 June 1, 2011 - 10:57pm | I'm curious how the GMs in this forum have either handled or would handle a thermonuclear detonation in a SF campaign. While not an issue with my more recent gaming group, I ran into the issue with my old gaming group. I can still hear a couple of the players saying, "Aw c'mon now, an exploding nuke would do waaaaaay way way more damage than THAT!" I know that Knight Hawks addressed the general unpleasantness of a ship's atomic engine detonating, and how it totally vaporized poor Bagrat (hell, never liked that guy anyway), but might there be any write-ups that SF gamers addressed this topic? (tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...)  My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
July 17, 2011 - 8:06pm | B-b-but, Knight Hawks (the most completely researched and indisputably definitive authority on everything that goes boom) says and I paraphrase: (A) characters can install a self destruct program on their atomic powered starship; self destruct implying kaboom and certainly not kamelt (B) Remember poor Bagrat? His damaged atomic engine vessel was going to explode in a matter of minutes, and although he did everything right and got out the airlock with spacesuit & rocketpack, he got was all toastified in the white-hot flashing kaboom. If his ship's engine only kamelted, he'd be just fine or at the very least glowy. I guess where I'm going with all this is that there must be some catalyst in SF game thermo-nuclear physics that allows atomic engines to indeed explode like one of our present day tac-nukes. My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
 July 17, 2011 - 9:07pm | Actually the Professional gamers who wrote the rules knew as much as the average Joe on the street, wich is why they wrote the rules the way they did. ie they did not know any better. The only nuclear accident they had as a reference at that point was, 3 Mile Island and that rather inacurate hollywood movie "The China Syndrome"; thats all they had to go with. Even though most of this stuff was and still is available to the general public via the public library or if you were even lazier than that the Civil defense corps had classes on the stuff. But most people even today see a nuclear power plant and say "Boom!"..... people You have to make plutonium and uranium go boom, it wont happen on it's own. Thats how pervasive the anti-nuclear propaganda has been since it's inception. Part of it was the peace-nicks and communist elements in society "Better Red than Dead". The other part was our own government and the Soviets as well, trying two see who had the scarriest theory they could come up with. To scare the other guy away from doing it first. What's the Point? the authors of the game are themselves product of the cold war as are most of us, Myself included. I just happen to like studying the bomb, And I have been most of my adult life. I read almost anything I can get my hands on, about the subject of the bomb and nuclear power. Nuclear Power could do well for us as long as all the proper safety measures are taken. Now the problem is Trying to reverse the damage done by all that propaganda so that we can build enough power plants to replace all the fossil fuel plants we are trying to get rid of. Cuz quite frankly wind farms and solar panels wont be enough as long as the winds slow down and there are clouds in the sky. If we run out of Coal and Oil, we can not afford to have rolling blackouts every time we have a clowdy day or a day with slow winds. But that of course is another topic altogether. The Point is this, you have to make an atomic bomb go off on purpose by smashing as many atoms as possable all at once to start the big chain reaction. not the slow reaction that happens naturally when you move the control rods in or out of the fuel pile. Here Is a scary thought... the Chi-coms never bought in to all that propaganda between the US and USSR. They (China) think a nuclear war is win-able. While you are having that knee-jerk reaction because you have been taught all your life that nuclear war is a lose-lose bargain... think about this.... They Don't believe that. They Have not been taught that. They "Know" they can win a nuclear combat. They actively plan it and wargame such a scenario. Our armed forces have only theorized it for the past few years. Scary isn't it. Most Americans to this day will tell you that Nuclear wars can't be won by either party involved. Not so some of those other peoples. They are NOT crazy, they just have not been hit with the everybody dies and the world ends story all their lives. See the difference. They practice and train for nuclear combat and our people say bend over cuz it's over That should be enough to scare the heck out of most Americans. Well thats the end of this chapter of my Lunatic nuclear rant. After all I Stopped believing the propaganda and started reading the physicists and engineers several years ago. I just wish I could do the calculus. I never learned that stuff so much of the theoretical math is beyond me. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
July 17, 2011 - 10:12pm | @dmoffett: You're more read on the nuke subject than I am, but there might be something that both you & I overlooked in our nuclear ping pong; we're talking about detonating nukes from our present day technological perspective, whereas Star Frontiers could be referring to advanced/alien nuclear technology. Who knows what advances/devices their nuclear physicists added to mix? Okay, I'm kind of gropping at straws here, but a ship exploding in space or in a (gulp) space station is certainly more exciting to imagine than the realistic melt down that you described, no? My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
 July 17, 2011 - 10:21pm | Kamelt or Kaboom; either way its a hazard and federal for plot hooks. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
July 18, 2011 - 9:50pm | Yes new technology would advance the process, that is already proven, We can get higher yields with much smaller weaponry than we could before. Reference the so called "suitcase nukes" or "backpack nukes" (bigger than an actual suitcase and would not fit into the trunk of a compact car but the idea is still scary.) (The backpack nuke is actually in several backpacks) We no longer use as conventional explosive to set them off and they are far more efficient at using up all the fuel quicker which actually lessens the amount of fallout while increasing the initial burst radiation. Because of that efficiency Modern Nukes are relatively clean compared to the crude devices used in the Second World War ie much less fallout. They reach critical mass quicker and you need less fissible material to do it. The reason the first bombs were as "dirty" (fallout wise) as they were was because of leftover fissible dust that was expelled away from the bomb as it exploded, Along with irradiated heavy metals that were also vaporised into dust AKA fallout. Modern weapons use more and lose less and a lot of them have Ceramic casings for re-entry....and or to lighten the load. Why build it form steel when you can build it from something lite weight so your B52 or ICBM for that matter, can carry more of them. Less heavy metal leads to less fallout. So yes High tech has huge advantages. With higher tech weapons you can nuke the enemy and move your forces through the area within hours instead of days. Huge Tactical advantages. In the 1950s we had made them Small enough to put onto a mortar. By the the 1970s we could put them into an 8 inch artillery shell. Today we can launch them from the 155mm Howitzers. So yeah better efficiency comes with better technology. The only thing that limits Limits your bomb yield now is this; How many atoms of Plutonium can you fit into any given space? What they will be able to do in the future is also limited by how quick they can ignite the fusion material (tritium). Who knows what they can do in the future. Maybe combine anti-matter in the mix or something... Who knows? The bombing starts in five minutes. |
July 19, 2011 - 8:23am | dmoffett wrote: "Who knows what they can do in the future. Maybe combine anti-matter in the mix or something... Who knows?" I guess that's where I was going with my last post. I mean, I'm really glad it's difficult at our current level of technology to get nuclear crap to go kaboom or even blamo, but sometime in the future, a crew of unwashed mixed-race rogues just might park their scout ship inside a space station, light the fuse on its engine (yes, all atomic engines have firecracker-type fuses sticking out of them in NJ star frontiers campaigns shh!), and take out a third of the structure in a futuristic ka-f'ing-boom blamo pow incident! My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
 July 19, 2011 - 9:18am | i think blowing up starships in crowded areas is something that has cropped up in many camaigns. i remember in the final adventure I ran for my gaming group before I moved to North Carolina, the characters needed a diversion to get offworld with a group of Psychic children that were the target of the evil Admiral Ayres and his Dark Mystic Knight cohort the evil Lord Vasious (long story), but in order to create a diversion, Derrick Starkiller, captain of the Starfire, the second fastest hunk of junk in the Frontier hyper ignited his beloved ship's engines in the spaceport. Needless to say this caused enough of a diversion, and choked up my gaming group, because they understood then that this was indeed the last Adventure we would be playing in Star Frontiers as a group, and in this last Adventure anything could happen. It was one of my best adventures, and nearly 11 years later is still fondly remembered by me and the remnants of my old gaming group. "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
 July 23, 2011 - 8:13am | Big Kaboom, Secondary Cascading Structural Collapse, radiation just sucks, fireballs suck vac and fade to black... but then so does everyone on board... Yep, that sums up my take on it in fewer syllables... Nuke equals Death... for fewer syllables... Everything after that is cosmetic, so describe a glittering one third of chunky debris missing from the remaining slag, as another third of the station hangs flopping from a piece of Ptolemy Grade fishing wire... and viola! ...anyone on board saves verses vacuum or dies, saves verses radiation or dies, saves verses saving and dies a slow agonizing hospitalized death, or fails and is put to a long peaceful rest... While the reactor suffered a 'mere catastrophic meltdown' it wasn't 'rigged to explode' as the way I understood the given example, which is still quite possible, especially considering the possible ORION Type Engines (the great interplanetary atomic slinky), that uses controlled explosions, and is (albiet somewhat shakely) described by the sourcebooks as being the basis for the 'fuel pellets'... in any case, even a 'mere catastrophic meltdown' in the confined space of a space station is going to put severe ... no ... critical, no ... catastrophic stresses on the stations environmental and structural integrity... again I say the 1/3 chunk and heavy long-term overhaul of the station is an adequate 'quick call' ... more severe damages and losses over both short and long term, 'could' be appropriately expected... a cascading structural colapse is still quite possible, but in any case it won't be the impressive fireworks delight seen with a ground or air-blast, but that is just cosmetic eye candy... the 'real damage' will still be incalculable and long term... and surviving is a BAD thing, pray to die quick and die first, but be prepared to be unpleasently suprised, the aftermath just sucks... in space it sucks vac... and either way, it's still a death. Oh humans!!  We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".~ anymoose, somewhere on the net... so... if you square a square it becomes a cube... if you square a cube does it become an octoid? |
July 23, 2011 - 8:47am | Biting the hook!!! uhg! Oh humans!! We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".~ anymoose, somewhere on the net... so... if you square a square it becomes a cube... if you square a cube does it become an octoid? |
July 23, 2011 - 8:14am | No doubt anything as dangerous a nuclear reactor that could risk a melt down would be placed near the skin of the station with blow out panels and an ejection system for the reactor core. If the station is spinning centripetal force will aid with ejection. It wont be expected that ejecting the core is necessary its just a safety feature of the design in case of battle damage or other "stresses". Naturally you don't need to tell the players that the reactor core ejects when they attempt to blow it for a diversion; it can be equally fun to send the station into emergency power working off the back up capacitors and force the players to deal with a changing situation not of their planning. Of course you could equally desire a reactor placed deep in a station and when the players discover that it will blow the race is on to get out before the light show. While not as spectacular its always better to witness the destruction of the death star from out side ;) I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
July 23, 2011 - 8:40am | being even more realistic, the entire hull is made from over-sized solar panels, and the entire station runs on a stack of car batteries...  wouldn't know of any international space stations with that design type philosophy though... besides such a ludicrous design philosophy destroys the "Captain Jet Zero and his Amazing Atomic Rocket" aesthetic, that I hold dear to the Star Frontiers setting... Oh humans!! We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".~ anymoose, somewhere on the net... so... if you square a square it becomes a cube... if you square a cube does it become an octoid? |
July 23, 2011 - 9:46am | @zpiritcoyote I was thinking of ships in the Honor Harrington universe where destroyers and light cruisers were so small and fragile that their fusions reactors were placed close to the hull so they could be jettisoned if the magnetic bottle was going unstable because when the fusions reactor blows its seriously game over for the ship and crew other ship classes starting at heavy cruiser upto super dreadnought are massive enough to hurry their fusions reactors deep in the ships hull to protect it against battle damage. But the point is reactors going boom and engines overloading is a genre staple and players expect it so we can play to it anyway. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
July 23, 2011 - 11:20am | Yeah, exactly... kinda, my point too... some of the ships in the Weber-verse were also sometimes prone to undetected leakages and crew sickness... very detailed sci-fi writer, but not overly cumbersome with the technicalities [imo]... I'm a fan, fo'shur... there is a whole shelf of his books in the local library. Like Asimov and Clarke he has a way of making you forget that you just learned some factual physics in a fun forum...  I would be more appreciative of a realistic Weber-verse in an Alternity rule-set, I think... but no doubt he influences some of my Frontiers setting also... Have I mentioned Imperial Starfire lately? it's an Empire Building Strategy Wargame based on his books, and he worked on aspects of the game personally... not many authors get to have that kind of creative control over the spin off game... If you arn't an Avalon Hill - SPI - TFG - Wargamming Classics Fan, it might be a turn-off though.Reads like stereo instructions...  stereo instructions writen by a jurisprudence specialist systems librarian.Oh humans!! We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".~ anymoose, somewhere on the net... so... if you square a square it becomes a cube... if you square a cube does it become an octoid? |
July 23, 2011 - 12:59pm | Oh WOW, I enjoy reading cans of sterno. Helps pass the time in the catering van. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
July 24, 2011 - 11:29am |  My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
 July 26, 2011 - 4:03pm | even if the reactor melted as opposed to actually exploding... There are plenty of things on a starship from atmospheric gases to munitions that would not remain intact when exposed to the heat of a melting reactor...something would have gone boom, thats for sure. |
 November 26, 2017 - 8:41pm | I know this is an older post, but rather than start a new thread I figure we can just add to the Kaboom!... I got an Atomic Bomb question or two... What sort of damage do you all think an atomic bomb would do say with a blast range of 5 miles/8 km? I have been trying to figure it out, I get there are zones but everything I am finding just does not really fit what I am thinking... most info is for a hydrogen bomb which has a bigger destructive path. I am thinking at 5 miles/8 km this is the 50% kill zone? Just not sure... I have not thought about bombs like this since middle school... I am thinking this is in the kilotons versus megatons. Maybe 1 or 2 Kilotons? Or is that still to small? This is for a traditional over head blast on land too. "Never fire a laser at a mirror." |
November 26, 2017 - 9:38pm | I know this is an older post, but rather than start a new thread I figure we can just add to the Kaboom!... I got an Atomic Bomb question or two... What sort of damage do you all think an atomic bomb would do say with a blast range of 5 miles/8 km? I have been trying to figure it out, I get there are zones but everything I am finding just does not really fit what I am thinking... most info is for a hydrogen bomb which has a bigger destructive path. I am thinking at 5 miles/8 km this is the 50% kill zone? Just not sure... I have not thought about bombs like this since middle school... I am thinking this is in the kilotons versus megatons. Maybe 1 or 2 Kilotons? Or is that still to small? This is for a traditional over head blast on land too. One resource I can point to is Sfman 17 "Radiation Sickness" EDIT: http://www.starfrontiers.us/node/9722 Edit 2: PCs surviving a nuke? we're talking aabout kiloton range not megaton range fundabmentally. Pcs could survive a close call with a 1 kiloton to 5 kiloton nuke if 1 to 5 kilometers away IIRC. a lot will have to do with cover, topography and distance. nuke does damage with over pressure- blast wave and returning wind so if PCs are a suitable distance and under cover they may be fine. Radiation starts showing up within 24 hours as dust and ashe fall out of the sky so a timely dose of Nutrarad from Zebs Guide will preserve life. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 November 27, 2017 - 2:37pm | I whipped together something -- which I have to write a revision sometime to clean up some typos -- that has a small fusion bomb... the Tetrarch Death Machine! Yep, it's my effort to translate a Gamma World monster into Star Frontiers. http://www.starfrontiers.us/node/9613 Now, as to whether or not I've simulated a real world small nuke... well, the jury's out on that... The fusion bomb I presented is a lot more powerful than the GW version, which I think only does 80 points of damage ... 80 points in the GW universe not the SF game system of course Joe Cabadas |
 November 27, 2017 - 4:47pm | Careful with the damage conversion. GW was famous for it low tech weapons being unable to hurt characters and the higher tech ones being very deadly. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
November 27, 2017 - 5:11pm | Careful with the damage conversion. GW was famous for it low tech weapons being unable to hurt characters and the higher tech ones being very deadly. Hmmm, doesn't our beloved SF share the same problem? Joe Cabadas |
November 27, 2017 - 7:20pm | A little, it was calculated that to kill the average GW character with a bow would take 38 arrows. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
November 27, 2017 - 7:39pm | A little, it was calculated that to kill the average GW character with a bow would take 38 arrows. Well, they're all mutants after all. GW characters are all hardened specimens having evolved after years of exposure to radiation and other pathogens unlike the soft pure strain humans before the apocalypse. Only 38 arrows to kill someone? Heck, it ought to have been 50 or so. Joe Cabadas |
November 27, 2017 - 7:58pm | Yep. I like the conversion, in fact just found another log GW robotic death thingy that would be great in SF from an old article. I will keep poking on Atomic bombs to work up some blast damage circles based on kilotons & then maybe megatons next... planetary bombardment is a bummer. I am thinking of how to represent some serious stellar warfare in game terms, not to mention planetary wide self destruction by warring parties and what a few warheads could do. "Never fire a laser at a mirror." |
November 27, 2017 - 8:10pm | The GW warbot would be an awesome conversion to do as well. It would chew through practically all Frontier robots and powered armored soldiers. Joe Cabadas |
November 27, 2017 - 9:32pm | https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-how-far-away-would-you-need-to-be-to-survive-a-nuclear-blast I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 December 23, 2017 - 11:19am | The Tzar bomb you speak of was tested, and it was originally planned to be 100 Megatons. However scientists working on it had a rare affliction of common sense and got worried about the size of what they were about to detonate. They secretly scaled it down a little to 50 Megatons, but the fireball itself had a 8km radius. But this is SF and other sci-fi have introduced ideas like nuclear dampeners, Gundam Seed had a Neutron Jammer which some how prevented nuclear reactions. Whether such a device is even possible is another matter. But it's something developed populations in SF would be very much interested in having, because if terrorist can easily get a hold of fuel for atomic drives. Then a nuclear weapon would be easy for them as well. But aren't the torpedos carried by ships in Knight Hawks supposed to be nuclear tipped? In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
December 24, 2017 - 3:45am | But aren't the torpedos carried by ships in Knight Hawks supposed to be nuclear tipped? Yes, exactly. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
December 24, 2017 - 6:51am | Just because they are nuclear does not mean their is a big mushroom cloud. The Nuclear Torpedo just means that the explosive force used in the detonation. Since they are trying to penetrate armor in a vacuum anything dependent on oxygen would not work very well. Nuclear boom boom especially if used in a directional explosion works pretty well. The radiation to kill crew and the EMP to disrupt electronics are jsut bonuses. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 3, 2018 - 11:46am | Still, a nuclear torpedo would probably destroy a good size area. Joe Cabadas |
