How will nukes work ?

[SvarogX]

How will nukes work ?

Apparently there will be nukes, also for multiplayer PvP available ?
How exactly is this gonna work?

I would assume we are talking about tactical nukes? Will these have a significant impact on the match or will they just work like other bombs with area denial capabilities ?

I would really like to see and hear a bit more about the nukes that this game will offer and perhaps other weapons of mass destruction such as chemical or biological ones.

Also, will there be an adjustment made in fire ? I have noticed that forests that burn down, still offer the same amount of cover, which does not make a lot of sense to me, I think terrain should be 100% deformable, like in Men of War 2 or other games.

[Warlord-616x]

i hope for no nukes. they wont be fun or to scale at this level.

[SvarogX]

Originally posted by Warlord-616x:

i hope for no nukes. they wont be fun or to scale at this level.

How do you know if nukes will be fun or not ?

What do you mean by at this level ?


Nukes have been a thing in World in Conflict and no one had any problems with it, gameplay wise.

[nosh]

Broken Arrow has a very tactical Gameplay that requires a lot of Micromanagement, to move and supply your units in order to succeed.

Imagine now your enemy be like "PRESS BUTOON 2 NUKE" and everything in a certain part of the map is just gone.

I'd consider this not fun. Compare it to play chess and your opponent just throws the board at some point.

[SvarogX]

Originally posted by nosh:

Broken Arrow has a very tactical Gameplay that requires a lot of Micromanagement, to move and supply your units in order to succeed.

Imagine now your enemy be like "PRESS BUTOON 2 NUKE" and everything in a certain part of the map is just gone.

I'd consider this not fun. Compare it to play chess and your opponent just throws the board at some point.

Well, first off, no one is saying this is how its going to work, its just your very negative assumption to create panic and dislike, where there is non.

Secondly, this is not how tactical nukes work.

Last but not least, if you have played the game, you would know that we can shoot down missiles and air vehicles, why should this be any different with a nuke and why do you think our units won't have NBC capabilities ?

There are so many questions and points not even discussed, yet you already feel the need to assume something negative.

I have mentioned world in conflict for a reason!!

[nosh]

Originally posted by Zeno:

Originally posted by nosh:

Broken Arrow has a very tactical Gameplay that requires a lot of Micromanagement, to move and supply your units in order to succeed.

Imagine now your enemy be like "PRESS BUTOON 2 NUKE" and everything in a certain part of the map is just gone.

I'd consider this not fun. Compare it to play chess and your opponent just throws the board at some point.

Well, first off, no one is saying this is how its going to work, its just your very negative assumption to create panic and dislike, where there is non.

Secondly, this is not how tactical nukes work.

Last but not least, if you have played the game, you would know that we can shoot down missiles and air vehicles, why should this be any different with a nuke and why do you think our units won't have NBC capabilities ?

There are so many questions and points not even discussed, yet you already feel the need to assume something negative.

I have mentioned world in conflict for a reason!!

I'm neither creating panic and dislike, I'm just expressing my opinion on why I'd think the implementation of tactical nukes in a game with this scope would be not a good idea.

Tacical nukes work exactly like this, they explode and cause lot of destruction. How are they not working like this?

And it's portrayed like this in most games. Push Button => Big Boom => Round Ends / Many Units dead.

So all in all, I don't know why adding tactical nukes would improve gameplay.

[SvarogX]

Originally posted by nosh:

Originally posted by Zeno:

Well, first off, no one is saying this is how its going to work, its just your very negative assumption to create panic and dislike, where there is non.

Secondly, this is not how tactical nukes work.

Last but not least, if you have played the game, you would know that we can shoot down missiles and air vehicles, why should this be any different with a nuke and why do you think our units won't have NBC capabilities ?

There are so many questions and points not even discussed, yet you already feel the need to assume something negative.

I have mentioned world in conflict for a reason!!

I'm neither creating panic and dislike, I'm just expressing my opinion on why I'd think the implementation of tactical nukes in a game with this scope would be not a good idea.

Tacical nukes work exactly like this, they explode and cause lot of destruction. How are they not working like this?

And it's portrayed like this in most games. Push Button => Big Boom => Round Ends / Many Units dead.

So all in all, I don't know why adding tactical nukes would improve gameplay.

Its like talking to a wall.

[Pathfinder Serza]

Originally posted by Zeno:

Originally posted by nosh:

I'm neither creating panic and dislike, I'm just expressing my opinion on why I'd think the implementation of tactical nukes in a game with this scope would be not a good idea.

Tacical nukes work exactly like this, they explode and cause lot of destruction. How are they not working like this?

And it's portrayed like this in most games. Push Button => Big Boom => Round Ends / Many Units dead.

So all in all, I don't know why adding tactical nukes would improve gameplay.

Its like talking to a wall.

Ok, where do you disagree.

[SvarogX]

Originally posted by Pathfinder Serza:

Originally posted by Zeno:

Its like talking to a wall.

Ok, where do you disagree.

I literally explained this in my last posts.
Plus, this is not so much about disagreeing but him completely ignoring what I have said and going on with his panic mode rant about Nukes being scared of it ruining the game.

Are you his lawyer or something ?

[nosh]

You make a thread: "How will nukes work?" and tell me after I simplified explained how nukes usually work in games, that they don't work that way. Okay, how do you think they will work instead in Broken Arrow? Yes, maybe we can shoot them down with heavy SAMs as we can with ballistic missiles. Why not. Yes maybe there is some NBC zone / restricted area whatsoever where you can't move units through for the rest of the match. Sure, why not.

That doesn't change that if they hit, they will cause massive damage to a rather large area... after all... since... it's a nuke. And that's what I do not like in games. I think the nuke was silly in CoD, it is so in War Thunder and as of now I can't imagine a scenario where it'll add variety to the otherwise tactical gameplay of broken arrow, without being just some fancy ability/unit/perk whatsoever.

That's my opinion and I'm happy to discuss the subject, despite not seeing much positive implementation ideas currently.

[SvarogX]

Originally posted by nosh:

You make a thread: "How will nukes work?" and tell me after I simplified explained how nukes usually work in games, that they don't work that way. Okay, how do you think they will work instead in Broken Arrow? Yes, maybe we can shoot them down with heavy SAMs as we can with ballistic missiles. Why not. Yes maybe there is some NBC zone / restricted area whatsoever where you can't move units through for the rest of the match. Sure, why not.

That doesn't change that if they hit, they will cause massive damage to a rather large area... after all... since... it's a nuke. And that's what I do not like in games. I think the nuke was silly in CoD, it is so in War Thunder and as of now I can't imagine a scenario where it'll add variety to the otherwise tactical gameplay of broken arrow, without being just some fancy ability/unit/perk whatsoever.

That's my opinion and I'm happy to discuss the subject, despite not seeing much positive implementation ideas currently.

While nukes in games like Broken Arrow can simulate large-scale damage, their implementation can be more nuanced than simply causing widespread destruction. Incorporating strategic counters like SAMs or creating restricted zones adds depth to gameplay, balancing the impact of nukes with tactical considerations without overshadowing other gameplay elements. Exploring these possibilities could enrich the game's strategic depth rather than detract from it.

[Pathfinder Serza]

The B61 tactical nuclear bomb has a variable yield of, let's go for the lower values, from .3kt to 300kt (300 kilo tons, ie 300,000 tons of TNT, of three hundred million kilos).
Blast radius of that 300kt is somewhere around three and a half miles (or five and a half kilometers).

You seem to believe that CBRN gear (NBC is an outdated acronym, and you might find that even CBRN evolved into CBRNE over the years, but let's jsut forget that for a hot minute) is an automatic protection from any effects.

Well. There's a handy website on the interwebz that allowed me to project the various zones over Baltiysk. Why? Do I hate Russia? No. That was one of the maps in the open beta.

The nuclear fireball would effectively vaporize half of the frontline, then and there, as it commonly was during the beta. This is about 1km.
Heavy blast damage (specifically "heavy-built concrete buildings" like you would have seen on that map in the game) goes to about a kilometer and a half. Buildings are completely demolished here. Memory goes to the photo of a Tiger I suffering a near-hit by a 16" naval gun in Normandy being turned over. I imagine any tank would suffer a similar fate - at best.
At 3.2km, we get into "universal casualties, residential buildings are destroyed, fatalities widespread" - so chances are those concrete residentials so omnipresent in the Eastern Bloc still fall like dominoes here. At this point, this is the ENTIRE open beta map of Baltiysk.
At over six and a half kilometers, we're still with thermal radiation burns. Severe scarring, likely amputations, third degree burns still extremely likely if not omni-present. This covers the portions of the map only used in the singleplayer mission of the demo at this point.


Tell me how "nukes don't work like that" when a B61 will just vaporize half the map in a nuclear fireball on a ground detonation and render the remainder under heavy blast damage. CBRN gear won't protect you against THIS.
Airburst? Yeah, about double the distance on Medium blast damage, so you're still levelling THE WHOLE DAMN MAP.


...very fun gameplay to press button to instantly destroy every unit on the map.

[SvarogX]

Originally posted by Pathfinder Serza:

The B61 tactical nuclear bomb has a variable yield of, let's go for the lower values, from .3kt to 300kt (300 kilo tons, ie 300,000 tons of TNT, of three hundred million kilos).
Blast radius of that 300kt is somewhere around three and a half miles (or five and a half kilometers).

You seem to believe that CBRN gear (NBC is an outdated acronym, and you might find that even CBRN evolved into CBRNE over the years, but let's jsut forget that for a hot minute) is an automatic protection from any effects.

Well. There's a handy website on the interwebz that allowed me to project the various zones over Baltiysk. Why? Do I hate Russia? No. That was one of the maps in the open beta.

The nuclear fireball would effectively vaporize half of the frontline, then and there, as it commonly was during the beta. This is about 1km.
Heavy blast damage (specifically "heavy-built concrete buildings" like you would have seen on that map in the game) goes to about a kilometer and a half. Buildings are completely demolished here. Memory goes to the photo of a Tiger I suffering a near-hit by a 16" naval gun in Normandy being turned over. I imagine any tank would suffer a similar fate - at best.
At 3.2km, we get into "universal casualties, residential buildings are destroyed, fatalities widespread" - so chances are those concrete residentials so omnipresent in the Eastern Bloc still fall like dominoes here. At this point, this is the ENTIRE open beta map of Baltiysk.
At over six and a half kilometers, we're still with thermal radiation burns. Severe scarring, likely amputations, third degree burns still extremely likely if not omni-present. This covers the portions of the map only used in the singleplayer mission of the demo at this point.


Tell me how "nukes don't work like that" when a B61 will just vaporize half the map in a nuclear fireball on a ground detonation and render the remainder under heavy blast damage. CBRN gear won't protect you against THIS.
Airburst? Yeah, about double the distance on Medium blast damage, so you're still levelling THE WHOLE DAMN MAP.


...very fun gameplay to press button to instantly destroy every unit on the map.

Firstly, your argument centers around the devastating effects of a B61 tactical nuclear bomb, assuming the maximum yield of 300 kilotons. While it's true that nuclear weapons have immense destructive power, the inclusion of such weapons in a game like Broken Arrow doesn't necessarily mean they will be used to their full yield. Game developers have the creative liberty to adjust the parameters of these weapons to suit gameplay balance. This means that nukes in the game can be designed to have limited effects, making them strategic rather than game-breaking.

Secondly, you mention that CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) gear wouldn't protect against the effects of a nuclear detonation. This is an important point, but it's also one that can be balanced within the game's mechanics. CBRN gear in the game can be designed to offer protection against fallout and radiation without being an invincibility shield. The developers can incorporate realistic limitations to ensure that using nuclear weapons comes with significant strategic considerations and trade-offs.

Regarding the blast radius and destruction you outlined, it's crucial to remember that games often take creative liberties for the sake of balance and enjoyment. The actual deployment of a nuclear weapon in Broken Arrow can be scaled down, and its impact adjusted to create interesting tactical scenarios without rendering the game unplayable. For example, in many strategy games, nuclear weapons are used not for total annihilation but for targeted strikes that can turn the tide of a battle when used wisely.

Moreover, your description assumes that the game would allow players to use nuclear weapons indiscriminately, which is unlikely. Developers can implement strict conditions and limitations for the use of nuclear weapons, ensuring they are rare and require significant resources and strategic planning to deploy. This approach maintains the intensity and excitement of using such powerful weapons without trivializing the game.

Additionally, from a gameplay perspective, the inclusion of nuclear weapons adds a layer of strategic depth. Players must weigh the potential benefits against the severe consequences, such as fallout affecting their own troops or diplomatic repercussions within the game. This complexity can enhance the gameplay experience by introducing high-stakes decision-making.

In conclusion, while your points about the real-world effects of nuclear weapons are accurate, they do not necessarily translate directly into game mechanics. Developers have the flexibility to adjust and balance these elements to ensure that nuclear weapons add to the strategic depth and enjoyment of the game rather than detract from it. The key is not to dismiss the inclusion of nuclear weapons outright but to consider how they can be implemented thoughtfully to enhance the gaming experience.

[Pathfinder Serza]

Originally posted by Zeno:

Originally posted by Pathfinder Serza:

The B61 tactical nuclear bomb has a variable yield of, let's go for the lower values, from .3kt to 300kt (300 kilo tons, ie 300,000 tons of TNT, of three hundred million kilos).
Blast radius of that 300kt is somewhere around three and a half miles (or five and a half kilometers).

You seem to believe that CBRN gear (NBC is an outdated acronym, and you might find that even CBRN evolved into CBRNE over the years, but let's jsut forget that for a hot minute) is an automatic protection from any effects.

Well. There's a handy website on the interwebz that allowed me to project the various zones over Baltiysk. Why? Do I hate Russia? No. That was one of the maps in the open beta.

The nuclear fireball would effectively vaporize half of the frontline, then and there, as it commonly was during the beta. This is about 1km.
Heavy blast damage (specifically "heavy-built concrete buildings" like you would have seen on that map in the game) goes to about a kilometer and a half. Buildings are completely demolished here. Memory goes to the photo of a Tiger I suffering a near-hit by a 16" naval gun in Normandy being turned over. I imagine any tank would suffer a similar fate - at best.
At 3.2km, we get into "universal casualties, residential buildings are destroyed, fatalities widespread" - so chances are those concrete residentials so omnipresent in the Eastern Bloc still fall like dominoes here. At this point, this is the ENTIRE open beta map of Baltiysk.
At over six and a half kilometers, we're still with thermal radiation burns. Severe scarring, likely amputations, third degree burns still extremely likely if not omni-present. This covers the portions of the map only used in the singleplayer mission of the demo at this point.


Tell me how "nukes don't work like that" when a B61 will just vaporize half the map in a nuclear fireball on a ground detonation and render the remainder under heavy blast damage. CBRN gear won't protect you against THIS.
Airburst? Yeah, about double the distance on Medium blast damage, so you're still levelling THE WHOLE DAMN MAP.


...very fun gameplay to press button to instantly destroy every unit on the map.

Firstly, your argument centers around the devastating effects of a B61 tactical nuclear bomb, assuming the maximum yield of 300 kilotons. While it's true that nuclear weapons have immense destructive power, the inclusion of such weapons in a game like Broken Arrow doesn't necessarily mean they will be used to their full yield. Game developers have the creative liberty to adjust the parameters of these weapons to suit gameplay balance. This means that nukes in the game can be designed to have limited effects, making them strategic rather than game-breaking.

Secondly, you mention that CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) gear wouldn't protect against the effects of a nuclear detonation. This is an important point, but it's also one that can be balanced within the game's mechanics. CBRN gear in the game can be designed to offer protection against fallout and radiation without being an invincibility shield. The developers can incorporate realistic limitations to ensure that using nuclear weapons comes with significant strategic considerations and trade-offs.

Regarding the blast radius and destruction you outlined, it's crucial to remember that games often take creative liberties for the sake of balance and enjoyment. The actual deployment of a nuclear weapon in Broken Arrow can be scaled down, and its impact adjusted to create interesting tactical scenarios without rendering the game unplayable. For example, in many strategy games, nuclear weapons are used not for total annihilation but for targeted strikes that can turn the tide of a battle when used wisely.

Moreover, your description assumes that the game would allow players to use nuclear weapons indiscriminately, which is unlikely. Developers can implement strict conditions and limitations for the use of nuclear weapons, ensuring they are rare and require significant resources and strategic planning to deploy. This approach maintains the intensity and excitement of using such powerful weapons without trivializing the game.

Additionally, from a gameplay perspective, the inclusion of nuclear weapons adds a layer of strategic depth. Players must weigh the potential benefits against the severe consequences, such as fallout affecting their own troops or diplomatic repercussions within the game. This complexity can enhance the gameplay experience by introducing high-stakes decision-making.

In conclusion, while your points about the real-world effects of nuclear weapons are accurate, they do not necessarily translate directly into game mechanics. Developers have the flexibility to adjust and balance these elements to ensure that nuclear weapons add to the strategic depth and enjoyment of the game rather than detract from it. The key is not to dismiss the inclusion of nuclear weapons outright but to consider how they can be implemented thoughtfully to enhance the gaming experience.

Is this from ChatGPT? Because it feels like ChatGPT.

I wanna see an implementation that isn't just "Big bomb, but with after effects" that wipes out a bunch of the frontline.

[nosh]

Originally posted by Pathfinder Serza:

Originally posted by Zeno:

Firstly, your argument centers around the devastating effects of a B61 tactical nuclear bomb, assuming the maximum yield of 300 kilotons. While it's true that nuclear weapons have immense destructive power, the inclusion of such weapons in a game like Broken Arrow doesn't necessarily mean they will be used to their full yield. Game developers have the creative liberty to adjust the parameters of these weapons to suit gameplay balance. This means that nukes in the game can be designed to have limited effects, making them strategic rather than game-breaking.

Secondly, you mention that CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) gear wouldn't protect against the effects of a nuclear detonation. This is an important point, but it's also one that can be balanced within the game's mechanics. CBRN gear in the game can be designed to offer protection against fallout and radiation without being an invincibility shield. The developers can incorporate realistic limitations to ensure that using nuclear weapons comes with significant strategic considerations and trade-offs.

Regarding the blast radius and destruction you outlined, it's crucial to remember that games often take creative liberties for the sake of balance and enjoyment. The actual deployment of a nuclear weapon in Broken Arrow can be scaled down, and its impact adjusted to create interesting tactical scenarios without rendering the game unplayable. For example, in many strategy games, nuclear weapons are used not for total annihilation but for targeted strikes that can turn the tide of a battle when used wisely.

Moreover, your description assumes that the game would allow players to use nuclear weapons indiscriminately, which is unlikely. Developers can implement strict conditions and limitations for the use of nuclear weapons, ensuring they are rare and require significant resources and strategic planning to deploy. This approach maintains the intensity and excitement of using such powerful weapons without trivializing the game.

Additionally, from a gameplay perspective, the inclusion of nuclear weapons adds a layer of strategic depth. Players must weigh the potential benefits against the severe consequences, such as fallout affecting their own troops or diplomatic repercussions within the game. This complexity can enhance the gameplay experience by introducing high-stakes decision-making.

In conclusion, while your points about the real-world effects of nuclear weapons are accurate, they do not necessarily translate directly into game mechanics. Developers have the flexibility to adjust and balance these elements to ensure that nuclear weapons add to the strategic depth and enjoyment of the game rather than detract from it. The key is not to dismiss the inclusion of nuclear weapons outright but to consider how they can be implemented thoughtfully to enhance the gaming experience.

Is this from ChatGPT? Because it feels like ChatGPT.

I wanna see an implementation that isn't just "Big bomb, but with after effects" that wipes out a bunch of the frontline.

Originally posted by Zeno:

Originally posted by nosh:

You make a thread: "How will nukes work?" and tell me after I simplified explained how nukes usually work in games, that they don't work that way. Okay, how do you think they will work instead in Broken Arrow? Yes, maybe we can shoot them down with heavy SAMs as we can with ballistic missiles. Why not. Yes maybe there is some NBC zone / restricted area whatsoever where you can't move units through for the rest of the match. Sure, why not.

That doesn't change that if they hit, they will cause massive damage to a rather large area... after all... since... it's a nuke. And that's what I do not like in games. I think the nuke was silly in CoD, it is so in War Thunder and as of now I can't imagine a scenario where it'll add variety to the otherwise tactical gameplay of broken arrow, without being just some fancy ability/unit/perk whatsoever.

That's my opinion and I'm happy to discuss the subject, despite not seeing much positive implementation ideas currently.

While nukes in games like Broken Arrow can simulate large-scale damage, their implementation can be more nuanced than simply causing widespread destruction. Incorporating strategic counters like SAMs or creating restricted zones adds depth to gameplay, balancing the impact of nukes with tactical considerations without overshadowing other gameplay elements. Exploring these possibilities could enrich the game's strategic depth rather than detract from it.

Bro, GPTZero considers your last two answers as AI generated, I checked this because the text was very different from what you wrote before... Seriously this disucssion is not worth my time. Bye.

[Pathfinder Serza]

Ha, all that practice to recognize AI generated text FINALLY freaking paid off.