| 1 |
I want to implement a nuclear suicide tank in ZK. Basically a nuclear bomb on treads.
|
1 |
I want to implement a nuclear suicide tank in ZK. Basically a nuclear bomb on treads.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/J8rsLwN.png[/img]
|
3 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/J8rsLwN.png[/img]
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
This is a thread for designing it in further detail.
|
5 |
This is a thread for designing it in further detail.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
The things that can be assumed to be more or less solid atm are:
|
7 |
The things that can be assumed to be more or less solid atm are:
|
| 8 |
- No weapons except BOOM.
|
8 |
- No weapons except BOOM.
|
| 9 |
- Reasonably slow speed.
|
9 |
- Reasonably slow speed.
|
| 10 |
- Reasonably heavy armor for its price.
|
10 |
- Reasonably heavy armor for its price.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
But there are also some aspects of this unit that are undecided, and ones that i'd like to finally decide on before i get to actual Spring implementation work on it (there's still a bit of texturing to do before there).
|
12 |
But there are also some aspects of this unit that are undecided, and ones that i'd like to finally decide on before i get to actual Spring implementation work on it (there's still a bit of texturing to do before there).
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
[b][u]BUT CAN IT FLY?[/u][/b]
|
14 |
[b][u]BUT CAN IT FLY?[/u][/b]
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
The primary balance concern in implementing a nuke that is immune to Antinuke interception is that with the help of a few newtons, it could be made into an unstoppable version of Trinity. There are two possible ways to alleviate that that i see right now:
|
16 |
The primary balance concern in implementing a nuke that is immune to Antinuke interception is that with the help of a few newtons, it could be made into an unstoppable version of Trinity. There are two possible ways to alleviate that that i see right now:
|
| 17 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
| 18 |
1) Make launching it too expensive - if one launch costs more than, say, a Zenith, then you're just making a top-tier superweapon with less reliability and absurdly high operating costs. This can be achieved by making it too heavy (and require a very expensive Newton array), or simply too expensive.
|
18 |
1) Make launching it too expensive - if one launch costs more than, say, a Zenith, then you're just making a top-tier superweapon with less reliability and absurdly high operating costs. This can be achieved by making it too heavy (and require a very expensive Newton array), or simply too expensive.
|
| 19 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 20 |
2) Make launching it too risky - if it has to be on solid ground to explode properly, then after being thrown, it will be vulnerable to interception for a time. And you won't be able to scout for an Anti to prevent this, nor even ensure an accurate landing zone. And presumably the tank costs more than 3k, so you're risking more metal than an actual nuke launch would risk. And the enemy gets the reclaim if you fail.
|
20 |
2) Make launching it too risky - if it has to be on solid ground to explode properly, then after being thrown, it will be vulnerable to interception for a time. And you won't be able to scout for an Anti to prevent this, nor even ensure an accurate landing zone. And presumably the tank costs more than 3k, so you're risking more metal than an actual nuke launch would risk. And the enemy gets the reclaim if you fail.
|
| 21 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 22 |
Possibly there are more approaches to this.
|
22 |
Possibly there are more approaches to this.
|
| 23 |
\n
|
23 |
\n
|
| 24 |
[b][u]WHATSITSNAME[/u][/b]
|
24 |
[b][u]WHATSITSNAME[/u][/b]
|
| 25 |
\n
|
25 |
\n
|
| 26 |
Several ideas have been proposed. I wonder which one is better, though:
|
26 |
Several ideas have been proposed. I wonder which one is better, though:
|
| 27 |
\n
|
27 |
\n
|
| 28 |
[b]Fatboy[/b] - references a historical TA unit name, but reimagined (Supcom also did that). Also references the two historic nuclear weapons used in war.
|
28 |
[b]Fatboy[/b] - references a historical TA unit name, but reimagined (Supcom also did that). Also references the two historic nuclear weapons used in war.
|
| 29 |
\n
|
29 |
\n
|
| 30 |
[b]Sprawler[/b] - references the main inspiration for this concept, the Sprawler Juggernaut from Dark Reign 2
|
30 |
[b]Sprawler[/b] - references the main inspiration for this concept, the Sprawler Juggernaut from Dark Reign 2
|
| 31 |
\n
|
31 |
\n
|
| 32 |
[b]Doomsday Machine[/b] - former name of what is now Desolator, and one that is more fitting on this type of an infernal device rather than on a medium-range defense turret.
|
32 |
[b]Doomsday Machine[/b] - former name of what is now Desolator, and one that is more fitting on this type of an infernal device rather than on a medium-range defense turret.
|
| 33 |
\n
|
33 |
\n
|
| 34 |
[b]MAD Tank[/b] - refers to the Mutually Assured Destruction complex, as well as the Soviet suicide tank from Red Alert. Except this one [i]is[/i] going to kill infantry.
|
34 |
[b]MAD Tank[/b] - refers to the Mutually Assured Destruction complex, as well as the Soviet suicide tank from Red Alert. Except this one [i]is[/i] going to kill infantry.
|
| 35 |
\n
|
35 |
\n
|
| 36 |
[b][u]SHINY BUT HOW SHINY[/u][/b]
|
36 |
[b][u]SHINY BUT HOW SHINY[/u][/b]
|
| 37 |
\n
|
37 |
\n
|
| 38 |
ZK has two types of nuclear explosions atm:
|
38 |
ZK has two types of nuclear explosions atm:
|
| 39 |
- the smaller Singu-grade explosion - shared by advanced geothermal, singularity reactor, and the Detriment;
|
39 |
- the smaller Singu-grade explosion - shared by advanced geothermal, singularity reactor, and the Detriment;
|
| 40 |
- and the Trinity-grade explosion, currently unique to Trinity.
|
40 |
- and the Trinity-grade explosion, currently unique to Trinity.
|
| 41 |
\n
|
41 |
\n
|
| 42 |
How big should the tank blow up?
|
42 |
How big should the tank blow up?
|
| 43 |
\n
|
43 |
\n
|
| 44 |
[b][u]APOCALYPSE HOW[/u][/b]
|
44 |
[b][u]APOCALYPSE HOW[/u][/b]
|
| 45 |
\n
|
45 |
\n
|
| 46 |
Currently, all suicide units in ZK blow up as bad when killed as when manually detonated. But for a strider-level toy, this consistency is not mandatory, especially if an inconsistency can bring more Cool Factor or make it easier to balance. There are some options here:
|
46 |
Currently, all suicide units in ZK blow up as bad when killed as when manually detonated. But for a strider-level toy, this consistency is not mandatory, especially if an inconsistency can bring more Cool Factor or make it easier to balance. There are some options here:
|
| 47 |
\n
|
47 |
\n
|
| 48 |
1) The unit can have an armed or unarmed state. When destroyed or self-destructed in armed state, it goes full nuclear. When destroyed in an unarmed state, it doesn't blow up that big.
|
48 |
1) The unit can have an armed or unarmed state. When destroyed or self-destructed in armed state, it goes full nuclear. When destroyed in an unarmed state, it doesn't blow up that big.
|
| 49 |
\n
|
49 |
\n
|
| 50 |
2) The unit can have its self-destruct weapon be an actual weapon, activated with an one-click button, like Krow's carpet bombing. Activating the detonation sequence would decloak the unit and give the enemies some time to flee in terror or try to prevent the sequence's completion. Then boom. Destroying the unit before the detonation sequence is complete results in a normal-sized boom.
|
50 |
2) The unit can have its self-destruct weapon be an actual weapon, activated with an one-click button, like Krow's carpet bombing. Activating the detonation sequence would decloak the unit and give the enemies some time to flee in terror or try to prevent the sequence's completion. Then boom. Destroying the unit before the detonation sequence is complete results in a normal-sized boom.
|
| 51 |
\n
|
51 |
\n
|
| 52 |
3) Consistent ZK suicide. Always blow up nuclear. Storing one of these anywhere near your own units and getting it ambushed by the enemy means you're cooked.
|
52 |
3) Consistent ZK suicide. Always blow up nuclear. Storing one of these anywhere near your own units and getting it ambushed by the enemy means you're cooked.
|
| 53 |
\n
|
53 |
\n
|
| 54 |
I
think
i
prevent
the
second
of
these
options:
when
used
with
cloak
it
ensures
the
bomb
has
to
decloak
before
blowing
up,
creating
interplay;
the
detonation
can
be
constrained
to
only
work
on
firm
ground
to
prevent
it
being
too
abusive
with
newtons
or
transports.
The
first
option
could
work
like
that
as
well,
but
then
an
armed
bomb
would
have
to
be
always
uncloakable
or
there's
little
penalty
to
pre-arming
it
and
sneaking
it
armed;
and
airlifting
or
throwing
it
should
disarm
it
on
leaving
ground,
which
is
kludgy.
|
54 |
I
think
i
prefer
the
second
of
these
options:
when
used
with
cloak
it
ensures
the
bomb
has
to
decloak
before
blowing
up,
creating
interplay;
the
detonation
can
be
constrained
to
only
work
on
firm
ground
to
prevent
it
being
too
abusive
with
newtons
or
transports.
The
first
option
could
work
like
that
as
well,
but
then
an
armed
bomb
would
have
to
be
always
uncloakable
or
there's
little
penalty
to
pre-arming
it
and
sneaking
it
armed;
and
airlifting
or
throwing
it
should
disarm
it
on
leaving
ground,
which
is
kludgy.
|
| 55 |
\n
|
55 |
\n
|
| 56 |
Both 1) and 2) have elevated Cool Factor because they allow the unit to visibly open its safebox and demonstrate the SHINY inside.
|
56 |
Both 1) and 2) have elevated Cool Factor because they allow the unit to visibly open its safebox and demonstrate the SHINY inside.
|
| 57 |
\n
|
57 |
\n
|
| 58 |
[b][u]SHOW ME THE MONEY[/u][/b]
|
58 |
[b][u]SHOW ME THE MONEY[/u][/b]
|
| 59 |
\n
|
59 |
\n
|
| 60 |
There's also a question about how much the thing should cost.
|
60 |
There's also a question about how much the thing should cost.
|
| 61 |
\n
|
61 |
\n
|
| 62 |
1) I think it should definitely cost [i]less[/i] than 10k - an armed Trinity costs 7k for silo and 3.2k for missile.
|
62 |
1) I think it should definitely cost [i]less[/i] than 10k - an armed Trinity costs 7k for silo and 3.2k for missile.
|
| 63 |
\n
|
63 |
\n
|
| 64 |
2) It should probably cost [i]more[/i] than 3.2k - that is, a single Trinity missile.
|
64 |
2) It should probably cost [i]more[/i] than 3.2k - that is, a single Trinity missile.
|
| 65 |
\n
|
65 |
\n
|
| 66 |
Is a slow-moving but anti-proof, cloakable, teleportable, airdroppable nuke worth 10k? How much would you pay for such a toy before it becomes useless, or how little before it breaks the game?
|
66 |
Is a slow-moving but anti-proof, cloakable, teleportable, airdroppable nuke worth 10k? How much would you pay for such a toy before it becomes useless, or how little before it breaks the game?
|
| 67 |
\n
|
67 |
\n
|
Nuclear tank bikeshedding thread