Nuclear Weapons

[Subtleknifewielder]

We could could always get rid of Nukes. No Nukes = No Problem.

Not happening...sorry, no way...

Well, once the definition for what 1 IG nuke is for 1 IC nuke, then the SDI issue won't be one. You'll still calculate it out like we currently do.

That might actually work. The KISS method wouldn't be offended...

[iKrolm]

Perhaps there would be an option to scale the SDI with the amount of nukes fired so when firing say 100 small ones the chances of blocking on getting to 90% allowing perhaps 10 through, another option would be grouping several nukes in one standard form for the SDI say I built 100 smaller nukes who equal in total X megaton or 1 IG nuke if the sdi blocks the 1 IG nuke all small ones get blocked. If you have enough to equal 2*X there would be 2 rolls each for one group. This still allows diversity maintaining the effect of a SDI

Not a bad idea to keep that balanced, but it doesn't help nations without an SDI. What if we allow more flexibility as Lavo suggested, but impose a 1 IG to 5 IC cap?

Edited August 3, 2009 by iKrolm

[Centurius]

Not a bad idea to keep that balanced, but it doesn't help nations without an SDI. What if we allow more flexibility as Lavo suggested, but impose a 1 IG to 5 IC cap?

Smaller nations without SDI are currently bad off too

Edited August 3, 2009 by Centurius

[Kaiser Martens]

I like the idea but it is a bit complicated, so I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Either way, it's not like Nukes matter much in RP. Nukes are not really RPed, as their effects last for a very little time compared to RL nukes. They're just obese cruise missiles. If we're gonna change anything about nukes it'd be to RP them properly, and understand their long term unavoidable effects (With exceptions for new nations which wish to take a place in the map previously nuked, so as not to cripple newbies)

Edited August 3, 2009 by Kaiser Martens

[iamthey]

I like this idea personally. I think the current (or previous) system basically made the use of tactical nuclear weapons impossible, and made it extremely un-advantageous to RP them. It also made the use of nuclear weapons in a military capacity less effective as you would have less to spend. Part of the reason why the war against you lavo turned out to just be a bunch of people throwing nukes at major cities was, there was no way to use it on militaries without it being a total waste. If this were the case I would personally consider just breaking down one of my nukes into several small tactical nukes and using them as an anti-naval weapon in a last ditch invasion of my islands. Overall I don't think this will result in that much abuse because we can just essentially set 1 IG nuke divided up whatever way results in a relative amount of damage be it dropped on one large target or a bunch of smaller ones. This is basically how it works IG, a nuke destroys 150 infastructure every time, just apply that same conceptual model to CN, a bunch of little nukes add up to one large one. (I get what lynneth is saying about how a 100 kt nuke can either totally cripple a medium city if not outright destroy it, I guess this is kind of just one of those CNRP times) Other than that I think common sense can dictate reasonability. I mean breaking down my 25 nukes into 25,000 1kt nukes and carpet nuking tahoe can be clearly identified as abuse and rejected by GM judgement. Just weigh it by a case by case basis, as for SDI, just roll it like we have in the past. 65% (or was it 75...) of nuke damage gets thwarted in the current system, the same would apply in a new system.

Mainly I just want to be able to use nuclear weapons in a tactical capacity without undermining the overall strategic capabilities of my nation.

Edited August 3, 2009 by iamthey

[Lavo]

I agree with this suggestion... before, once one had 20-25 nukes max (nukes are already something only power-players enjoy using ... me is slightly greatly one) and you would have a WRC it would be in your nations best interest to have 20 40 MT nukes... that's just nastily devestating O_o.

I think you are getting the the WRC thing wrong. As it stands now, if one "uses up" nukes in RP they can rebuild 1 per day (2 with WRC). The bit about the WRC in my post says that with a WRC you will be able to rebuild the equivalent of 2 IG nukes per day.

Perhaps there would be an option to scale the SDI with the amount of nukes fired so when firing say 100 small ones the chances of blocking on getting to 90% allowing perhaps 10 through, another option would be grouping several nukes in one standard form for the SDI say I built 100 smaller nukes who equal in total X megaton or 1 IG nuke if the sdi blocks the 1 IG nuke all small ones get blocked. If you have enough to equal 2*X there would be 2 rolls each for one group. This still allows diversity maintaining the effect of a SDI

Basically, if I read your post correctly, if someone (for example) launches two 500kT nukes (and in this case 1 IG nuke = 5 MT) if one SDI roll is successful, both nukes are stopped? If so, I like this and it is a nice way to fix a possible "nuke spam" scenario (which I have been trying to find a good solution for).

[JEDCJT]

I support this. Makes nukes more realistic. After all, what modern nation would have only 20-25 nukes?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

If you want to be realistic, then I propose that we base the # of megatons not on a single set number per increment, but an exponentially increasing # per nuke with 50 being equated to the total nuclear yield of the United States weapon stockpile at its peak.. divided by 50. Why divided by 50? Because I think mergers and alliances act a lot like the United States does in reality, thus it would make sense that the max per state yield be equal to a single U.S. state which could theoretically be its own nation in the absence of a grouping, collective, federal government.

So to approximately

(Max U.S. Yield/50) = (50 IG Nukes)(x)

X is the formula we must determine..

Since the Mahatton project produced two bombs with roughly 40 Kiltons, I propose increment 1 be 50 kilotons and work up. to that super massive # for 50.

Theoretically we could max cap 50 IG nukes at 10000 Total Megatons.. as that's more than sufficient to leave the world in immense pain.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Lavo]

Mael, that just makes everything far more complicated, and also kills the fixed link to IG nukes. That and nations getting an arsenal the size of the US' is extremely unbalanced, unnecessary, and will not happen. Personally, I'd make 1 IG Nuke = 1 MT which is how it is atm.

[Voodoo Nova]

Mael, that just makes everything far more complicated, and also kills the fixed link to IG nukes. That and nations getting an arsenal the size of the US' is extremely unbalanced, unnecessary, and will not happen. Personally, I'd make 1 IG Nuke = 1 MT which is how it is atm.

I was thinking 1 IG nuke = 2 MT. This allows for a max of 50 MT, which makes the nuclear customization a bit more open, and even for allowing the possibility of one 50MT nuclear bomb.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I was thinking 1 IG nuke = 2 MT. This allows for a max of 50 MT, which makes the nuclear customization a bit more open, and even for allowing the possibility of one 50MT nuclear bomb.

Now that's scary!

[Lynneth]

Now that's scary!

Back when I was stupid as Saboria, I gave Sumeragi a 100 Megaton nuclear bomb to blow up part of New Guinea.

She thought it'd be enough to trigger continental plates and sink the islands.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Back when I was stupid as Saboria, I gave Sumeragi a 100 Megaton nuclear bomb to blow up part of New Guinea.

She thought it'd be enough to trigger continental plates and sink the islands.

Well, if it were placed right, it could possibly trigger such effects

But not where she had it.

[Zarfef]

She thought it'd be enough to trigger continental plates and sink the islands.

.... O_o. ROFL

I sunk your battleship!

Yeah! Well I sunk your island!

Edited August 3, 2009 by Zarfef

[Lynneth]

Well, if it were placed right, it could possibly trigger such effects

But not where she had it.

Nope.

An earthquake produces much more energy, on the order of several magnitudes.

[King Kevz]

<--- still thinks Nukes should erased. Runs off to build Soviet Time Machine.

Command and Conquer players should know what I mean.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Nope.

An earthquake produces much more energy, on the order of several magnitudes.

I'm not saying it would all be the nuke's energy, now am I? I said it would be the trigger.

The trigger on a gun isn't what kills the target, it's the bullet that the trigger releases. If the bomb is set in the right area, on a tectonic plate, it's going to trigger an earthquake.

@ Kevz. I know what you're referring to...

[Arkantos]

<--- still thinks Nukes should erased. Runs off to build Soviet Time Machine.

Command and Conquer players should know what I mean.

Yes, I do. But Einstein must invent Time Travel and remove Hitler first.

[iKrolm]

Nope.

An earthquake produces much more energy, on the order of several magnitudes.

I don't know the geography of the area, but you don't need to create all the energy, you just need to trigger it's release along an already stressed fault line. Wouldn't sink the island by a long shot though, and you'd need numerous bombs pretty deep underground.

Edited August 4, 2009 by iKrolm

[iamthey]

It really depends on the island. A volcanic plume like the canary islands, could be easily sunk using a high yield nuclear weapon. As all you would need to do is crack the plume and the entire thing would basically collapse. However islands like mine, or sargun's wouldn't be effected that way as they are actually the tips of pieces of crust sticking out from the ocean. Rather than being volcanic rock which is rather fragile they are made out of granite, or limestone; which are considerably stronger they also lack the same internal structural deficiencies of volcanic plumes.

Edited August 4, 2009 by iamthey

[Lynneth]

To trigger an earthquake, you need the power of continents.

Not something a nuclear warhead can achieve.

[iamthey]

To trigger an earthquake, you need the power of continents.

Not something a nuclear warhead can achieve.

You can kind of simulate an earthquake, the american's basically created an "earthquake bomb" which burrowed its way a few hundred meters beneath the surface before setting off a large conventional explosive. The power of that could easily be greatly increase with a nuclear weapon. Of course that wouldn't mimic the transverse wave patterns of an earthquake but it might feel similar within a fairly limited range. Of course... why not just use a nuke; as its destructive power would probably be easily greater than the same nuke buried underground .

[Subtleknifewielder]

You can kind of simulate an earthquake, the american's basically created an "earthquake bomb" which burrowed its way a few hundred meters beneath the surface before setting off a large conventional explosive. The power of that could easily be greatly increase with a nuclear weapon. Of course that wouldn't mimic the transverse wave patterns of an earthquake but it might feel similar within a fairly limited range. Of course... why not just use a nuke; as its destructive power would probably be easily greater than the same nuke buried underground .

As ikrolm said, place it along a stressed fault line, and most (excepting, of course, the sinking of the island) of the effects would still occur.

[iamthey]

As ikrolm said, place it along a stressed fault line, and most (excepting, of course, the sinking of the island) of the effects would still occur.

It wouldn't even have to be along a fault line, any shallow underground detonation would be easily felt along a fairly wide area depending on the yield. But it would be limited, it wouldn't have the wide spread effects of a true earthquake. But I don't think a detonation along a fault line would really trigger an earthquake. Plate lines are massive, and the forces you are dealing with are pretty much beyond anything a nuke can provide. I mean in my mind the only time a nuke would have any effect on a fault line would be if it was JUST about to snap; when it was balancing on the edge of an earthquake, but how you RP that without totally godmoding idk.

[Tahsir]

A 100 megaton nuke on a fault line would vaporize about 20 kilometers of rock before the shock wave even started to hit anything. You'd make a stupid lava flow before you made a earthquake