Nukes vs kinematic bombardment

There is lots of interest in asteroids and the use as weapons or resource generators, but if we look carefully we do have a weapon of mass destruction - the Nukes. Furthermore there are rumors about interplanetary nukes which should be more costly and therefore more destructive.

I think the main reason why asteroids are included is cause it looks cool which is enough reason to include them

but if we think about it from the strategic point of view the destructive capability of asteroids as kinematic weapons could be matched by massive nukes (thermonuclear, fusion, hydrogen) which are for sure much easier to build (where you want) and probably cheaper. As this will be a planetary war I assume that there will be many bases on different planets and moons. Therefore you can use the building structure for nukes more often to build nukes (for many planets and many moons). In relation to asteroids you have only one bullet, it will most likely destroy the whole planet but there is no second shot at another planet cause the ACU has for sure fled from the doomed planet.

If the nukes are not powerful at all kinematic bombardment makes most sense in a two planet combat but I think that it is possible to build nukes more powerful than asteroids and that should be considered when talking about an ultimate weapon.

As they have said before, they rather go for whats awsome then for whats realistic.

We dont even know if nukes will make it into PA, there are some kind of missile used against the astroid in the trailer, but its just a assumption that those missiles are nukes.

Even if they do add them, astroids should be superior, not becuse its realistic or any such reason, but becuse its awsome.

A nuke should be shaking an etch-a-sketch with your hands.

An asteroid should be shaking an etch-a-sketch by dropping it off a building.

Both can get the job done, but with only one of those methods is there reasonable assumption of retained functionality.

Mavor said in the kickstarter trailer that he wants to see nukes, so I think nukes will likely make it.

Here is another topic, which deals about nukes and KEWs

That's not really what I would expect. Assuming a reasonable sized planet (20 x 20 km or larger in SupCom terms):

Nuke = wipe out a base
Asteroid = wipe out every structure on one side of the planet

The big difference I imagine is that asteroids wipe out usable land. I was watching the Total Biscuit interview again and they mentioned that asteroids might make chunks of a planet unusable, and of course you can blow up planets when you apply enough damage.

29:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqDSh34V ... re=related

So if you want to clear out some space, maybe to nab their mass deposits, you can spray it with nukes. But if you want them to never be able to use a continent again you can hit it with an asteroid.

Also asteroids have buildings and units on them. So you can get some of your own units there and attack it, unlike a nuke that is just a missile.

If Mavor says there will be nukes, there will be nukes, I'm more interested in the Interplanetary nukes mentioned above, those could make for some excellent tactics, like a pre-asteroid bombardment to deplete their defense missile stockpiles, I'm assuming there will be since having infinite per silo is a major discouragement towards asteroid drops.

I agree these should be really expensive, like SupCom 1 Experimental expensive since these are massive and spamming would ruin the game.

Actually I take that back, not that expensive but enough that you can make a lot but not too much Enough to bomb one hemisphere, maybe, then you're out for...5 minutes while you gather the resources and another 3 to build them again.

If those times seem unreasonably long, these are IP nukes, I think it's justifiable.

Could you not put nukes in/on the asteroid to increase it's destructive power? You could save some resources with the smaller ones, because you'd need less thrust to move it, but you'd have the force of a slightly larger one.

I think it would be a considerable engineering feat to produce a nuclear weapon that would be more powerful than asteroids. The most powerful Nuclear weapon ever tested was a 57 Megaton bomb constructed by the Russians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba There is far more to consider in the construction of atomic weapons than simply adding more materials. As for cost, Nuclear weapons utilise relatively rare materials, and so in terms of finding raw materials I think it would be more difficult to make a nuke on that kind of scale than building giant rocket engines on an asteroid. Compare that with a relatively small asteroid impact . This asteroid is believed to have only been about 50 metres across and yet it had an impact energy of 10 Megatons. Shifting a chunk of rock 50 metres across is certainly very achievable and you can imagine how quickly damage escalates with larger asteroids and similar velocities.

I won’t go into too much technical detail because I don’t think it is necessary for this to become a debate on nuclear physics, so I will focus more on the impact this has on gameplay.

This is pretty much why (from a gameplay perspective) I don’t think that having nukes on par with KEW destructive power is a good idea. A KEW is going to be a limited resource in a map because there will only be so many asteroids floating around. The fact that you use them up and can’t send a barrage of them should mean that they are far more destructive than something you can build many of (nukes). Otherwise KEW's fall by the wayside and everyone would be gunning for nukes.

This is not to say that I don’t want nukes. Far from it, I definitely want nukes to be present in the game. Both on planet, perhaps as part of a KEW defence, and yes I would even be interested in seeing interplanetary nuclear weapons. But they should be on the same destructive level as more conventional nuclear weapons. They should be able to decimate a base. If interplanetary nukes are expensive, it should not be because they are more powerful. It should be the cost that a player has to pay in order to fire a nuke to another planet, rather than having a presence on the planet and building a planet based nuclear silo.

First off you, read this, NOW. You can thank me later.

Second, It's clear that Nukes and KEW(Kinetic Energy Weapons, Look it up.) and Nukes clearly fill different roles unless you think a single nuke can crack a Planet open......which is just ridiculous.

Third, listen to Consili, he's got Epic Bro status.

Mike

I wont thank you, but i do agree.

I have to admit, this is increasingly annoying me.

Sure, they aren't exclusive; but it doesn't need to be brought up with EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION which brings into play the whole gameplay over realism thing. Sure, if you actually think that in this specific case that it'd be better to go for a realism approach, link that. However, I see no reason to link that for every single discussion about gameplay whether it's relevant or not.

/rage over

About the actual discussion, I definitely think they have separate roles.

And, c'mon, who here really doesn't want to crash an asteroid into a planet?

You seriously did not just post this? Putting nukes in an asteroid is just redundant, it doesn't increase the power of the impact, who says they'd even detonate anyhow? Besides you're throwing an asteroid at a planet, it will leave a huge crater, literally crack the planet, and maybe even make a few new continents. Nukes are weak compared to that.

Oh you : D

I think the extra force that you would attain from a detonation at the point of impact would be negligible to the point of not being noticed, not to mention the engineering issues with getting the nuke to detonate at the point of impact before it is crushed. Also nuclear weapons are generally detonated well above ground level in order to spread the destruction over as large an area as possible. Something which stands counter to the mechanism for an asteroid's method of delivering destruction (unfettered impact velocity)

This could be discarded to the side as needless technical detail in a game that "isn't aiming for realism" but when you are using a conventional technology like nuclear weapons, players may well notice the disparity to the point of losing some immersion.

The way I see it, if there are smaller and larger asteroids, increasing the damage upon impact should be proportional to the impact velocity. More mounted rockets and picking a trajectory with a greater gravitational slingshot (slingshot around the sun rather than a moon/planet/straight path to the planet) should have the trade-offs of cost and a longer travel time with the pay off in greater impact velocity.

Alternatively if no such system exists then the differences in asteroid size, in and of themselves add depth as it would be easier to get a small asteroid up to speed (Something Neutrino I believe has mentioned on a few occasions). The player is then deciding the balance of resources and time vs larger and more damaging KEWs when deciding which asteroid to fly to/fight over.

In short I think nukes should retain their conventional role in order to sufficiently differentiate their use in combat from KEWs

I believe the best comparison would be looking at the difference between a scalpel and a sledgehammer that does permanent damage.

It strikes me that asteroids are different from nukes in an important way- You can have a dramatic battle aboard one. Sending a strike force of units to destroy the engines off of an asteroid before they're completed, this is the sort of thing you can't get with a nuke. Maybe even capturing/destroying them once they've been fired, so as to change the trajectory, but that might be a little bit overcomplicated.

Possibly detonating their on-rock power plant so the whole thing goes BOOM!

Maybe building one of your own engines to send it INTO THE SUN!

Now that is interesting, I hadn't thought too much about the interception of KEWs beyond firing missiles at one as shown in the gameplay visualisation.

I dont think that the ETA of a KEW would give any enemy forces time to land on one and build a new set of rockets to change trajectory, but intercepting one with units to try and destroy it, or capture the rockets and change the trajectory before a point of no return sounds interesting.

Perhaps this would make things too complex like you say, I dont know how locked in a KEW trajectory would be once it was started up, or whether a KEW would be in transit long enough to allow such actions, but it is a cool idea. Certainly forces would be fighting over an asteroid during construction if the one player knew the other one was building a KEW. Defences on an asteroid could be quite essential.

Well, let's take a look at this.

Asteroid is probably gonna need a base number of KEWS to successfully ignite and strike a planet.

If its number of KEWS drop below this after you initialize a burn but before it strikes, then it'll go off course, missing the planet?

The more KEWS you build past the base requirement, the less time the enemy has to initialize a strike, and the more difficult it is to throw it off course?

This accomplishes the following

Forcing a cost-benefit analysis on when exactly to launch. On a heavily built up planet with a decent space program, the base number of KEWS may be unacceptably vulnerable to interception by an Armageddon team, which is the reference that will probably need to be made. If you spend a bit more time, you'll both remove their ability to respond, and have increased viability.

It'll also encourage interception missions. Nukes or somesuch may be a solid last-minute defense, where if you don't have the necessary units to assault them, you can blow the whole thing up- But if you don't have the nukes to break it up, then an assault force may encourage it.

It requires you to consider sacrificing some of your units by keeping them there to guard the KEWS until it lands and explodes. If this happens, you should be required to play that scene from Doctor Strangelove.