Some tips for anti-naval nuking:
- If you splash enough ocean spray onto the nukes' exhaust, their engines will go out.
- Try using a decoy.
- Try staying perfectly still. With any luck, your opponent will think you would have tried to dodge, and aimed the nuke in your anticipated path.
- Get a cloaking device
- Use the Space Laser (which Reagan tried to put up and now Obama is finishing)
Anti-Naval nuking
Moderator: Defcon moderators
-
Duck'N'Cover
- level1
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:17 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL, USA
anti-naval nuking
I've been known on online games as Prokofiev Pirate on Myth: TFL and Myth II; The Egressor on Halo 2, and Foibleson and Halo 3.
-
Blackbeard
- level4
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:05 pm
.
Your complains about naval nuking have no point... I am not a naval nuking fan, don't get me wrong, but you mistake. Long time ago MOR was upset like you about ship nuking, and when we played a game 1 vs 1 was agree both to not use nukes against fleet. Was last time when i heard MOR complaining about that. His navy was crushed so bad that he used every time in our next games naval nuking 
He understand in that game that naval nuking is not his enemy... You can learn to counter very effective this tactic, just don't give up 
He understand in that game that naval nuking is not his enemy... You can learn to counter very effective this tactic, just don't give up 
I hope I'm not being off-topic here, but I would like to note that nuclear nuking is not inauthentic.
In fact tactical nuclear weapons are an integral part of the "defense" (preemptive attack or outright aggression, really ) thought in the USSR and probably China (since it copied every Soviet concept in political and military matters). That is why military equipment was made to be resistant against radiation (thicker materials and the electronics was in critical cases still based on vacuum tubes).
The USSR navy was armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, which made it a credible threat to the US - it could nuke its way out of a blockade. I think the biggest part of Soviet tactical arsenal was dismantled in the late 80s and with US funding during the 90s. It was a major gesture on the part Gorbachev that the USSR was no longer an aggressive power.
The problem is still relevant today - that is why the US is so sensitive to recent Chinese development is naval missile technology. It is a way of changing the status quo much faster than catching up with the US in ICBM numbers. The nuclear strategy of countries that are not the US and the USSR is usually based on the possibility to inflict significant damage to the enemy, not necessarily total destruction. There would be no deterrence to the US, if US military sophistication increases to the point that they intercept all ICBMs and immediately respond with a strike from the seas near China. That is why it is known that Chinese Military intelligence (again I suppose its modeled on the Soviet GRU) spares no expenses to have full information on missile technology developments in the US.
In fact tactical nuclear weapons are an integral part of the "defense" (preemptive attack or outright aggression, really ) thought in the USSR and probably China (since it copied every Soviet concept in political and military matters). That is why military equipment was made to be resistant against radiation (thicker materials and the electronics was in critical cases still based on vacuum tubes).
The USSR navy was armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, which made it a credible threat to the US - it could nuke its way out of a blockade. I think the biggest part of Soviet tactical arsenal was dismantled in the late 80s and with US funding during the 90s. It was a major gesture on the part Gorbachev that the USSR was no longer an aggressive power.
The problem is still relevant today - that is why the US is so sensitive to recent Chinese development is naval missile technology. It is a way of changing the status quo much faster than catching up with the US in ICBM numbers. The nuclear strategy of countries that are not the US and the USSR is usually based on the possibility to inflict significant damage to the enemy, not necessarily total destruction. There would be no deterrence to the US, if US military sophistication increases to the point that they intercept all ICBMs and immediately respond with a strike from the seas near China. That is why it is known that Chinese Military intelligence (again I suppose its modeled on the Soviet GRU) spares no expenses to have full information on missile technology developments in the US.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest