atomic weapon blast zones

Maybe the math would make more sense as 2nx/(1+(y/10)) where 'n' is the level of the nuke, 'y' is the distance in kilometers, and 'x' is the basic firepower rating of the nuke (i.e., 1500).

Using this formula, the power of the blast of a level 1 atomic bomber at the center of the blast would be:

n=1 (level 1)

x=800

y=0 (kilometers)

2nx/(1+(y/10)) >> 2*1*800/(1+(0/10)) = 2*800/(1+0) = 1600/1 = 1600

Which would be double the original rating for a basic first level nuke at the center of the blast.

Then, the same nuke at 20 kilometers away would have:

n=1 (level 1)

x=800

y=20 (kilometers)

2nx/(1+(y/10)) >> 2*1*800/(1+(20/10)) = 2*800/(1+2) = 1600/3 = 533.33

Which would be less than the original rating for a basic first level nuke a little ways away from the center of the blast.

Then, the same nuke at 80 kilometers away would have:

n=1 (level 1)

x=800

y=80 (kilometers)

2nx/(1+(y/10)) >> 2*1*800/(1+(80/10)) = 2*800/(1+ = 1600/9 = 177.78

Which would be much less than the original rating for a basic first level nuke farther away from the center of the blast.

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

Similar math for higher level nukes would work just as well mathematically. For example, the atomic missile, which I treat as level 4 for the sake of calculations, at a distance of 45 kilometers from the center of the blast, would be:

n=4 (level 4)

x=3000

y=45 (kilometers)

2nx/(1+(y/10)) >> 2*4*3000/(1+(45/10)) = 2*12000/(1+4.5) = 24000/5.5 = 4363.64

Which, at a distance of 45 kilometers away from the blast, is still stronger than the original rating for an atomic missile. This would better-reflect the reality of a more-advanced nuclear weapon on a missile.

Even still, that same missile at the center of the blast would be:

n=4 (level 4)

x=3000

y=0 (kilometers)

2nx/(1+(y/10)) >> 2*4*3000/(1+(0/10)) = 2*12000/(1+0) = 24000/1 = 24000

Which I feel is a far more realistic blast of an advanced nuke at point blank range.

And, that same missile at a very far distance from the center of the blast might be:

n=4 (level 4)

x=3000

y=105 (kilometers)

2nx/(1+(y/10)) >> 2*4*3000/(1+(105/10)) = 2*12000/(1+10.5) = 24000/11.5 = 2086.96

Which is significantly less than the original rating for the atomic missile and far less than the maximum potential of the atomic missile at the center of the blast when using my proposed formula.

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

The ratings of nukes matters so level 1, level 2, and level 3 of atomic bombers have corresponding levels of 'n' while the atomic missile gets a 4 since it's further in development of the tech even though it has the same original strength as the level 3 atomic bomber.

Maybe these numbers are realistic...maybe not. The figures can be tweaked or the formula can be tweaked. But this is a good starting point for a gradient reduction in nukes with a stronger focal point near the center of the blast. Also, with these calculations, my earlier suggestion about weakening AA against nuke bombers might not need to be done, though I think that should still be done.

Additionally, there should be a radial cut-off distance for the calculations (i.e., 120 kiometers) to prevent extra processing wasted on minute damages.

I welcome tweaks or other ideas or mathematical formulae to achieve similar results.

For example, maybe instead of 2nx/(1+(y/10)), it could be 3nx/(2+(y/10)) or maybe 2nx/(3+(y/10)). Just changing the base coefficients could have interesting effects on the intensity of the gradient as it changes.

*takes a small look at @Diabolicals post, brain runs on overload, dies*

First of all, I don't use nuclear weapons very often so it may be the aspect of the game I don't understand so well. However, I don't like what I see here. You want to make nukes hit strong at the point of impact and weaker if the distance from impact to unit being hit increases. That part is ok, but my opinion is that most nukes will hit a single stack, not many of them scattered around, and in that case we would have super nukes because you propose them to be much stronger at point of impact.

I repeat, I don't use them too often and I maybe don't full understand how strong they are now, but I am not sure that I would want nukes to be several times stronger than they are now.

Pablo22510 wrote:

*takes a small look at @Diabolicals post, brain runs on overload, dies*

Paramunac wrote:

First of all, I don't use nuclear weapons very often so it may be the aspect of the game I don't understand so well. However, I don't like what I see here. You want to make nukes hit strong at the point of impact and weaker if the distance from impact to unit being hit increases. That part is ok, but my opinion is that most nukes will hit a single stack, not many of them scattered around, and in that case we would have super nukes because you propose them to be much stronger at point of impact.

I repeat, I don't use them too often and I maybe don't full understand how strong they are now, but I am not sure that I would want nukes to be several times stronger than they are now.

*A note about gravity: unlike the expected reduction in force of a blast, the reduction in gravity does not have a cut-off point, it is still measurable and -- theoretically -- detectable at great distances because the graph of the strength of gravity will tend towards zero without actually ever reaching zero (theoretically speaking, of course).

However, back on your point, I've already confirmed -- as many players should already know -- that the current method of the nuke impact is that everything within a blast radius gets hits, not just the central target. This is already true and it makes sense. What I don't know is the actual blast radius. But, I've determined that a nuke will hit things at least one and a half times away as the size of the crater. So, in reality, the current nuke effect should show a crater twice as big or a secondary graphic to indicate the wide-reaching effect of the nuke (like in the old movie footage of houses and trees being blown away at a distance away from wherever the crater would be centralized).

That was not my point. I wanted to say that you are trying to make nukes much stronger that they are now.

Paramunac wrote:

That was not my point. I wanted to say that you are trying to make nukes much stronger that they are now.

That is MY point!

But only stronger at the epicenter...weaker away from there.

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

Speaking of epicenters....why don't we add earthquakes to the game as a random event?

Hmm...?

Diabolical wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

*takes a small look at @Diabolicals post, brain runs on overload, dies*

It's just math!

Good suggestion.

Wow, that Diabolical really knows his stuff. This suggestion should DEFINITELY be considered by the development team at Bytro.