What if Nukes Weren't Superweapons?

Does anyone know how nukes work IRL? Seriously, you don't want one to go off at ground level, that just wastes massive amounts of energy. Air burst is better, and the "crater" is most likely to be almost negligible. Kenetic weapons (i.e. meteors) should be the best way to gouge holes. Artillery shells too maybe, but not nukes. It just doesn't make much sense.

The only exception would be small protrusions, cliff faces, etc that might be sheered off or partially collapsed if very near the nuke epicenter. Given the relatively unscathed cliff walls near the exploding commander 2 livestreams ago, I think that this last piece is unlikely to be in the game.

"Because we aren't looking for realism! We're looking for AWESOME!"

I can see where you are coming from there. If we can build in craters, perhaps the resource point will still be available. If not...maybe it keeps the resource point intact but now on a pillar of burnt stone! I can see the balancing issues there. Though...it WOULD be pretty awesome to have the ability to destroy mass points! Maybe it would just take two nukes or something. By then though, I think the cost of building the nukes has outweighed the destruction of the mass point.

I want different superweapons. Normal weapons on 1 planet for normal fighting. Nukes for fighting against other players at the same planet. And then other superweapons with a different name for planet vs. planet which you only should use if you don't have an own base at the other planet.

Should do really big damage and be hard to obtain(maybe only possible to build on special planets or asteroids).

The opposite is also possible. What if cracking up the surface allows you to gain access to more resources?

I wonder... Can we build in craters? It would be pretty cool to build a forward base in a crater from a previous fight. That way the land is still useful from a defensive perspective, rather than just being barren useless impassible land. I really want to nuke an enemy base then plop down a forward defensive position where his base was.

Another thought is to have resources exposed in craters that you wouldn't otherwise have access to.

Thoughts?

This is a ridiculously empty-headed response and I wish people would stop using it.

As for nukes, just because an uneducated fallacy is widely spread, doesn't mean that it should be perpetuated.

I'm pretty sure previous info from neutrino (either in the livestreams or on the boards) inferred he was assuming craters would obliterate resource points. So once you have a pockmarked, asteroid blighted planet there may actually be nothing left on it worth fighting for; no resources and very little usable terrain.

That's why I'm running on the assumption that any weapon that can cause a crater, is a weapon you can use to permanently destroy resource points. I've yet to play the game though, and we may find that this was never going to be implemented that way, or gets changed as alpha and beta progresses and it turns out it doesn't make for good gameplay.

That's the exciting part, being in at the ground floor means I get to see the decision making process happen, and possibly be a part of it myself. I consider my pledge well spent in that regard :mrgreen:

http://www.notpurfect.com/travel/nuke/nevada.html

How do you know that the nukes in the game doesn't work by "bunker-busting" their way into the ground before detonating? How do you know that the nukes in the game aren't loaded with an anti-matter charge that annihilates the matter in the ground upon impact, creating a sinkhole?

Furthermore, you shouldn't call people empty-headed. It's not an empty-headed response when we're talking about a game where we will literally build ROCKET ENGINES on moons to send them on collision courses with planets within the timescale of a few days. :roll:

It's not about making an educational game that adheres to perfect realism.
That's never what TA / SupCom were about.
You find it harder to believe that a superweapon could create a crater, than that mass fabricators amazomagically create metal out of the energy output of a few solar generators.

(i'm well aware of the math behind energy - matter, my point is that a rudimentary crater is hardly more difficult to imagine or produce with an advanced warhead, than manufacturing matter out of energy on a per-minute basis)

Lol :lol: Well, it is my opinion that nukes leaving craters would be awesome. In a game, a nuke going off wouldn't need to waste energy. It is a game and the destruction levels can be adjusted to whatever. And if we are given the option of exploding nukes in atmosphere then you can air burst all you like.
And yes, I agree. Air bursts ARE superior to ground bursts since they do more damage. But we are talking about a game here. "Fun" has to be part of the equation.

In other news, since asteroids will potentially destroy multiple points at once, It is my opinion that if nukes make craters (For Fun!), I don't see why they couldn't have the ability to take out a mass point.

Teradyn is right with the air bursts. All past games have nukes blowing up in an air-burst style. It only makes sense. It is only reasonable. Perhaps instead, we could have the option of ground bursts with a setting on a missle. So we could lay a crater at a choke point, destroy mass point or such.

I'm perfectly well aquainted with the basics of both fission and fusion processes. I'm also aware that energy output is spherical, i.e. equal in all directions. If you intend to use the initial explosive energy to destroy something, you want the centre of the reaction close to get the largest angle (and therefore maximum energy output) covering your target.

Unless that itself is the fallacy of course, in which case I am genuinely and honestly interested in being corrected. I am always happy to learn, especially when my previous beliefs turn out to be wrong

Okay, How about this:

We have one type of nuclear weapon. It does less damage than in SupCom but still a considerable amount (as has already been discussed). The launchers are relatively cheap compared to the missiles, which means that it's easier to set up different launching locations rather than just spamming nukes. This way we can encourage conventional attacks heavily defended bases while using nukes more thoughtfully than saturating a densely populated area (In any case, bases will probably be more spread out anyway).

Also, if we are going to use nukes more often in PA, I would like to see some sort of UI thing that allows you to use nukes from different launchers together and easier. For instance lets say I have 10 missiles. I think it's reasonable to have them automatically arranged by the damage radius so you can fire them for 1) saturation 2) carpet bombing and 3) user's choice. This would be great if I have several launchers. Especially if they could be synchronised to hit at the same time. Having to select each nuke and individually target each one would be a pain.

Just an idea.

(posted on another nuke thread but I thought it was this one)

During the era of nuclear weapon development (50's-60's anyone?), we had all so much fun speculating how we where going to annihilate the planet for our own gains. OH JOY!

Fun new ideas such as:

-The Classic Gravity Nuke!
-ICBM! "Why lift a finger when you could press a button!?"
-Nuke Cannons! "just lob 'em"
-Cluster Nukes! "what is aim?"
-Tactical Nuclear MINES! "watch ur step bro, this is a dog beach, oh and MINES" (these are actually still on the boarder of North and South Korea, way to go Uncle Sam!)

With THESE Ideas on top of asteroids in play. Creative players can deal such wonders as:

-Launching nukes from the asteroid that is smashing into the planet its nuking! I think we can call this one "Operation **** Storm"

-Maybe just orbit the thing and rain down the fire while its mining its own surface and pumping out more nukes. "You thought the equator was hot now? Just you wait!"

-Smash your planet into his planet.. Then Nuke 'em from the comfort of your own home! "dont scratch the paint, man!"


I find it funny that a game that will span the galaxy is worrying people about the nukes being game enders. Nukes are like peashooters in comparison to what is on the rise. I say blast em to bits!
Nukes are superweapons of our day but in this games sense, if used exactly as supcom in respect to power, building, and radius they are only "game-enders" for that planet. One of many to be blown to bits until the galaxy is annihilated. A superweapon is only ever super when it's power is un-matched. I can be confident to say that nukes are way out of the league of potential destruction that is imminent.

Having an automated option is a good idea, especially if nukes can be quite numerous. However I actually have a somewhat better idea for a command and control system for nukes.

Part of the problem with incredibly long range weaponry is that the selection and attack operations take place at vastly different locations on the map. This can require a lot of panning and/or minimap clicking, or require control groups be dedicated to specific long-range units. And this is made especially challenging for weapons like nukes, where each shot is relatively significant and mitigable, so it becomes a good idea to fire in concert. This makes nuke control quite finicky and difficult to automate well.

However, from the player's perspective, it doesn't really matter which launcher fires at which target. The player wants to pick targets, not launchers. What this means is that the player can specify target points beforehand instead of needing to very quickly select each launcher and issue orders in rapid succession in order to initiate a large-scale, coordinated nuclear attack. The player could instead designate "Nuke Target" points independently of a selected launcher, or even having a launcher at all (see Orders as First Class Entities). If you want to nuke it multiple times, simply place multiple points there.

Then, all the player has to do is issue a single "launch" command which prompts all their nuke launchers (potentially of various kinds with different ranges, etc.) to select targets from among the player's designated nuke target points. The computer only has to arrange as best as possible to put one nuke on each target point.

A concerted strike across an entire planet with many silos, nuclear submarines, and orbital nukes all simultaneously glassing the planet could be... pretty awesome.

That's pretty much the idea I had, but I don't think I really explained it at all. ^-^;

Would also be nice to have something like that for artillery as well.. And two targeting modes, 'Point' and 'Saturate'.. The latter being dragging out/drawing an area, and then the launchers and whatnot do their best to cover that area equally.. And one could sift-click or something to increase the amount of firepower to put on-target, perhaps with a counter to the side. Artillery would fire X salvos into the area (A salvo varying from piece to piece, possibly having one artillery piece that is designed to fire 5-10 weaker shots in rapid succession), trying to balance out the kits across the zone. Nukes would fire X number of nukes into the area, trying to deal as much damage over as much of the area as possible.


I dunno, could be interesting, especially when joined with (seemingly undefended) choke points.

The presence of putting engines on asteroids does not make nukes NOT be game enders. If nukes are powerful enough and not countered well they can end a game by damaging a base, or force of units enough to greatly sway the game. Balancing nukes with another game-ender in the game is difficult. Especially if nukes will be used as a way to defend against them. This means nukes must be more easily obtained than a moving asteroid but not too much so it easily negates an asteroid attack. Something like 3 nukes would be required to take out an asteroid that cost about 3 nukes to build.

You can't have people spamming nukes because they can't be made impervious to asteroid attack. I imagine the potential economy build is substantial. Nukes will be cheaper than asteroids.

*A commander looks at his field of silos and laughs. He watches them all launch into space and destroy every asteroid in the asteroid belt. Then takes whatever he has left and attempts to nuke the crap out of the other guy.*

Nukes would play a role as both a very powerful offensive unit, and a very powerful defensive unit. However, you could throw your enemy a curve ball and place several anti-nuke structure on the front of your asteroid helping negate nukes.

So you see the balance issue here? This is why nukes are still up in the air because of their potentially powerful offensive and defensive capability. Why build asteroid engines when you can build what defends against them for cheaper? And then if no asteroid shows, nuke your foe to the core of the planet. They might just implement an anti-asteroid structure that builds missiles that act like nukes. :cry:

I really hope they put nukes in.

Did you even watch the Kickstarter video?

A nuke is just a strategic missile.

I hope they put a really explody missile in.

I did see the kickstarter video. Read my last post in light of the fact that nukes have not been confirmed and all I saw were very powerful missiles defending (note: defending, or trying to) against an asteroid. I did not see a strategic launch across the planet. But *sigh* then again, maybe I am being too cynical and technical and logical and specific. You are probably right that they will implement nukes, the problem is how they will balance them.

Take a look at this quote:

*deflate* Well, I guess sometimes you can't fix ignorance. My whole line of thought went up in flames there.
This is just a thought. What about fog of war in space? How soon will you see an oncoming asteroid? Because if you could hit it with a nuke and disable the engines (as seen in the video) soon enough to make it tangent on its intercept course and miss the planet then that may be a viable option also. But I guess we are going into fog of war topic here.

And also the range of nukes which plays into this topic. Since the galaxy is essentially the map...I wouldn't say allow nukes to span galaxies though that would be cool. But span an entire solar system. If they restrict them to planetary...kinda a let down. So my thought line could still be possibly viable. Given solar system range of nukes and the ability to see a large range in space. I mean, if you can see all of the entities in a solar system and you see one randomly moving on a slingshot pattern to your planet...shoot it with a nuke. :? Is this viable? Tell me what you think.

P.S. Thank you for showing me that quote!