Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> The War Room



Message

jds1978 -> Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/26/2014 9:55:34 PM)

Couple of questions before I get into this scenario....

1. Can the AI handle nukes or should I play this one H2H?


2. Anything special I ought to know before I turn the launch keys?


3. What has been players experiences on a nuclear battlefield?



CapnDarwin -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/27/2014 2:16:56 AM)

AI at the moment does not use NBC weapons. Something we can look at adding down the road. There a VP penalty for using the nuke so make sure you are getting a good clump of enemy units to offset the cost. Radiation hexes are bad. Don't drive in them.



jds1978 -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/27/2014 11:09:27 AM)

Thanks, Capn Darwin!

I actually found the time to start reading the manual last night (prior to that, I had only gone by watching youtube AAR's.....your game is VERY intuitive if you are a grog.)

Got about 1/2 through "Thor's Hammer" and had to stop....I was down to (literally) a single pair of Challengers and a lonely Striker ATGM track (who was badly out of position.) Ivan was fully invested in the town to the south and pushing a battalion across the river. I kept waiting for SAUCER to give me the launch codes, but the 2 Lance batteries kept showing +169 minutes.

Q: Is there something in the script (ie: loss of certain VPs) that gives you the Lance SSM's? I still had >70% of the VP's when I quit, but things were set to go pear shaped the next turn



jds1978 -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/28/2014 4:20:07 PM)

Played this all the way through last night.....let's just say everyone lost, but I 'lost worse'[:o]

Back to the drawing board



cbelva -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/28/2014 5:04:30 PM)

Did you get the launch code in your second play thru?



Mad Russian -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/28/2014 6:31:22 PM)

You should be able to launch those before 'losing everything'!

Good Hunting.

MR



Werewolf13 -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/28/2014 9:00:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

AI at the moment does not use NBC weapons. Something we can look at adding down the road. There a VP penalty for using the nuke so make sure you are getting a good clump of enemy units to offset the cost. Radiation hexes are bad. Don't drive in them.


Don't walk in 'em - for sure. Bad ju-ju for ground pounders on the ground - assuming they lived thru the burst that is.

APC's - better let the burst area cool down for a day or two.

But don't drive in 'em? With a NATO tank? Hmmm... <that's a head scratcher>

Why not? I can't speak to Warsaw Pact tank armor but the Chobham armor in NATO tanks is not just great armor against kinetic energy, directed energy and HE rounds but about the best radiation shielding available bar none. Ceramic and polymer layers stop neutron radiation dead in its tracks. The steel and DU layers don't stop all the gamma but reduce it exponentially to a very low level against all but extremely high levels of radiation such that - US tanks at least - it can protect crew from any tactical grade nuclear burst except what would for all practical purposes be a direct hit. (its been over 30 years since I was trained on this but IIRC 1/2 thickness for gamma radiation of steel is an inch or a little more. It's way less for DU. 1/2 thickness is the amount of shielding required to cut the radiation level in 1/2. Chobam is pretty thick).

Not that big of a deal but considering the geographic and time scales of FPC:RS I'd say letting NATO tanks that survive the burst drive thru the impacted hexes would be fairly safe - radiation wise anyway.

That said: Not sure how well the vehicles would survive the EMP effect of a nuclear burst but can't imagine that they haven't been somewhat hardened. The M1 after all was designed to fight in Europe against the Soviets. Not designing them to survive on a nuclear battlefield would seem to me to be a major oversight at best and pure incomptence at worst.




Elfastball7 -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/28/2014 9:46:57 PM)

But doesn't a nuclear blast have to be at a certain altitude in the atmosphere in order to generate a EMP? I would assume that tac nukes would be a ground burst or a very low airburst. I may not be correct in that assumption though.

Thanks



jds1978 -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (2/28/2014 9:49:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva

Did you get the launch code in your second play thru?



Yeah....everything worked as it was designed. No bugs or anything weird. The first SSM wiped out a battalion of advancing Red BMP's and T-80's. The second shot was a bit off in my delivery...it only took out <1/3rd of the target (I fired a bit off center to avoid a Blue on Blue incident....kind of silly now that I think about it as the British Coy in the line of fire was trapped in the built up urban area in the south of the map {ie: they were going to die any how})

I need to read up on disengaging from the enemy, spreading my force out (to avoid losing a lot of forces in case the nuke has to be dropped close by) and maintaining visual observation while not ceding the battlefield



Werewolf13 -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (3/1/2014 12:18:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elfastball7

But doesn't a nuclear blast have to be at a certain altitude in the atmosphere in order to generate a EMP? I would assume that tac nukes would be a ground burst or a very low airburst. I may not be correct in that assumption though.

Thanks


Nope...
They are just more effective at taking out electronics when at altitude. What altitude is a factor of the yield.

You are right though that a ground burst wouldn't be all that effective. Good point. One wonders what altitude would be chosen for a tactical nuke targeted at armored vehicles though.



Mad Russian -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (3/1/2014 12:30:05 AM)

If I was the one targeting it I'd have them go off 100 feet off the ground. High enough for blast effect, low enough for blast effect. [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR



jds1978 -> RE: Thor's Hammer: Let's Talk Armageddon (3/1/2014 12:56:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elfastball7

But doesn't a nuclear blast have to be at a certain altitude in the atmosphere in order to generate a EMP? I would assume that tac nukes would be a ground burst or a very low airburst. I may not be correct in that assumption though.

Thanks


Nope...
They are just more effective at taking out electronics when at altitude. What altitude is a factor of the yield.

You are right though that a ground burst wouldn't be all that effective. Good point. One wonders what altitude would be chosen for a tactical nuke targeted at armored vehicles though.


Yeah...the use of tactical nukes would have an uncertain affect on localized communications (especially anything not shielded)....some stuff will get cooked though

The trouble (as you alluded) is that the EMP effect is very unpredictable as it depends on certain atmospheric conditions (which are frankly, beyond my understanding.) One of the US H-Bomb tests in the Pacific caused a massive blackout, while other tests did nothing in regards to electronics (I believe the test in question was a high stratospheric test.)

*****************

My plan for the next run through of Thor's Hammer will be to look ahead for a better disengagement with the PACT troops 45-20 minutes before the launch codes get delivered. Had I put the second nuke on target better, I think I would've won (of course, the next 24 hours or so would be real 'interesting'....any historians left to write about my victory would probably be using stone tablets)[:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1