Going Nuclear (small question)

[FeiLin]

I can’t get the nukes from Spaceships p68 to line up with B414. So, a 25 kiloton nuke is 4d*10000 + 3d*10000 linked, so about 7d*10k. The formula on B414 says 6d*sqrt(lbs*4*REF), or 6d*sqrt(25000*2000*4*1) = 6d*14000+ = 7d*12k+. I seem to be ~20% off; have I missed something or is this a conscious rounding?

[Rupert]

It's probably rounding. But note that some of the Spaceships nuke damages are wrong. Also, though I might be wrong, I think I calculated that the SS nuke damage allowed for a small standoff distance.

[Anaraxes]

If a "megaton" is a million metric tons of TNT, then the value in the B414 formula should be 2200 pounds rather than 2000. So that's another 5% of difference.

Though even a 20% error is likely within the range for these formulae of gaming convenience, as opposed to textbook physics calculations.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Though even a 20% error is likely within the range for these formulae of gaming convenience, as opposed to textbook physics calculations.

Speaking of gaming convenience, there's already a simplifying assumption that nuclear bombs do a burning explosion and a crushing explosion in atmosphere but in vacuum the crushing explosion just goes away and you use only the burning explosion number.

Obviously nothing just goes away and the energy that was making the concussive blast wave in atmosphere is doing something else in vacuum. However, this is a case where even somewhat greater accuracy would bring disproportionately greater complexity.

My advice is to take the simplified answer and run with it. You can easily get into complexities that will not repay the effort that would have to be put into them.

[FeiLin]

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Though even a 20% error is likely within the range for these formulae of gaming convenience, as opposed to textbook physics calculations.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

My advice is to take the simplified answer and run with it. You can easily get into complexities that will not repay the effort that would have to be put into them.

Sure, I dont have a problem with simplifying for the sake of gameplay. I was more trying to figure if I should go back to the formula or just fiat the numbers available for weapons.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

Sure, I dont have a problem with simplifying for the sake of gameplay. I was more trying to figure if I should go back to the formula or just fiat the numbers available for weapons.

I won't say that the exact numbers for nuclear explosions make"no" difference but you have to have a pretty estreme ship for them to really matter.

For example, a 10 megaton warhead in a proximity hit does 2800 dDam and that's a lot. A TL12^ SM+15 ship with a Heavy Force Screen does have dDR 3000 and can shrug off such a hit though it's best possible armor is only dDR 700 per layer. The TL11^ version can't shrug off such a hit and of course a direct hit does 100x more.

So most of the time a hit from a nuclear warhead (even proximity) is going to mean an effective kill for most ships. In universe navies are probably goign to worry more about point defense and as GM I might too.