[Concept] Exploding launchers

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • [Concept] Exploding launchers

      If Cruise Missile Launcher destroyed:

      50% chance to explode like conventional cruise missile Tier I (if player has conventional warhead)
      50% chance to explode like chemical cruise missile Tier I (if player has chemical warheads)
      1% chance to explode like nuclear cruise missile Tier I (if player has nuclear warheads)

      Ballistic Missile Launcher destroyed:

      50% chance to explode like conventional ballistic missile Tier I (if player has conventional warhead)
      50% chance to explode like chemical ballistic missile Tier I (if player has chemical warheads)
      1% chance to explode like nuclear ballistic missile Tier I (if player has nuclear warheads)

      If ICBM Missile Launcher Destroyed:

      50% chance to explode like conventional ballistic missile tier I (damage = fuel + conventional warhead explosion )
      50% chance to cause contamination ( leak of radioactive substances )
      1% chance to explode like same level ICBM ( never knows )

      Special Forces ( if attacking ) prevents this effect (snipers take down the crew etc. ).

      Purpose: Launchers could be dangerous also to someone who uses them improperly, and it's more realistic I guess. Adds new option for creative play - for example Drone (with it's excellent range) is searching for a launcher - found it - fired CM - explosion annihilated a city ( because it's not a good place for ICBMs )
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



      The post was edited 8 times, last by Efreet ().

    • Well, I really don't know. :)

      But I've read somewhere, someday, that Russian bombers are flying over the Europe with some nuclear weapon, and no one wants to intercept them... I wonder why. :)
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



    • Hah, as far as I remember, some injector adds a particle to plutonium, uranium etc. so it becomes unstable and begins a chain reaction. My English language skills ends here. But you know, I'm sure I won't try to fry an atom bomb to find out. :D
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



    • So long as the bomber flies in international airspace, you can't legally shoot it down. The U.S. and its allies also fly planes near Russia and China from time to time. Nuclear weapons are complicated and intricate devices, and have lots of safeguards built in to prevent unintentional detonation.

      That said, it would be interesting, having a chance for them to go off when destroyed. I always send my launchers off to remote islands and jungles anyway, but that would add another reason to do so.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Nova Staff: Spelling corrections ().

    • I have read what "global brain" thinks about it, and I concluded that fuel and warhead in damaged ICBM will explode, also there will be radiation ( contamination ) but without a nuclear blast ( still little chance for that ). It seems that chemical and conventional missiles are more fragile than atom bomb. :) Of coz I'm aware that It's only a "pop" knowledge.

      Daryl Tew wrote:

      "During the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash, or the Palomares incident, a B-52G bomber broke upon upon collision with another plane and dropped its load of 4 hydrogen bombs! Fortunately, three were found on land quickly but the non-nuclear explosives in two of the weapons had detonated upon impact with the ground. It did not cause a chain reaction but only caused a leakage of the “dirty bomb ingredients”, resulting in the contamination of a 2-square-kilometer (490-acre) (0.78 square mile) area by plutonium. The fourth, which fell into the Mediterranean Sea, was recovered intact after a 2½-month-long search."

      Link to the source is here .

      I think most damage from missiles comes from precision strike, so damage should be lowered.

      I prepared some adjustment :

      If Cruise Missile Launcher destroyed:

      50% chance to explode like conventional cruise missile Tier I (if player has conventional warhead)
      50% chance to explode like chemical cruise missile Tier I (if player has chemical warheads)
      1% chance to explode like nuclear cruise missile Tier I (if player has nuclear warheads)

      Ballistic Missile Launcher destroyed:

      50% chance to explode like conventional ballistic missile Tier I (if player has conventional warhead)
      50% chance to explode like chemical ballistic missile Tier I (if player has chemical warheads)
      1% chance to explode like nuclear ballistic missile Tier I (if player has nuclear warheads)

      If ICBM Missile Launcher Destroyed:

      50% chance to explode like conventional ballistic missile tier I (damage = fuel + conventional warhead explosion )
      50% chance to cause contamination ( leak of radioactive substances )
      1% chance to explode like same level ICBM ( never knows )


      Previous version :

      If Cruise Missile Launcher / Ballistic Missile Launcher destroyed:
      If a player has proper warhead :
      50% chance to explode like equal conventional missile
      25% chance to explode like equal chemical missile
      10% chance to explode like equal nuclear missile

      If ICBM Missile Launcher Destroyed:
      If a player has proper warhead:
      50% chance to explode like same level ICBM
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



      The post was edited 4 times, last by Efreet ().

    • I have read what "global brain" thinks about it, and I concluded that fuel and warhead in damaged ICBM will explode, also there will be radiation ( contamination ) but without a nuclear blast ( still little chance for that ). It seems that chemical and conventional missiles are more fragile than atom bomb. Of coz I'm aware that It's only a "pop" knowledge

      i agree with this comment here from nova staff a lot more precise and where i was headed with my comment above
      i also wouldnt want to be the guy loading these things in icbms or bombers
      • hello
    • I found some info about weapon safety reading through the Wiki of the Thule crash:

      By 1979, the Los Alamos National Laboratory developed a new, safer type of explosive, called insensitive high explosive (IHE), for use in U.S. nuclear weapons;[74][75] the physicist and nuclear weapons designer Ray Kidder speculated that the weapons in the Palomares and Thule accidents would probably not have detonated had IHE been available at the time.

      ---

      What about ships and planes which can also launch missiles, how will you handle them, if they get destroyed?