Jump to content

Nuclear Strike instead of Naval Bombardment on Commander Skill Tree?


87 replies to this topic

Poll: Nuclear Strike instead of Naval Bombardment? (351 member(s) have cast votes)

Nuclear Strike instead of Naval Bombardment?

  1. Yes (22 votes [6.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.27%

  2. No (318 votes [90.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 90.60%

  3. Not Sure (11 votes [3.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.13%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#81 DeadWingman

    Member

  • Pip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 12 posts
  • LocationSurrey, BC

Posted 17 July 2012 - 04:26 PM

View PostMaverick01, on 16 July 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Having nuclear strike capability instead of naval bombardment on the commander skill tree would be epic for MWO. Obviously a warning should be given (e.g. nuclear missile detected) and the commander would be limited to one per match.

If the enemy mech is far enough away from ground zero, they should survive the massive explosion and shockwave, but still suffer minor-to-moderate damage. However, if the enemy mech is located at ground zero, they would suffer critical damage. Imagine being in game and all of a sudden a bright flash blinds you on screen as you hear a massive explosion! This would need to be balanced, but the developers could make it work.

http://mwomercs.com/...le-warfare-cont

you realize that a warship packs just as much destructive firepower as a nuke right? nukes were banned by the ares conventions

#82 Xune

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 810 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 17 July 2012 - 11:09 PM

its sad to see 10% think its a good idear even after so many valid points why it shiuld never happen before the Jihad time

#83 Stavinsky Elyas

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 03:10 AM

Nuclear strike were used in the first wars, but definitively avoided by every major house
by the years 3000.

Even if some weapons are around, as we can see in the books. Their use
is always avoided, and the only who use them only mark themselves to be
chased down.


Even Naval Bombardment was mostly avoided too.

Take a look at the ARES conventions. Even if they are not "enforced rules"
and that they were disregarded pretty often. Most of the people who
messed with those rules had pretty bad ends.


http://www.sarna.net...res_Conventions

#84 Engineering

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 77 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 04:03 AM

Couple of points I've seen here. First is naval bombardment. In this era that means exactly the same thing as in our world. Ships firing shells and bombarding targets inland. No warships available for the average commander till... actually they never become available for the average commander. naval bombardment however is available on most water worlds your house controls.

Secondly no nukes were used other than in a few isolated incidents after the second succession war.

Third someone mentioned killer whales. Those are conventional black navy weapons. Just missiles packed with large amounts of conventional explosives.

A nuclear weapon if properly constructed acts exactly like a conventional explosive weapon with emp and a short duration of residual radiation contamination. Most military tactical nukes are NOT dirty bombs they are meant to keep radiation contamination to a minimum. The biggest threat of nukes is not the radiation but in fact the sheer scale of conventional destruction it can inflict. 500 kilotons is an unimaginable amount of explosive. That is the equivilent of 500,000,000 kg of conventional TNT. That is the real threat of nuclear weapons unless they are designed poorly and become a dirty bomb. Radiation is useless in a conventional war. It makes whatever land you are trying to take unusable for long period.

Hiroshima is a good example. If you go to Hiroshima today it is a large city with only a slightly higher background radiation. While it did contaminate the area with radiation it only did so for a short period of time. Most of the radiation was gone within the first month.

#85 Vulpesveritas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • LocationWinsconsin, USA

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:14 AM

I vote for Obibital bonbardment.


#86 Jiri Starrider

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • LocationCalafia, Caid (San Diego, CA)

Posted 18 July 2012 - 07:45 AM

View PostStavinsky Elyas, on 18 July 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

Even Naval Bombardment was mostly avoided too.

Kinda due to a lack of Warships ya... As Engineering posted, it means Naval as in Ocean, not Space.

#87 Exilyth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,100 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 18 July 2012 - 08:07 AM

not sure - This might be a nice upgrade for Jihad Era, but there's not many nukes during succession wars and clan invasion era.

#88 Seabear

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 461 posts
  • LocationMesquite, Texas

Posted 20 July 2012 - 12:11 PM

Any one who initiates a nuclear strike will be hunted down for the evil animal he/she is! Everyone's hand will be against them, and they will find no rest or peace anywhere in the IS. Have you forgotten the Ares Convention?

Edited by Seabear, 20 July 2012 - 12:12 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users