Planetary bombardment vs ruins

[Chairman (OP)]

If I bombard a planet and kill all "aliens" will there bee ruins??

[ZimRathbone]

If I bombard a planet and kill all "aliens" will there bee ruins?? ;-)

[UnLimiTeD]

Both good things.

This constant fear of players nuking planets is starting to to sound like a cheap excuse.

[Brian Neumann]

It is not so much the fear of nuking planets as a fear of GFFP (Genocide for Fun and Profit).  In Starfire where this game originated there were no negative effects of nuking a planet and then next month emplacing your own colonists.  Steve along with many other people did not like this as it is totally unrealistic to nuke a planet and wipe out multi billion populations and have it instantly available for your own colonists.  

As far as this thread goes I don't think that Steve will go for it as ruins are from an ancient race that deliberetly abandoned their installations and effectivly mothballed them.  If you attack a planet with an active population there are other ways to get their tech from conquering them.

Just my 2 cents worth
Brian

[UnLimiTeD]

Ok, if it's gameplay reasons thats fine, but don't come with realism.
It is absolutely not realistic that future fusion bombs will rely on radioactive material, a Hydrogen bomb has a lot more power than there is uranium required to start the fusion, and the bigger it gets, the less you need relatively.
With the technology depicted in this game, pure fusion should be possible at higher tech levels, and thus radiation per strength should go down.

As for bombarding planets for fun and profic, guess what, now you need a terraformer in orbit, add a few toxic gases (then again, how do we even know they are tocix for that race?) and wait a month.
And if you don't have time for that because an enemy fleet is approaching, the radiation does actually benefit you.
Theres enhanced Radiation Warheads for that after all. I don't actually see the benefit in killing a population when it's a lot faster to build up industry if you just overtake everything on the planet, even without radiation. Aside, waiting two years is not a long time in this game.
So, yeah, I see no problem with neither realism nor gameplay and always use SM functions to get rid of radiation in my game, and I've yet to run into any problems of logic of gameplay.

Still, the argument about ruins is a valid one, so lets just forget it again.
Discussions about radiation never end well, I guess. (See the Orbital combat suggestion, that didn't receive too much attention).

[welchbloke]

Ok, if it's gameplay reasons thats fine, but don't come with realism.
It is absolutely not realistic that future fusion bombs will rely on radioactive material, a Hydrogen bomb has a lot more power than there is uranium required to start the fusion, and the bigger it gets, the less you need relatively.
With the technology depicted in this game, pure fusion should be possible at higher tech levels, and thus radiation per strength should go down.
 

Don't forget that not all fallout is generated by fission products from the actual weapon.  There is also neutron-activation of local material.  That is one of the reasons why a ground burst causes more fallout than an airburst, some of the material thrown up by the ground burst becomes neutron activated.

[UnLimiTeD]

In which case bigger warheads should have less % radioactivity because the effect should be lower (See Orbital Combat suggestion).
Let's not talk about realism.
You actually don't need to try and convince me, I can't change it (but circumvent it partially with SM functions), and convincing me otherwise will only preserve the Status Quo that isn't endangered anyways.

[welchbloke]

In which case bigger warheads should have less % radioactivity because the effect should be lower (See Orbital Combat suggestion).

I don't understand what you mean by this comment

You actually don't need to try and convince me, I can't change it (but circumvent it partially with SM functions), and convincing me otherwise will only preserve the Status Quo that isn't endangered anyways.

I wasn't trying to convince you; I was merely making a technical observation about how nuclear warheads create fallout.  The good thing about Aurora is that it is possible to run a game almost anyway you want.  By changing parameters in the DB you can change the gameplay even more radically.

[UnLimiTeD]

Bigger Warheads aren't equally more efficient in reality, thats what MIRVs are for (See Orbital Combat suggestion^^).
As such, a bigger warhead should have less radiation per WH strength, but if done correctly, even less effect on a planet (see... X-D)

And as said, a Pure fusion Warhead wouldn't create any radiation by itself, and radioactive ground is local and shouldn't reduce productivity considering on the spot where it would be no one is supposed to be alive, let alone working.
Also, I'm sure a 50cm ray of pure Gamma Rays should leave some sort of radiation.
Or supercharged Particles.

[On_Target]

As for bombarding planets for fun and profit, guess what, now you need a terraformer in orbit, add a few toxic gases (then again, how do we even know they are toxic for that race?) and wait a month.

Pretty much this.  Have a few terraformer modules, add your favorite non-native poison, and if you've conquered the planet already make sure to have your cargo ships load up all their infrastructure.  I don't know why you'd nuke anyone into extinction with this as an option, other than time constraints.

Speaking of which, the fact that the game allows this as an option is one of the selling points when I describe it to friends.  Not because we're genocidal maniacs, but because most games wouldn't even allow this sort of thing as an option.  I heard from a friend who started playing it that Kinetic Kill Vehicles are possible now (I've been away for any 5.X developments), and it's not because I'm intending to chuck rocks at every enemy planet that I was grinning.  The sheer number of options at my fingertips has got to be my favorite part of playing Aurora.

As a note to all would be GFFPers: killing off a planet's population makes you lose out on a very large, valuable supply of labor.  It's something to keep in mind.

[UnLimiTeD]

I don't think theres kinetic weapons yet.
Non-Energy weapons will probably be boosted by variety, but it's not that day yet sadly.

And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.

[On_Target]

I don't think theres kinetic weapons yet.
Non-Energy weapons will probably be boosted by variety, but it's not that day yet sadly.

And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.

Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers.  Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that.  But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.

[Erik L]

I don't think theres kinetic weapons yet.
Non-Energy weapons will probably be boosted by variety, but it's not that day yet sadly.

And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.

Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers.  Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that.  But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.

You can, but that is a VERY expensive use of minerals that most of us can find a better use for

That being said, mass drivers can only target your own colonies.

[Vanigo]

I don't think theres kinetic weapons yet.
Non-Energy weapons will probably be boosted by variety, but it's not that day yet sadly.

And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.

Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers.  Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that.  But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.

You can, but that is a VERY expensive use of minerals that most of us can find a better use for

That being said, mass drivers can only target your own colonies.

Can't they target completely empty colonies, which you can make with the stroke of a pen?

[Erik L]

Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers.  Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that.  But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.

You can, but that is a VERY expensive use of minerals that most of us can find a better use for

That being said, mass drivers can only target your own colonies.

Can't they target completely empty colonies, which you can make with the stroke of a pen?

Yes, but I am not sure any enemy infrastructure is damaged. The climate will go to hell, but I think troops and infrastructure of your enemy will be unharmed.