RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> After Action Report


acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 7:17:10 AM)

The damage area continues to grow and ultimately engulfs all the A/C and destroys them along with the ground targets. In hindsight probably not the best attack profile on the US side…


acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 7:17:39 AM)

I did these experiments to determine the extent of what CMNAO can simulate in the area of strategic nuclear warfare. It seems pretty much anything at a high degree of realism/fidelity.

Scenarios can be created to simulate:
1. A/C based nuclear strikes
2. Submarine based nuclear strikes
3. ICBM based strikes/exchanges
4. Regional/limited nuclear exchanges - naval/land forces targets
5. Even an entire global nuclear exchange including detection via satellite/early warning systems, ABM defenses, bombers and interceptor/SAM defenses, SSBN strikes including SSN trail and prevention of launch, and even testing first strike/response wrt to ICBMs/Bombers/SSBNs.

Finally I reviewed the databases and all of the above can be simulated using weapons in any period from 1949 thru the near future.
This includes for example Strategic Bombers like B-29's, B-36's, B-47's, B-58's, B-52's, B-2's. SRBM/IRBM/ICBM/SLBM/cruise missiles like Atlas, Titan, Minuteman 1/2/3, Peacemaker, Pershing.
This is only US weapons - many other country's nuclear weapons are included.

I even found the XB-70 Valkyrie in the DB and had to test it - 90000ft at 1800kts. What's going to catch that?

In summary quoting a local radio add's final remark - "Mind Blown"

Rob322 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 7:50:34 AM)

Looking at post 30, the blast wave was not a perfect sphere, was that due to terrain? In fact, have you run any tests on what the blast wave over a target in a hilly/ mountainous terrain? It'd be interesting to see if that or other factors like weather has any affect.

Tomcat84 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 7:52:30 AM)

Very nice!

One thing that amazes me: I am an air war nut so that's what in focused on most. I have spent hours on command already in beta and yet there is so much detail I haven't even begun to explore yet like this or satellites. Truly awesome for me

Emx77 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 7:54:06 AM)

Are there cities in the simulation? What about civilians? I'm asking this because it would be interesting to recreate Bravo Romeo Delta inside CMANO.

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 8:00:25 AM)

Rob322 - just looked at the elevations surrounding the target and it does seem to correspond to the shape of the terrain but I would have to leave it to one of the developers to comment definitively on this and your weather question. Should be easy to test in the editor though.

Emir - From what I've seen all I can currently place is facilities (buildings, batteries, troops) not entire cities and populations. Once again a dev would have to definitively comment on that.

Jakob Wedman -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 8:23:57 AM)

With buildings, structures and bridges you could build pretty detailed cities. Years ago I made a program in R that generated random buildings given city size, radius, limiting arc (for coastal cities) and main axis, and then if you don't like random cities you could build them with buildings one by one in Google Earth [:D]

acb3, have you looked at the ICBM fields (US/USSR)?

Maromak -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 8:42:05 AM)

Thanks for recording your testing. Very interesting!

Broncepulido -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 12:38:36 PM)

Great report and apparently great game! Thanks acb3!

Paul Wykes -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 1:10:11 PM)

Thanks for posting this. Really interesting, and highlights what the game engine can do.

CapnDarwin -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 2:50:36 PM)

Very nice test of capabilities. The only thing that I see that would add to the realism is targeting the MIRVs before launch within the path of flight. Still very cool.

+1 to the Dev team!

JRyan -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 7:32:03 PM)

The possibilities are endless....Thanks for doing this indeed.

amatteucci -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 8:09:13 PM)

I just setup a quick 1983 war scare scenario (only ICBMs and EW radars). Tried to launch a massive soviet attack on US ICBM fields but the PC slowed to a crawl (OK I didn't expect it to actually manage hundreds of MIRVed missiles speeding towards their targets, I just did it for fun).

Anyway I was still wondering about the possibility to simulate, in principle, such a strike with Command. I noticed that missile silos have, more or less, all the same stats (special armor, ca. 4000 DP) from the early '60s filmsy models to the super hardened late '80s ones. I don't know how nuclear explosions are modelled in the game but it seems they are pretty capable to obliterate everything inside their blast radius, regardless of the overpressure those structures are meant to be able to resist to.

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 9:04:25 PM)

I suspected a full scale nuclear exchange could potentially cause a real performance hit on the computer. Just curious, how many missiles/MIRVs/targets did you setup? Can you save the scenario and upload so I can play with it? What are your computers specs?

On the subject of cities, I was thinking with the editor you could set up classes of cities (small/medium/large) populated by numerous facilities. Then export these 'template' cities out and use them to build scenarios of varying numbers and mixes of cities in different countries. You could even incorporate defenses (SAM, Interceptors, etc) for them based on certain time periods, nations, weapons. Then the scenario would be setting up a specific country/time period/region and the player has strategic assets (ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers, Cruise missiles, even CVBGs with nuclear armed A/C) and has to assign them targets to best penetrate the defenses and destroy the targets.

Just rambling here - but first I need to spend time learning and exploring the editor.

amatteucci -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 9:38:50 PM)

Here you go. Consider that this is not actually a scenario, it's just a map upload of the various ICBM bases so I could test fire missiles all around the globe...

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 9:46:45 PM)

Thanks will try tonight.

Just stated playing with the import/export units function of the editor and found all the pre-built unit groups included with the game - including US ICBM forces amongst many other things. This is just the tip of the iceberg - there are all sorts of pre-built bases and weapons complexes broken down by country and even time periods. Looks like the Devs have already anticipated this line of thinking.

Look under \Command Modern Air Naval Operations\ImportExport to view.

This simulation (calling it a game is long past) continues to amaze...

Grim.Reaper -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 9:51:32 PM)

Thanks for sharing your tests...helped me make the decision to purchase!

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 10:16:23 PM)

In the below image I used the pre-built unit/group file for Grand Forks AFB. It has an ICBM farm of 150 Minuteman III silos.
I placed 2 Delta III's off the Pacific coast and did a full launch - 16 SLBMs x2 SSBNs x3 MIRV each = 96 re-entry vehicles.
At this point in the launch the first warheads are about to detonate, and most of the remaining missiles have MIRVed.
My i7/3.4GHz processor has been running at approx. 30% utilization total. Makes me wonder if my computer would blowup trying to simulate a full nuclear exchange.

Grim.Reaper - I am sure you won't regret it - it is just going to get better...

More to come...


acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 10:42:52 PM)

And here is the image as the last of the RV's impact. In the end only 22 Missile silos were destroyed after 96 RVs impacted.
In the log I saw a number of reports of misses (impact not close enough to the silo) and warhead malfunctions.
Next I will restart the scenario at right before the first impacts and try to launch all the Minuteman III ICBMs.
I'll have fire extinguisher for my computer nearby.

For now - real life is intruding...


JRyan -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/28/2013 11:04:31 PM)

I too have been playing around and took a B-2 with Nucs and attacked some North Korean bases. The nukes killed the base but also killed the B2. I was using a mission to accomplish this so I think there might be an issue with the AI with Nuc Bomb drops, I am not sure.

Rob322 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/29/2013 5:46:05 AM)

What's the widest spread for MIRVs have you seen? 100 miles, 300?

RoryAndersonWS -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/29/2013 5:58:52 AM)

This is my favorite thread in the whole world.

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/29/2013 5:59:42 AM)

JRyan - I saw the same thing with my B-52 run over Cuba. Maybe need to look at the yield of the weapon vs. the speed by which the bomber can egress from the target.
I plan on trying a B-36 Peacemaker attack on a large defended Soviet city next and will see what happens.

Below is the image of the US Minuteman III full launch while the Soviet RV's are raining down. This definitely slowed things down - 90 Soviet RV's and 100-140 Minuteman III launches at the same time.
1 Sec in the game was taking 4-5secs of realtime to process. But it was still chugging along...


K 19 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/30/2013 10:58:51 AM)

Joshua: Shall we play a game?
David Lightman: Oh!
Jennifer: [giggles] I think it missed him.
David Lightman: Yeah. Weird isn't it?
Jennifer: Yeah.
David Lightman: [typing] Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?
Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
[Jennifer laughs]
David Lightman: [typing] Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.


David Lightman: [typing] Is this a game... or is it real?
Joshua: What's the difference?
David Lightman: [muttering] Oh wow.


Great thread, acb3. [:)]

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/30/2013 9:02:09 PM)

K19 - exactly the movie I was thinking of in the last few posts when my computer was dragging tracking 100's of nukes.
I need a WOPR...

Primarchx -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (9/30/2013 9:29:35 PM)

I knew this would happen...

[Waits patiently for triad-oriented SIOP scenarios to appear]

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/1/2013 12:03:32 AM)

I'm actually playing around w/an early 50's scenario with B-36 Peacemakers launching a strike on the Kola Peninsula from Thule AFB Greenland. Going to see how outdated the B-36 became with the introduction of the Mig-15. First test was not pretty. Now I know why they were playing around with hanging the XF-85 Goblin or F-84 off a bomber for these long range missions.

That would be 1 leg of the triad - more to come...

ultradave -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/1/2013 12:43:59 AM)

Nice report. Amazing what can be done. The more I see and play, the more it's obvious that while this looks like updated Harpoon, there is WAAAY more under the hood.

JRyan -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/1/2013 1:17:46 AM)


ORIGINAL: ultradave

there is WAAAY more under the hood.


amatteucci -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/1/2013 8:22:46 PM)



I'm actually playing around w/an early 50's scenario with B-36 Peacemakers launching a strike on the Kola Peninsula from Thule AFB Greenland. Going to see how outdated the B-36 became with the introduction of the Mig-15. First test was not pretty. Now I know why they were playing around with hanging the XF-85 Goblin or F-84 off a bomber for these long range missions.

Curiosly enough, I was recently trying to model B-36 raids into the Kola pensinsula too!
Had some problems escaping the blast wave of the bigger bombs [:D] (i.e. the fifteen megatonners Mark 17 and Mark 24)

Speaking about the MiG-15 vs B-36 issue, I do think that the ceilings capped at 40,000ft further exacerbate the defender's disadvantage.
In mock combats F-86 Sabres had a difficult time in reaching B-36s flying at 55,000ft. The bomber just had to engage into a banking turn to let the pursuing Sabre just stall. Of course it's known that the MiG-15 had a higher ceiling than the F-86 but I doubt it'd had been that effective over 50,000ft.

P.S. The number of systems included in the database and of situations that are, in principle, replicable with this game, blows my mind! I never thought there would be a game that would have let me intercept soviet bombers over Alaska with F-89s firing Mighty Mouse rockets! [X(]

Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI