The GMs Court

[Uberstein]

Hmm, I have a question. I have anti-CM defenses ingame, how does that apply in CNRP?

[Acca Dacca]

reduce damage? If you talk it over with your combatant, I think you could RP knocking out some of them and having the rest hit. Might want to measure it through percentage.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' date='19 May 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1274314559' post='2303887']
Hmm, I have a question. I have anti-CM defenses ingame, how does that apply in CNRP?
[/quote]

I've always RP'd them as "experimental" missile defenses that block approximately what is launched at me. So since I have 5, I'd block approximately 50% of the missiles.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Triyun' date='20 May 2010 - 03:21 AM' timestamp='1274305865' post='2303730']
I agree here. However, with a sneak attack I would point out the damage should be limited to the bomb not being an airburst. Also it should be limited to size (i.e. a suit case bomb wouldn't be too big), you could fit a full h-bomb in a cargo container though. I would also like to point out that cruise missiles (tomahawk was developed to deliver a nuke and later converted to conventional) and aircraft both would not be effected really by an SDI. Idk how these should be handled. IMO Strategic bombers should be based on whether you can actually get the bomb over the target through RPing, this is by far the most vulnerable delivery method. Cruise missiles I have no idea about. But in IRL military terms, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles were developed to do totally seperate things, and carry two seperate kinds of nukes.
[/quote]

Again in my opinion, SDI rolls must only need to indicate the success or failure of [i][b]any[/b][/i] nuclear attack, be it through ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, bombers, FOBS, or even the old suitcase bombs. The SDI in terms of game parlance is the one used to destroy BMs and possibly FOBS. Cruise Missiles could theoretically be detected by AWACS or similar aerial radar platforms such as Aerostats. In fact Aerostats deployed near cities is being used by many nations as a valic anti-CM measure. Since a shrapnel window would be deadly to a cruise missile just as for a plane, AAA batteries and CIWS batteries could be used to explain away the destruction of an inbound nuclear cruise missiles. Or better still, what I would do if judged nuke attack fail against me would be have the cruise missile develop technical faults, remember Murphy's Law, the first rule of military science.

Also as Triyun said the same yield device would create different damages at different detonation altitudes. There are simulation websites that give a reasonable idea of the damage created by detonation of various yields at various altitudes. For semblance of realism surely they could be used?


[quote name='Executive Minister' date='20 May 2010 - 04:51 AM' timestamp='1274311258' post='2303823']
Why not do something like this,

Plain old boring ICBM? If you have an SDI, 40% odds.

Nuclear cruise missile? If you have 5 Missile Defences blam, (or no blam) 50% odds.

Nuclear equipped aircraft? If you have an AADN, -25% odds to hit (maybe add in that -10% aircraft damage to make the total -35%, even then thats sorta low, also debatable)

Nuclear equipped spy/truck/wombat? If you have 5 intelligence agencies 50% odds.

Again, debatable...

But in all fairness, SDIs are a nation's defence against nuclear attack, period. Who says your 'Initiative' is simply a THAAD or electrolaser cannon? Maybe its a squad of Missile Interceptor aircraft, maybe its armed guards patrolling the streets with x-ray goggles, or maybe its a crack team of intrepid teenagers... the way you block the nuke, in any of its possible forms is RP, with the universal -60% to get hit with a nuke to back it up. I don't understand why we'd need to take away from the SDI wonder, its a pretty vague thing. Anything that will be put up to RP is bound to be affected by tech and other hindrances for smaller players seem to be a kick the dog moment.

My bias as to being one who has just purchased their SDI not withstanding.
[/quote]

I say, just a single odds for all nuke interdiction rolls. Just change the way you explain away the interdiction. All the weapon interdiction systems like ABM systems, airborne laser interdiction, THEL etc are only tools to explain away the interdiction probability of a nuclear attack. As I mentioned earlier, even if a person has not RPd anything as such, surely the one firing the nuke could RP out his device as having been malfunctioned? There are so many ways for a technology not to work, when you look into it.


[quote name='Sargun' date='20 May 2010 - 05:32 AM' timestamp='1274313702' post='2303865']
In-game mechanics trump all. It should be a 40% period.
[/quote]

Truth.

[Executive Minister]

Ah, so my clever ploy to show how difficult it would be to replace or reduce the effectiveness of the SDI has worked! Hurrah!

[iamthey]

[quote name='Sargun' date='20 May 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1274313702' post='2303865']
In-game mechanics trump all. It should be a 40% period.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

Also, in the past the scope of the SDI has been limited to blocking attacks on one's own territory. The point being to prevent people from using their SDI to defend others (like if 3 countries all with SDI's have troops in one area, and the area is hit with a single nuke). How do you reconcile that? If I happen to have troops in an ally's capital, and the ally does not have an SDI, can I use my SDI to defend my troops and by extension that capital? Clearly we run into trouble. Which is why in the past I have said SDI's should only be able to defend one's own territory and arguably their fleet. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Subtleknifewielder]

Agree, except for the fleet part. Unless the fleet is in your territorial waters (which would of course be limited to a reasonable amount).

[Manetheren]

40% for everything and only your own territory. Not the most realistic, but whatever.

Fleet is sticky since clearly modern fleets have some missile defense capabilities (AEGIS) but most don't have anti ballistic missile defense so I'd have to say no.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Emperor Mudd' date='19 May 2010 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1274327490' post='2304172']
40% for everything and only your own territory. Not the most realistic, but whatever.

Fleet is sticky since clearly modern fleets have some missile defense capabilities (AEGIS) but most don't have anti ballistic missile defense so I'd have to say no.
[/quote]

First world fleets have ABM, C-RAM, CIWS, etc. They are more than capable of fending off ballistic missiles. HELLAD, THEL, FEL, CIWS, Projectile C-RAM, ABM ship-based shields, etc. That is one of the main reasons why most ships have PAWS equipped; to use RADAR to detect incoming missile/projectile strikes.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='20 May 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1274328903' post='2304200']
First world fleets have ABM, C-RAM, CIWS, etc. [b]They are more than capable of fending off ballistic missiles.[/b] HELLAD, THEL, FEL, CIWS, Projectile C-RAM, ABM ship-based shields, etc. That is one of the main reasons why most ships have PAWS equipped; to use RADAR to detect incoming missile/projectile strikes.
[/quote]

Really? I've heard otherwise...

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='20 May 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1274331657' post='2304483']
Really? I've heard otherwise...
[/quote]
Mind expanding on that?

[iamthey]

I'm fairly certain a modern fleet at least has a degree of ABM capability. I know the US has some Mobil ABM systems that are mounted on trucks (and link with satellite and ground radar systems). So I am sure there is some way a missile cruiser or battleship could set up a missile shield. Even then its still problematic as your ship could be docked in the city, or mixed in with the fleet of someone without an SDI.

Edited May 20, 2010 by iamthey

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='20 May 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1274331657' post='2304483']
Really? I've heard otherwise...
[/quote]

I'd be glad to.

Ballistic missiles also apply to anti-ship/naval ballistic missiles, such as the BrahMos and others of its class. So ships require a variety of mechanisms to defend themselves from projectile-attack from other ships, aircraft, and from the shore. The first thing that ships will have are your basic SONAR for submerged projectiles, though that is beyond the scope of ballistic missiles.

The next "necessity" are Counter-Battery RADAR, which detects artillery/mortar/rocket shots and has a 50 km effective range of actually finding the designated origin of shot with rather great success. It also is able to predict the spot of collision/landing for the projectiles. This has been, since WW2, integrated into the naval PAWS system, which is an array of RADAR panels that are used to detect incoming missiles of multiple sorts. PAWS is also, mind you, used by the U.S National Missile Defense (along with another complementary missile alert shield) which has a comparable range of several thousand miles (1,000+). Of course on ships, you are looking at hundreds of miles, but that is invaluable for most ships since it buys them time to react. Even for a Mach 10 missile which moves at 1.5 miles per second, if the ship has 800 miles of space to work with, that gives them 1200 seconds (20 minutes) to react.

Now to effectively utilize the PAWS and other complementary systems aboard the ships, they utilize the Close-In Weapon System, or CIWS. The purpose of CIWS is rather archaic in the fact that it simply uses a Vulcan cannon to 'spray and pray' at incoming projectiles. Interestingly enough, however, it has proven to be rather successful.

Another weapon for ABM purposes in a ship's arsenal are the actual cruise missiles it carries itself if applicable. Obviously if it is a torpedo boat, for instance, you won't have this option. You can turn almost any cruise missile into a long-range anti-ballistic missile as long as the ship (or comparable land-based statistician and trajectory command) has the proper tools to calculate proper intercepting trajectories, you are looking at taking out this missile hundreds of miles away.

Likewise, you also have the option of a mid-ranged ABM missile such as the Arrow Missile, which has proven battlefield-effective in several scenarios (though the range is limited to 92 miles I believe).

You also have functioning THEL and FEL (experimental) systems which use lasers to shoot down incoming projectiles, whether they are missiles or artillery pieces. The purpose of a laser isn't to destroy the object, but rather heat it up to a certain temperature so it auto-ignites, or at least that is the purpose of the THEL. The FEL's purpose is for actual penetration in order to hit the actual warhead and detonate it from within. And since light is the fastest moving particle in existence (as far as we know), it will be able to catch any projectile in a (seemingly) instant. However, due to environments and the sorts, the THEL is limited to only 12 miles so it is a hit or miss type of scenario. There is also an option for a continuous burst of light instead of pulses. This is, essentially, a beam of light that is able to be sustained for a few minutes, though this requires tremendous cooling features and advancements since the actual barrel of the laser-apparatus would melt due to high temperatures.

The FEL would have a longer range due to its inherent separable properties (Free Electron Laser utilizes different processes than the chemical-reaction THEL and HELLADS), and is also to be used at 100 kW of power, or 100 kJ/S (I believe I did that conversion correctly). This would give it an apt range of (roughly) 30 or so miles given the correct apparatus.

These systems are auto-targeting and rely on the PAWS and Counter-Batter RADAR, but in doing so are able to predict imminent penetrating projectiles and are able to easily deduce several 'arcs' of defensive shielding via active defensive mechanisms on board the ship. Mind you that there are many more active and passive defenses for the shield, but I just referred to the ones that 1) I use for my ships (sort of) and 2) the ones I mentioned above.

[Executive Minister]

Nice! *Copy pastes for future usage*

In all seriousness, I can't even pretend to think I know much about this, but when I see articles like [url="https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp"]this[/url], I tend to think that maybe these systems are a little overrated... call me a sheep but it did say, with surprising mildness, that

[quote]If [some Chinese AshBM is] operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack."[/quote]

Although if this RL capability is trumped simply because this is CNRP and we have railguns, then I'll understand.

EDIT: I think this means that ships currently have no defence against full fledged ICBMs converted to the Anti-ship role... sure CIWS and Sea Sparrows can hit the slower dedicated AshM's like the Harpoon or Exocet, but something flying in at mach 10 is a little tougher?

Edited May 20, 2010 by Executive Minister

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='20 May 2010 - 08:26 AM' timestamp='1274358358' post='2304969']
Nice! *Copy pastes for future usage*

In all seriousness, I can't even pretend to think I know much about this, but when I see articles like [url="https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp"]this[/url], I tend to think that maybe these systems are a little overrated... call me a sheep but it did say, with surprising mildness, that



Although if this RL capability is trumped simply because this is CNRP and we have railguns, then I'll understand.
[/quote]

The D-21 in that article is a modified version of the original D-21 in that it is an Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM). That is actually what I am developing in RP; an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) with Mach 10 capabilities. The D-21, itself, is a jack-of-all-trades. It has many variants to its name for different purposes, though most involve some sort of long-ranged ICBM activity/use.

The reason why the D-21 is so concerning, though, is its speed. It can easily outmatch most ABM systems today in terms of shear speed, so you have to be spot on for interception trajectory. If you're not, well, as I wrote in the previous post, that sucker is moving at 1.5 miles per second, so there isn't much room for error. However, I must note that the reason why it is concerning is because it doesn't take into account ABM Rail Gun systems, ABM Coil Gun systems (similar process as the Rail Gun, but different physics and not as powerful), and the new laser systems.

As much as the THEL has provided for the military, it hasn't proven its worth, which is why it is being retroactively replace on a wide-scale. I, myself, do use THEL, but I use it in conjunction with a grid system so you have a lattice of laser shooting instead of relying on one laser. This is largely because there are many counter-measures to the THEL system, notably reflective-plating (though I do not a way to counter this counter). FEL systems would be more efficient.

[Executive Minister]

Don't all Ballistic missiles fly at speeds comparable to or even greater than that? If that's the case, then that's what I originally meant, RL C-RAM, CIWS and even ABM systems cannot reliably handle Ballistic Missiles put in an Anti-ship role, at least not as well as you implied.

IC railgun systems i'll accept, but a CIWS definitely can't hit a AshBM.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='20 May 2010 - 08:41 AM' timestamp='1274359299' post='2304989']
Don't all Ballistic missiles fly at speeds comparable to or even greater than that? If that's the case, then that's what I originally meant, RL C-RAM, CIWS and even ABM systems cannot reliably handle Ballistic Missiles put in an Anti-ship role, at least not as well as you implied.

IC railgun systems i'll accept, but a CIWS definitely can't hit a AshBM.
[/quote]

Actually no, most do not fly at those comparable speeds. For comparison, when the Indian military revealed its BrahMos II Cruise Missile Project, the very fact that its missile could reach Mach 6 was astounding, and that was only two years ago (if I remember correctly). Likewise, effective ABM and C-RAM do not handle Ballistic Missiles via chasing. In fact, "missile chasing" is probably one of the most idiotic and incredibly inefficient ways of shooting down a missile (largely the reason why it is not performed today). Missiles are shot down via an intercepting shot or spray. Essentially, via Counter-Battery RADAR, PAWS, BMEWS, etc, you know the trajectory of the missile as it is incoming. That is, by all means, a hypersonic missile's weakness: it has no variability in trajectory pattern. If it was a subsonic missile, it would be harder to predict the landing area, especially with guided missiles that can change course over relatively short distances such as several degrees over a mile.

With that in mind, knowing the predicted trajectory of the hypersonic ASBM, CIWS and basic ABM systems can launch a calculated counter-trajectory pattern that will collide with the missile over its own predicated trajectory. You aren't looking to chase down the missile with a separate trajectory. You are, per se, throwing a baseball at a football being thrown to its wide receiver from their respective quarterback. CIWS, amongst all things, can accomplish this, though not as successfully as other long-range counter-measures. I don't think you realize this, but capable CIWS used by the U.S Navy is the same comparable cannon used by the A-10 Warthogs, which have intense armor penetration capabilities.

The purpose of this armor penetration is to dismantle the warhead before it can effectively ignite upon hitting its designated target. Of course CIWS would easily fall prey to several types of bombs, notably shrapnel and fuel-air bombs, given that they (the bombs) are made by people with the know-how. In a sense, you a throwing up a shield of high-penetration bullets in hopes that you are going to hit the bomb. Also looking at the purpose of the bullet, even a glancing hit would have some sort of energy dispersal that could possibly knock the missile off course, though that is far less likely since the amount of momentum garnered by hypersonic missiles are astronomical (assuming you are using the laws of conservation of momentum, you are looking at the speed of sound at sea level x 10 multiplied by the mass of the warhead itself under the assumption that m[sub]1[/sub]v[sub]1[/sub]=m[sub]2[/sub]v[sub]2[/sub]).

What hypersonic speed gets is what hypersonic speed gives up. It gives up variability for miraculous speed, though even the D-21 will be a thing of the past if the Pentagon's X-51 cruise missile that can travel anywhere in the world in under an hour goes through. This speed is the missiles own downfall with the idea that it is predictable if you can catch it in time. With greatly attuned sensory technologies, even CIWS can put up a stalwart defense against hypersonic missiles.

As to current ABM and C-RAM systems, they are more than capable of handling hypersonic cruise missiles. ABM has relied mostly on using comparable cruise missiles and launching them on a counter-trajectory. Other than that, it is fairly easy. With the introduction of THEL technology, though, the playing field is a bit different and it is believed by most U.S military experts that lasers will play the most vital role in ABM systems after the next 10 years. For C-RAM, it's a similar process that really covers CIWS, THEL, FEL, and ABM, but also extends to rockets and artillery. Essentially with C-RAM, not only can you protect yourself (to a legitimate degree) against missiles, but also incoming shells from another ship, or land-based RPGs given you are closer to the shore.

The applications of ABM, C-RAM, and CIWS are impeccably endless and their overall applications can be used in so many different ways. From a personal example, my nation is RPing using CIWS on my shoreline "Atlantic Wall" for the dual purpose of not only shooting down incoming shells, but also enemy aircraft. Most ABM systems that use counter-trajectory processes use full-time cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk. These things aren't usually specially made for one purpose; they are tweaked in certain areas to be extremely versatile. The D-21, being the forefront example in this discussion, has over a dozen variants for a variety of purposes. The only true differences? Amount of fuel and amount of tonnage yield crammed into the warhead of the weapon. Other than that, the basic design of the missile is exactly the same. The launching mechanism is exactly the same, and so many other facets are also just that: exactly the same.

Just food for thought.

[Executive Minister]

When someone says Ballistic missile, I think of missiles like [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29"]this[/url], not glorified cruise missiles

[Fizzydog]

On the topic of Nuclear weapons, I am developing, not creating, developing a nuclear weapon. The Tsar Bomba. Are these allowed?

[Californian]

You can develop it but you can't actually have a nuke until you have one in-game (through the Manhattan project in your case).

[Zoot Zoot]

The Tsar bomb was a 50 megaton nuclear weapon.
No you cant have one.

The guidelines say many megaton nuclear weaponry isnt allowed.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Zoot Zoot

[Fizzydog]

Might I ask where? Fizzy don't see it, so no one sees it till fizzy does.

[Sargun II]

[quote]
*The amount of nukes (warheads) you have is equal to your in game level of warheads. Everyone with standard nukes has fission bombs (max 500kt). Weapons research complexes give you hydrogen bombs (keep them within reason not tens of megaton warheads), and neutron weapons. This decision was reached by consulting with the GMs and at their urging.[/quote]

[Fizzydog]

Okay, but the Tsar Bomba IS realistic. They tested it. I, of course, would only create one. Is that fine? Because this project took many years and only one was made, it was so powerful it was tested on that huge russian island above the middle of Russia and could be seen even from Finland. I would kill to RP launching that.

[Uberstein]

If you have multiple nukes, can you trade them in for one bigger one?