Bertil Jonell [email removed] writes:
> Wildstar writes:
> > So, if a 0.25kt bomb would generate a kill at 10m, then a 25kt bomb
> > would be needed to have the same effect when detonated at 100m, 2.5
> > megatons at a kilometer, and 250 megatons at 10 km.
>
> Looks like you solved the problem of computing the effects of nukes in
> space. Total energy times percentage of soft xrays (blast energy plus
> thermal radiation) converted into TNT converted into hits.
Only sort of. My first and most fundamental assumption is that the
atomic explosion can be treated as a point source of radiation. While
this is certainly a good working approximation at most scales, it is
certainly *not* true at other scales. 10m might be pushing it.
Out at 10km, a notional 50-displacement-ton sphere (radius 5.5m,
cross-sectional area 95m^2) should intercept about 76 *billionths* of
the energy output by the bomb; assuming that the inverse-square law
holds down to 10m, then at that range the ship is getting nearly 8% of
the output of the bomb.
Closer than that, I don't even want to guess; of course at contact the
ship will get nearly 50% of the bomb's output. It seems to me that
"proximity" for nukes is so close that it's effectively "contact",
except for impractically large weapons, of course.
So a nuclear anti-ship missile is effectively a contact weapon, probably
with a warhead around 1kt. And of course, it's also useful agains
planetary targets.
> > [Maneuver drive performace of more than 6 G, and the effects thereof:]
> It might be enough to outmaneuver a type 2+ missile, so they should get
> extra penalties IMHO.
Maybe one difficulty level harder per 2g max accelleration over 6g?
Assuming a maximum of 15g (or 9g overthrust), this would work out to a
maximum of four difficulty levels harder (some of which could, of
course, be avoided by a MFD. Still, this should make fighters pretty
hard to hit.
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the New Era