The definition of nuke doesn't anywhere say how big or small it can be maybe in the future they learned how to contain the chainreaction of the atoms splitting so it only covered a smaller area.
It isn't the containment of atoms, but the types of energy released in ANY nuclear reaction (Read: Gamma, X). Though X-Rays can be contained, Gamma rays excite most particles they come in contact with to the point that they blow apart. Not condusive to keeping a room in one piece. Besides, in this day and age, nuclear warheads are so <span style='color:red'>commonplace</span>.
I think incindierdies are a great idea, but volumetrics has yet to be figured out.
Also: Who said a 0.25 kiloton nuclear warhead would "mess up a spot"?? Do you know what 0.25 kilotons translates to?? 250 tons of TNT in explosive force! That will blow any structure in a massive radius including space stations, shuttles, surface colonies and mountains into oblivion!
I don't know the -ton ratings, but nuclear shells fired from tanks level city blocks, and A bomb the side of your computer mouse could well bring a skyscraper down. Nuclear weapons have destructive capabilities exponentionally greater than conventional explosives. Multiply by the high hundreds
Then perhaps something even smaller than 0.25 kilotons, although I have doubts as to whether a 0.25 kiloton yield nuke would take out a mountain. Remember, Hiroshima was what, 20 kilotons? And while there was massive destruction, it wasn't just a several mile wide crater.
However, as someone else mentioned, this doesn't have to be particularly realistic. Call it a V-Pack, or something else mysterious and technological sounding. I was more interested in the game play of the situation.
I assure you, 250 tons of TNT in the right spot will chop a mountain in half. I suppose there was no crater at hiroshima because the bombs exploded some distance above the ground. I think nukes are prolly way too dangerous for our TSA buddies. They should prolly be concentrating on weapons that hurt aliens but not the environment or themselves, like a species specific viral inoculation or something
the name nuke means to me: cook, heatup, and total eradication of the oppostion in a single movement, so callin a weapon a "nuke" does not incline that it is a atomic device just one of mass destruction.
Nuking is (fairly uncommmon) slang for microwaving something. Im fairly sure it doesnt involve massive explosions and things. Lately nuke means destroy rather than drop a nuclear bomb on it so I dont think the word nuke here is that bad. Everyone knows that word and while that incendiary explosion sounds a good way to explain it in the manual it also sounds pretty rubbish as the name of a weapon. Nuke will do for now, everyone understands that a nuke in a game is the most powerful explosive available. Who cares about realism, I want more fantasy.
Remember, TSA is trying to erradicate the aliens and save the infested area, not blow everything up. If it was that easy, they wouldn't waste time going in and killing the aliens "by hand" they'd just bomb the facility and call it a day. At least, this is my understanding of it...
interpet the slang word "nuke" anyway you want i was just giving my two cents, no atempt to inform you of what it should mean.
it may stem from nuclear but it does not mean that it always has to be used in relation with the original word. just in pseudo context, hence micro waving and what not. anyway this is completely off topic and if you wish to debate slang words do it with a wall, you might get a response to your liking
too much debate over what "nuke" means and how to do it... leave that to teh Dev's <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
Well, "nuke" sounds decidely cool, and although a nuclear device is somewhat overpowered for the scenario (Depending on the size. I still maintain a very small nuke could be usable. Even if it was only a 5 ton yield, it would certainly take up a lot less room than 5 tons of TNT, so it would be preferrable), since this is not a realism mod, there still might be a place for it.
As far as not wanting to blow the place away, remember that yes, the TSA are trying to clean out the place, not vaporize it. However, if things are becoming tense, and looking grim, the commander may decide that a more powerful solution is required. Less safe? Yes. Better than almost certain defeat? Probably. Of course, if things are that far gone, the resources required for a nuke would most likely not be present.
Still, as I have said before, an interesting concept. It might need tweaking, but I think there's a lot of potential with the idea. I can be patient and wait for version 2.
<b>Fuel-air explosive.</b> Have it release the gas in a room until the oxygen:explosive ratio is right, then trigger the spark that sends it all to kingdom come. Boom.
Would you care to explain those? Sounds almost as if you want something that rips the carbon out of molecuar bonds which would cause ourselves at least to degrades and maybe disintegrate. Dunno bout aliens
Comments
Also: Who said a 0.25 kiloton nuclear warhead would "mess up a spot"?? Do you know what 0.25 kilotons translates to?? 250 tons of TNT in explosive force! That will blow any structure in a massive radius including space stations, shuttles, surface colonies and mountains into oblivion!
I don't know the -ton ratings, but nuclear shells fired from tanks level city blocks, and A bomb the side of your computer mouse could well bring a skyscraper down. Nuclear weapons have destructive capabilities exponentionally greater than conventional explosives. Multiply by the high hundreds
However, as someone else mentioned, this doesn't have to be particularly realistic. Call it a V-Pack, or something else mysterious and technological sounding. I was more interested in the game play of the situation.
Twilight
<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->
Lately nuke means destroy rather than drop a nuclear bomb on it so I dont think the word nuke here is that bad. Everyone knows that word and while that incendiary explosion sounds a good way to explain it in the manual it also sounds pretty rubbish as the name of a weapon.
Nuke will do for now, everyone understands that a nuke in a game is the most powerful explosive available.
Who cares about realism, I want more fantasy.
it may stem from nuclear but it does not mean that it always has to be used in relation with the original word. just in pseudo context, hence micro waving and what not. anyway this is completely off topic and if you wish to debate slang words do it with a wall, you might get a response to your liking
Like Imperial Syndicate said, except in "4-year-old speech".
-PD
As far as not wanting to blow the place away, remember that yes, the TSA are trying to clean out the place, not vaporize it. However, if things are becoming tense, and looking grim, the commander may decide that a more powerful solution is required. Less safe? Yes. Better than almost certain defeat? Probably. Of course, if things are that far gone, the resources required for a nuke would most likely not be present.
Still, as I have said before, an interesting concept. It might need tweaking, but I think there's a lot of potential with the idea. I can be patient and wait for version 2.
Twilight
<b>Fuel-air explosive.</b> Have it release the gas in a room until the oxygen:explosive ratio is right, then trigger the spark that sends it all to kingdom come. Boom.
pulse