Atomic Weapons

[Albacore]

I heard a lot of talk about possibly implementing an atomic bomb in AH II(by talk I just mean BS about how cool it would be and how it could be perked). My thinking is for the problem of blast radius and the inevitable killshooting, simply disable killshooting just for the effects of the bomb. Blast kills all enemies and all friendlies without the penalty for the offending b29. The logic being that killing your own will earn you enough scorn among your team to discourage irresponsible use of the tool. Otherwise, perked correctly, it could be a very interesting device indeed to use in missions.

[joeblogs]

This would totally change the game as anyone who has played Nuclear Risk would tell you.

-Blogs

[Kirby]

Only if a country could use it once every 10 hours, also, how would you choose who would drop it?

[funkedup]

I'm sure even a nuke wouldn't hurt the Porkwind's gun crew.

[Squire]

Nukes in AH is far and away the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

[Albacore]

Thanks for that constructive opinion squire. You should appeal to the governments of the world, stating that nuclear weapons in general are far and away the dumbest thing you've ever heard of.
If you don't like the thread, keep your nose out of it.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Albacore
Thanks for that constructive opinion squire. You should appeal to the governments of the world, stating that nuclear weapons in general are far and away the dumbest thing you've ever heard of.
If you don't like the thread, keep your nose out of it.

So nobody is allowed to disagree with you?

I dont want nuclear weapons in AH either....

[Albacore]

Disagreements I don't mind. Somebody saying 'it's dumb' or 'retarded' or whatnot is not constructive. If he had something convincing to say I woudn't have said a thing concerning his reply.

[ispar]

How are we supposed to disagree constructively on a matter that is, frankly, dumb? Possibly even retarded.

It's a stupid idea. It's not nice, but it's true. What is there to construct?

[Squire]

Nuclear bombs have no place in a flight sim that is about WW2 air combat.

They were used twice only, on 2 missions that ended the war, they would be impossible to integrate into the game properly, they have almost no historic relevence to WW2 campaigns, they would be hugely unbalancing to any side that had a few to drop.

The biggest reason is that it would turn AH into: Nuke Birds, with every dimwitt in the world getting his rocks off trying to drop one somewhere.

Its a very bad idea that would not work. I understand Janes F-18 has a hack program that enables a tac nuke as a loadout. Go fly that.

Toodles.

[WhiteHawk]

I think v-1's and v-2's should come in AH way before nukes do.

[Arlo]

Now the question is .... how much closer is the end of time than never.

[Albacore]

I've actually played the f22 sim that has a ten kiloton tac nuk as a loadout option. Can't say the single weapon option really changed the game that much. Despite the plentiful opinions circulating on this subjct, nobody really has the authority to say whether or not it would work. If nuclear weapons are treated more like CVs, are controlled stricklyand given to every team on an equal level(at least at the start of the map) then it really could add something new to the game. No, I'm not envisioning fleets of little-boy equipped superfortresses going to bomb a VH. Nuclear bases could be added and used in a new, far more controlled way. Either way, since we've never seen it, there's no precedent and thus nothing really to discuss. I personally believe that Ah and games like it should embrace new and unique options and let the player decide to how to use them. That being said, it's almost always better to have more options than fewer. Also, cocnerning the limited use of nukes in WWII, let's be honest fellas. Reality of WWII and the MA don't have too much in common. Guys upping into vulched fields, divebombing Lancs, tanks exploding on contact with trees. A little controlled nuclear presance could be a viable element in this game and if nothing else, a great thing to watch from a distance. Anyway, just wanted to point out that this issue is far from cut and dried and plenty of people are on both sides of the argument.

Toodles yourself.

[Squire]

"and if nothing else, a great thing to watch from a distance"

I rest my case.

[Innominate]

Nukes are one of the things that sound 'neat', but when any real thought is given to thier addition, it's obvious there is no place for them.