Time to go nuclear?

[Abuse_Claws]

I would say that this idea is better suited for a mod/DLC, or at least players should have an option to disable this content.

With the tech tree being gradually expanded (modern armor comes to mind for example) and some branches being already too long (20" mark 5 guns are basically unobtanium unless you focus on big guns during the entire game, and since gun barrels were added turret mechanisms seem to be overloaded as well) I wonder if the campaign should be extended to 1960 or even further.

And with that it might be time to go nuclear! Nuclear propulsion for ships and submarines (hell, maybe even auxiliary reactors for super battleships), nuclear large-caliber shells and torps  (for naval bombardment or maybe even to try and yeet an enemy battleship out of existence). 

Might also include stuff like "Radiation protection" to Internal Protection tech branch, "On-board Atomic Clock" to Control Towers etc

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Abuse_Claws
Afterthought

[Candle_86]

Ya why not, in truth this game exists in a world without the airplane, so why not

[SpardaSon21]

Where's the fun in that?  One 16" shell from the USA later and the enemy fleet is going to need to scuttle any ships still afloat to avoid contaminating their home waters if they sail home.

Edited November 23, 2022 by SpardaSon21

[Lastreaumont]

9 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Where's the fun in that?  One 16" shell from the USA later and the enemy fleet is going to need to scuttle any ships still afloat to avoid contaminating their home waters if they sail home.

A vision a little too cataclysmic I think. 
I agree that a hit ship that survives to the taken damages should probably need to be decontaminated before repair, but I'm not sure for the others. 
And the firing ship is not too far away from its target too. It certainly won't fire an ammunation that implies to scuttle it too. 
Nuclear is dangerous, but not as dangerous as you seem to think about it. 

[SpardaSon21]

8 minutes ago, Lastreaumont said:

A vision a little too cataclysmic I think. 
I agree that a hit ship that survives to the taken damages should probably need to be decontaminated before repair, but I'm not sure for the others. 
And the firing ship is not too far away from its target too. It certainly won't fire an ammunation that implies to scuttle it too. 
Nuclear is dangerous, but not as dangerous as you seem to think about it. 

Oh, a damaged nuclear reactor should be able to scram safely and kill itself before it can cause any trouble for sure.  I was just making a reference to the nuclear warheads the Navy whipped up for their 16" guns (W23, with an estimated 20kt yield).  They shouldn't have bothered because the Army managed to make one that fit in an eight inch piece in 1957 (W33 with a maximum tested yield of 40kt), and a 155mm nuclear shell in 1963 (W48, with an estimated 72 ton yield).

If you think that's bad and/or impressive, we managed to fit a tactical nuke with a yield larger than Little Boy on the Skyraider, a single-engine piston plane, by sticking a 20kt warhead on a massive rocket so the pilot had time to fly away after toss bombing it.

[Lastreaumont]

51 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Oh, a damaged nuclear reactor should be able to scram safely and kill itself before it can cause any trouble for sure. 

I'm not sure that a nuclear powered ship with its reactor enough damaged to cause any trouble will stay onfloat for long. 
 

51 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

They shouldn't have bothered because the Army managed to make one that fit in an eight inch piece in 1957 (W33 with a maximum tested yield of 40kt), and a 155mm nuclear shell in 1963 (W48, with an estimated 72 ton yield).

If you think that's bad and/or impressive, we managed to fit a tactical nuke with a yield larger than Little Boy on the Skyraider, a single-engine piston plane, by sticking a 20kt warhead on a massive rocket so the pilot had time to fly away after toss bombing it.

Ok, nuclear shells exist. So Abuse_claws' proposal isn't completly unrealistic. 

[mk4m]

On 11/17/2022 at 12:09 PM, Abuse_Claws said:

I would say that this idea is better suited for a mod/DLC, or at least players should have an option to disable this content.

With the tech tree being gradually expanded (modern armor comes to mind for example) and some branches being already too long (20" mark 5 guns are basically unobtanium unless you focus on big guns during the entire game, and since gun barrels were added turret mechanisms seem to be overloaded as well) I wonder if the campaign should be extended to 1960 or even further.

And with that it might be time to go nuclear! Nuclear propulsion for ships and submarines (hell, maybe even auxiliary reactors for super battleships), nuclear large-caliber shells and torps  (for naval bombardment or maybe even to try and yeet an enemy battleship out of existence). 

Might also include stuff like "Radiation protection" to Internal Protection tech branch, "On-board Atomic Clock" to Control Towers etc

 

No.

[Darth Khyron]

Yeah. Develop nuclear shells, radar device and win instantly. While not unrealistic in later game stages, it would be a no-go.

Crude guided missiles perhaps, but no nuclear weapons. Not ever. Please.

[Abuse_Claws]

2 hours ago, Darth Khyron said:

Crude guided missiles perhaps, but no nuclear weapons. Not ever. Please.

Depends on the implementation. I would say guided missiles would ruin the game more, as they would basically allow for very high accuracy at very long ranges, making conventional artillery obsolete almost immediately.
But suppose you can have like 5-10 nuclear shells on a super battleship instead of 1/2 of your entire ammo complement (because of necessary added weight of radiation shielding and high cost), with high chance for quite catastrophic ammo detonation and the accuracy of, well, a regular shell. Trying to fire them at range with low accuracy would be a waste, trying to get close for a guaranteed hit is quite a risk (if you are fighting against an enemy battleship. Using shells that cost like a cruiser each to kill anything less than super BBs would be a waste). So it would be a high-risk high-reward mechanic when used in battles, with conventional shells possibly being just more effective overall. Same goes for nuclear torps.
But for port strikes that would add a real opportunity to effectively put whole ports out of service for quite a while, which would incentivise actually trying to get to the enemy ports and protect your own

[SpardaSon21]

21 hours ago, Lastreaumont said:

Ok, nuclear shells exist. So Abuse_claws' proposal isn't completly unrealistic. 

Nuclear shells, nuclear torpedoes, nuclear depth charges...

[anonusername]

On 11/24/2022 at 9:09 AM, Abuse_Claws said:

Depends on the implementation. I would say guided missiles would ruin the game more, as they would basically allow for very high accuracy at very long ranges, making conventional artillery obsolete almost immediately.
But suppose you can have like 5-10 nuclear shells on a super battleship instead of 1/2 of your entire ammo complement (because of necessary added weight of radiation shielding and high cost), with high chance for quite catastrophic ammo detonation and the accuracy of, well, a regular shell. Trying to fire them at range with low accuracy would be a waste, trying to get close for a guaranteed hit is quite a risk (if you are fighting against an enemy battleship. Using shells that cost like a cruiser each to kill anything less than super BBs would be a waste). So it would be a high-risk high-reward mechanic when used in battles, with conventional shells possibly being just more effective overall. Same goes for nuclear torps.
But for port strikes that would add a real opportunity to effectively put whole ports out of service for quite a while, which would incentivise actually trying to get to the enemy ports and protect your own

With nuclear 16-20" shells, airburst becomes a real possibility. Even if you can't manage to make shrapnel penetrate BB armor, it would probably cripple their radar.

[Abuse_Claws]

4 hours ago, anonusername said:

With nuclear 16-20" shells, airburst becomes a real possibility. Even if you can't manage to make shrapnel penetrate BB armor, it would probably cripple their radar.

Yeah, it will do damage on airburst, especially if you hit a tight formation of lighter ships, but I'm not sure how cost-effective it would be.

With 1940-50 tech nuclear shells won't come cheap

 

[anonusername]

18 hours ago, Abuse_Claws said:

Yeah, it will do damage on airburst, especially if you hit a tight formation of lighter ships, but I'm not sure how cost-effective it would be.

With 1940-50 tech nuclear shells won't come cheap

 

A fleet with crippled radar in 1950 are basically sitting ducks, so I imagine it would be quite cost effective. You would only need a handful of shells for each engagement, as once the enemy is crippled you can use conventional shells to pick them off.