I noticed a strange unbalance in a game today, and i wonder if its by design or a bug:
Core nuke lauchners only have a small detonation compared to their health.
The opponent build a array of nukes (3*8 IIRC), and i destroyed 3 in the middle, but there were NO damages due to secondary explosions.
In contrast, he build 10 or so antinukes in a line, and those exploded so violently that killing 2 in the middle resulted in a chain reaction that blew everything away....
Somehow, that doesnt seem right to me... nukelear launcher should something volatible... not somemething you bunch together and dont need to care if one gets killed by berta because it only deals 20-30% damage to the surrounding
And why does a antinuke explode stronger than a nuke?
edit: (everything is about xta 0.62, just to avaid misunderstanding)..
Also i noticed doomsday machines have almost zero damage splash when exploding... also a feature?
Nuke/antinuke building explosion...
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Posts: 265
- Joined: 04 Sep 2005, 01:25
From a realistic stand point, nukes don't explode like any other explosive. The anti-nukes aren't nukes themselves, they are guided missiles packed with conventional impact explosives. Where as a nuke in real life has to have a functioning electrical mechanism to trigger a particular sequence of events to cause the explosion. Spesifically the rapid densification of some radioactive ore. In real life you could stop an incoming nuclear missile with a hand gun if you had some devine luck and managed to plant a bullet in it's electronic detonator. Conversly if you were to try that with a standard missile like the TA anti-nuke, you'd just blow it up and probably yourself along with it.
Also that's how it was in the actually geniune OTA.
Also that's how it was in the actually geniune OTA.
I know, i know. Im a physcist IRL...
Yeah, but TA doesnt follow that kind of realism (or a destroyed would create a ammo dump explosion ripping half your base apart)
Also, remember that a nuke silo stores MISSILES. (i.e. 100s of tons of fuel and oxidisers, plus the shape charges for the warheads, ect,ect).
(also, "antinukes" (proposed ones) are often nukes themself. With MIRV warheads and ballistic entry, hitting chances are very slim, and the tradeoff between a kiloton explosion in the stratoshpere or a megaton explosion on groundlevel seem sound)
Yeah, but TA doesnt follow that kind of realism (or a destroyed would create a ammo dump explosion ripping half your base apart)
Also, remember that a nuke silo stores MISSILES. (i.e. 100s of tons of fuel and oxidisers, plus the shape charges for the warheads, ect,ect).
(also, "antinukes" (proposed ones) are often nukes themself. With MIRV warheads and ballistic entry, hitting chances are very slim, and the tradeoff between a kiloton explosion in the stratoshpere or a megaton explosion on groundlevel seem sound)
The only anti-nukes that ever used were amusing little things. Nike missiles, two stage rockets with a relatively small warhead and no homing capacity. The idea was to fire enough into the air in hopes that one of them would hit. I live less than a mile away from where one wasIMSabbel wrote:I know, i know. Im a physcist IRL...
Yeah, but TA doesnt follow that kind of realism (or a destroyed would create a ammo dump explosion ripping half your base apart)
Also, remember that a nuke silo stores MISSILES. (i.e. 100s of tons of fuel and oxidisers, plus the shape charges for the warheads, ect,ect).
(also, "antinukes" (proposed ones) are often nukes themself. With MIRV warheads and ballistic entry, hitting chances are very slim, and the tradeoff between a kiloton explosion in the stratoshpere or a megaton explosion on groundlevel seem sound)

Another thing... NIKE's were anti aircraft missilesKuroneko wrote:The only anti-nukes that ever used were amusing little things. Nike missiles, two stage rockets with a relatively small warhead and no homing capacity. The idea was to fire enough into the air in hopes that one of them would hit. I live less than a mile away from where one wasIMSabbel wrote:I know, i know. Im a physcist IRL...
Yeah, but TA doesnt follow that kind of realism (or a destroyed would create a ammo dump explosion ripping half your base apart)
Also, remember that a nuke silo stores MISSILES. (i.e. 100s of tons of fuel and oxidisers, plus the shape charges for the warheads, ect,ect).
(also, "antinukes" (proposed ones) are often nukes themself. With MIRV warheads and ballistic entry, hitting chances are very slim, and the tradeoff between a kiloton explosion in the stratoshpere or a megaton explosion on groundlevel seem sound)

Actually, yesterday in a game i witnessed such a event...
I was just raping an oponents base with my airforce on shoretoshor, and had about 100 planes around his nuke silos (which was where i started the cleaning...). He tried to lauch them, and my bombers hit one nuke missile as it just launched... byebye airfore....
I was just raping an oponents base with my airforce on shoretoshor, and had about 100 planes around his nuke silos (which was where i started the cleaning...). He tried to lauch them, and my bombers hit one nuke missile as it just launched... byebye airfore....