in us carrying them.

 

Seems like OMGWTFBBQ look at me I am so cool with a nuke.

 

There is just no purpose for the player. AI on the other hand...

[eurofor]

Wouldn't it be even more pointless to add them if we couldn't carry them? You could just pretend that the bombers you're intercepting are carrying nukes.

[Prophet]

Of course, but you would really know if you failed when the nukes go off.

 

I still dont think current computers could model it well anyways.

[SUBS17]

Let's just say I've seen such things happen in Operation Flashpoint - albeit with smaller weapons. Then again, a 2000lb LGB spawning above your head suddenly isn't much different from an AIM-120N detonating half a click away after you thought the n00b that shot it from 60nm away was kidding himself when he thought it would hit you :D

 

Cheating won't be an issue so long as the server can kick players who cause trouble and is setup with anti-cheat to prevent weapon editing. Arma is probably a good example eg the evolution mods where you need enough points to earn your team the nuke which can then be dropped on the other sides air base which results in game over for the server as the side with the nuke won for example. The Pcs can easily show the effects primarily the EMP, Flash/ blast and fallout its just a graphic representation of the effects is enough. eg ground textures black/buildings destroyed in 3mile radius.