PFunk1606688187 Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 Why would the nuke need to blow everyone up? The actual obliterated kill zone of a nuclear weapon, provided it isn't the Tsar Bomba, is usually not that big. Frankly, I think it would be interesting to play a humongous mission with lots of people in the NBC conditions that everyone skips over when they faun over US Army Field Manuals. Imagine a world coloured by nuclear fallout, that grim hazey twilight, the mushroom cloud slowly dispersing in the background, people trying to carry out missions with partially damaged systems from the shockwave. Would be cool. Blowing the bomb up under everyone would be lame, but blowing it up adjacent would be neat, then just add in some limited respawn possibilities for those unlucky enough to be knocked out in the blast and everything's peachy keen. When my Arma 2 clan's public insurgency server was hacked a number of months ago the hacker dropped a nuke on all of us. A whole platoon of public players wiped out. What did we do? Respawned, admired the cloud, rekitted, and drove off and fought with gas masks on like it was the end of days in West Germany. Oh ye of little imagination. :P Warning: Nothing I say is automatically correct, even if I think it is.
aaron886 Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 It takes all kinds... just not in the same server as me, please. :D
PFunk1606688187 Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 I don't think it should be regularly available, but as a special event? Damn that would be cool. How could you ever fight a doomsday Fulda Gap scenario without the spectre of tactical nukes? Warning: Nothing I say is automatically correct, even if I think it is.
Grim_Smiles Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I don't think it should be regularly available, but as a special event? Damn that would be cool. How could you ever fight a doomsday Fulda Gap scenario without the spectre of tactical nukes? Now those ideas I definitely like. Maybe give a mission designer the ability to create a trigger, bomb goes off under certain conditions at a specific location. Lots of scenario possibilities there. "Hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky; With hideous ruin and combustion down; To bottomless perdition, there to dwell; In adamantine chains and penal fire" (RIG info is outdated, will update at some point) i5 @3.7GHz (OC to 4.1), 16GB DDR3, Nvidia GTX 970 4GB, TrackIR 5 & TrackClip Pro, TM Warthog HOTAS, VKB T-Rudder Mk.IV, Razer Blackshark Headset, Obutto Ozone
Eihort Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPeSmF_ikc Nukes would be fun just for adding a little real world authenticity, despite there apparent lack of utility in the game.
kk0425 Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Suddenly you have every country launching nukes back at you in retaliation for authorization to use a nuke. :p
Beagle One Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) Aren't modern aircraft protected against EMP? :huh:In fact NO. the old planes from the 60's where by using EMP proofe vaccuum tubes...for the same reason a lot of armies kept old style vaccum tube Radios well into the 90's. The main reason why modern electronics were absent in cold war era machines was EMP...after the cold war and the increase in diametral warfare electronics could make their way. EMP = F-22 ot EF-2000 total blackout. only the old MiG-25 will Keep on flying ;) I can oly say this in General regarrding NUKES... Nukes destroyed the gameplay in ArmA II Warfare Multiplayer because there is nothing you can do, you can not fight it and you can not run...you can just wait for the end of the Mission. Edited July 27, 2013 by Beagle One
Jona33 Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) Actually 240kT isn't as powerful as you think. I'm only guessing, but the destructive range of an explosion "should" roughly be inversely proportional to the square of the range, thus, you need a big increase in yield strength to significantly increase the destructive range of the explosion. It would be nice to see a 240kT nuke go off in the game, a fireball with about 500 m diameter would be seen far away :geek: http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ I always thought it was the other way round. i.e. if you double a bomb from 1,000lb to 2,000 lb then you should get considerably more than double the power. From a book I've got on the Dambusters, "the volume of material disrupted by an explosion is proportional to the cube of charge weight. Therefore a 2000lb bomb should have 8x the power of a 1000lb bomb". Edited July 27, 2013 by Jona33 Always remember. I don't have a clue what I'm doing
GGTharos Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 You will get more power, but power depends on increase in mass. You then have to deal with power decreasing at least as a cube of the distance from the explosion (the amount of material disrupted grows at the same rate). The description you read has to do with disrupting material, but not range from explosion. I always thought it was the other way round. i.e. if you double a bomb from 1,000lb to 2,000 lb then you should get considerably more than double the power. From a book I've got on the Dambusters, "the volume of material disrupted by an explosion is proportional to the cube of charge weight. Therefore a 2000lb bomb should have 8x the power of a 1000lb bomb". [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Jona33 Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 You will get more power, but power depends on increase in mass. You then have to deal with power decreasing at least as a cube of the distance from the explosion (the amount of material disrupted grows at the same rate). The description you read has to do with disrupting material, but not range from explosion. Ok thanks, I naturally assumed that more material disrupted, the further away the explosion would be felt. Always remember. I don't have a clue what I'm doing
GGTharos Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Yes, but the math of it is not linear. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Mojeaux Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I have a mission where a tack nuke is delivered by OPFOR you are to scramble..If you scramble in time and get feet wet in time you will survive..thats when the real mission starts... Speed was instermental in setting up my nuke script.( A REALLY GOOD blast and effect). Point is...there are reasons to at least have a tac nuke..but I do understand where you have to have the dummy rule fits all in effect, They would just drop nukes and be done.. 16th Mojeaux out; [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
pyromaniac4002 Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I don't see the harm in some token giant explosion being modeled, nothing that would take up a great deal of ED's time or effort, it's obviously not a pressing matter, but single player might have an extra degree of interest, or it could be used in a campaign where the NATO vs. Russian standoff in Georgia finally goes nuclear at some point. That would be pretty dramatic and cool. But as far as the worries about MP.. No sane server administrator is going to allow people to equip their aircraft with it, at least the big servers where you'll actually find a good sized group of people on a regular basis. Again though, very low priority. I say only do it if it's a quick job, or we're just getting to the point where ED is running out of things to model for us, which is obviously still far off.
Rongor Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Senseless for the scope of this simulation. DCS World is about simulating planes and not about killing everything instantly by simply hitting one release switch. There goes the nuke - hooray, you have "won"... Cant imagine anything more boring.
PFunk1606688187 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Cant imagine anything more boring. Because you have a poor imagination? Warning: Nothing I say is automatically correct, even if I think it is.
Recommended Posts