To: Beijing HQ Re: Disappointing missile performance

In-depth tactical discussion on how to lose the least

Moderator: Defcon moderators

Ked
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:13 am

To: Beijing HQ Re: Disappointing missile performance

Postby Ked » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:57 am

Sir:

I fully agree with the sentiments of your recent letter - our missile salvos' performance in the recent nuclear conflict were definitely not up to the high expectations of the Chinese military, and cost us not just millions of casualties, but indeed the outright victory. I do not have any answers for why our missiles behaved as they did, but I can describe the truly odd phenomenon that transpired as they flew.

In the later stages of the war, we launched nearly twenty-five missiles from silos in our central and eastern provinces against hard and soft targets in Central America and the cities on the west coast of the United States. Ten more missiles were fired at cities in northeastern and central Africa. The target regions had defenses which were expected to destroy perhaps 30% to 60% of our missiles, despite our staggering the launches to arrive in tight clusters. However, not a single missile hit its target.

If the Americans and their African lackeys had simply gotten lucky with their defensive fire, I would write the incident off as the fortunes of war and move on. However, what actually transpired removed any possibility of those missiles dealing damage to our enemies.

The missiles, whose overall paths were east-southeast and west-southwest, began their flights by arcing northwards! All the missiles destined for the Americas crossed over Siberia, where the otherwise-spent silos of the Russians took a free shot at each missile as they passed. They then arced over the Alaskan region and over Canada, where the northerly American defenses had an even better shot. Finally, the defenses in the targeted regions accounted for the two or three missiles that managed to get that far. The missiles bound for Africa likewise curved north over Russia, then additionally came close enough to Eastern Europe that the EU defenses took shots at them.

I realize that I am a general, and not a rocket scientist. I can read a map, though, and it is painfully clear to me that the most direct route from central Asia to central Africa does not go through Moscow. I ask permission to demonstrate this to our missile designers, preferably by strapping several of them to drones and flying them straight into the same Russian air defenses through which they sent our warheads. We might lose a few scientists, but until our flight paths are changed I dispair of having a credible land-based strategic rocket force.

- Lieutenant General Ked, PRCSC



Seriously, though - the arcs which the missiles take need to either be straight over the map as presented, or represent the proper "great circle" arcs which missiles truly use. The first option is aesthetically displeasing, the second would be an interesting mathematical exercise which would greatly complicate pathing. Leaving things as they are puts the southern regions, and particularly China/Asia (since it is directly below Russia) at a marked disadvantage.
9tails
level0
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:04 am

Postby 9tails » Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:12 am

*dies laughing*
President Muffley
level1
level1
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:02 am

Postby President Muffley » Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:14 am

Lieutenant General Ked:
The missile technology of the People's Republic is superior to those of her enemies! To suggest otherwise is treason!
Our missiles take a longer path in order to be seen by more foes and possible foes, striking their hearts with fear and disheartening their armies and politicians! This is the very same reason that the warheads you were issued were loaded with propaganda pamphlets in place of the 25Mt nuclear payload.

As mentioned in responses to your previous letters of complaint regarding the Global Launch Broadcasting System, and the Missile Dotted Line Dispenser system, you are becoming rather troublesome to the People's Great Republic, with your constant seditious defaming of the Missile Command.

I have commissioned a Loyalty Inspection Unit to pay you a visit, after they have reported back to me, we shall look back into the alleged missile arc problems.

Until then, you are to be transferred from Missile Command. I will give you a choice of where.
a) Expendable Submarine Warfare Division
b) Northern Mongolian RADAR outpost KF-11A-N (Thats the one with the big bulls-eye painted on its roof)
c) The People's Expeditionary Expendable First-In Air-Scouts


- General Tao, Beijing HQ
User avatar
KudrigY
level2
level2
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland, Europe, Earth

Postby KudrigY » Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:31 am

ROTFL Muffley:)

And for real:
- Scout the area - kill USSR silos, and launch it then
- for targetting Africa use bombers travelling thru Indian Ocean
- by all means leave Europe for USSR to deal with - hopefull they will weaken each other and then, Your silos can strike...
Alagos
level1
level1
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Alagos » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:05 pm

KudrigY wrote:ROTFL Muffley:)

And for real:
- Scout the area - kill USSR silos, and launch it then
- for targetting Africa use bombers travelling thru Indian Ocean
- by all means leave Europe for USSR to deal with - hopefull they will weaken each other and then, Your silos can strike...


That's why Europe and the USSR usually form an alliance ;)
User avatar
Katanaa
level1
level1
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:16 am

Postby Katanaa » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:23 pm

I've got the perfect sollution, make the nukes programmable!

Image
President Muffley
level1
level1
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:02 am

Postby President Muffley » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:28 pm

Katanaa wrote:I've got the perfect sollution, make the nukes programmable!


* cue benny hill theme
User avatar
Cargo Cult
level1
level1
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:51 pm

Postby Cargo Cult » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:47 pm

Alagos wrote:That's why Europe and the USSR usually form an alliance ;)

Maybe - but I don't think my friends will trust me in such an alliance again.

My little fleet of nuclear subs, lurking in the Arctic Ocean, lying in wait for that final, audacious attack against Moscow. Combine with a swarm of bombers and ICBMs...

0.0 million survivors. Moscow was barely even visible on the map, just like its less populous neighbours.

I won the game. But at what cost? ;-)
drunkill
level0
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:29 pm

Postby drunkill » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:10 pm

We need to make Australia a region, and have newzealand and the area around indonesia part of the region to, so you have a main island a a few smaller ones, attack from the south!
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:14 pm

Cargo Cult wrote:But at what cost? ;-)


...the days of the killer cars were numbered thanks to the miracle of atomic mutation.

Image
Majromax
level0
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:03 pm

Postby Majromax » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:15 pm

About the great circle routes, the pathing for that wouldn't be as bad as you'd expect. It'd involve computing the path on a sphere, rather than a flat map, and then translating that back to the map view.

The only problem with this is that then everything will get fudged up at the poles. Radars will no longer have (visually) circular limits, horizontal movement will seem faster (given the map projection), etc. Moving from the northeastern corner of Canada to the middle of Siberia is not a long haul -- it's a matter of just a few miles under (or over) the north pole.

I'm sure that Introversion considered the costs of great circle routes, and came to a similar conclusion that I am -- it would probably improve nuke behaviour, but that would come at the cost of unintuitive behaviour everywhere else. Changing the map representation to a globe representation would work, but that's its own jar of pickles.
zeke_stone
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:43 pm

Postby zeke_stone » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:07 pm

What if they changed the map from a 2d map to an actual 3d globe, that you can pan sideways as well as up and down? That way you can chart incomming nukes that fly across the poles. Probably too game altering to implement though but thats the only way i can see past it.
Judicator375
level0
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:47 pm

Postby Judicator375 » Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:03 pm

Why don't they make missles in the southern continents, like South America, China and Africa; actually launch southwards? (but only when targeting those three continents)? So say for instance Africa really hates Russia (who is in the process of emptying her silos), Africas Missiles go over europe and down. kind of a bummer, but only over the one continent so you dont lose everything you launch.

China, outraged on Africas attack on its (once? ex? current? *shrug*) communist friend, launches a counter attack with its few remaning missles (having had a quite successful slaughter of Europe. (Pesky Brits)). Instead of the Peoples Republics missles going over Moscow or sibera, what if they went over the Indian Pacific?

Would that not work? otherwise it makes sense to always put your silos at the top of your continent. and the navy part protect your behind? Ofc. it would be good to add the Australasian continent too ^^.
JoDiamonds
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:42 pm

Postby JoDiamonds » Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:16 pm

zeke_stone wrote:What if they changed the map from a 2d map to an actual 3d globe, that you can pan sideways as well as up and down? That way you can chart incomming nukes that fly across the poles. Probably too game altering to implement though but thats the only way i can see past it.


I'm sure they don't do that because it's a godawful large amount of work. =)
User avatar
unknown
level1
level1
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:30 pm

Postby unknown » Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:34 pm

One solution would be that missiles become unable to be targeted upon a certain distance of leaving the silo, and become targetable again when they reach a certain distance to their target or the target owner's territory.

It would essentially be saying that the missile's altitude is too great to fire at with your anti-air missiles. After all, the arcs are supposed to represent some sort of elevation, right?

Return to “Strategic Air Command”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest