|
|
Post by gillinic on May 21, 2021 19:27:57 GMT -6
Not sure if this has been done before, so if it has let me know if it has.
Think with the upcoming expansion, the introduction of nuclear power as an option for fuel type would be pretty cool. Not talking about nuclear weapons as that's a whole other issue.
Given that the first nuclear powered ship was the USS Nautilus, launched in 1954, nuclear power would have to be a late game technology, but I feel it could be a fun option for those who play a campaign right to the end. The benefit of choosing nuclear power would be that it massively reduces selecting the cost for long and extreme ranges and massively reducing basing costs - reflecting whole idea of power projection and the steady decline of foward naval bases as decolonisation gathered pace. This would work well when you start getting the whole releasing nations choices as you wouldn't have to suffer huge prestige hits in order to hold onto a well developed base you've spent time and money building up, since they wouldn't be as necessary.
Tech wise the whole tech line could start out in the mid 30s, building to like heavy water production to uranium refinement etc, gradually building to full nuclear power. You might also have to be required to build something in your home region, if that works in game. It could also be limited so that only captial ships could use it for balance beyond the whole late game nature.
Let me know what people think. Good idea or completely terrible?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 21, 2021 19:45:50 GMT -6
Not sure if this has been done before, so if it has let me know if it has. Think with the upcoming expansion, the introduction of nuclear power as an option for fuel type would be pretty cool. Not talking about nuclear weapons as that's a whole other issue. Given that the first nuclear powered ship was the USS Nautilus, launched in 1954, nuclear power would have to be a late game technology, but I feel it could be a fun option for those who play a campaign right to the end. The benefit of choosing nuclear power would be that it massively reduces selecting the cost for long and extreme ranges and massively reducing basing costs - reflecting whole idea of power projection and the steady decline of foward naval bases as decolonisation gathered pace. This would work well when you start getting the whole releasing nations choices as you wouldn't have to suffer huge prestige hits in order to hold onto a well developed base you've spent time and money building up, since they wouldn't be as necessary. Tech wise the whole tech line could start out in the mid 30s, building to like heavy water production to uranium refinement etc, gradually building to full nuclear power. You might also have to be required to build something in your home region, if that works in game. It could also be limited so that only captial ships could use it for balance beyond the whole late game nature. Let me know what people think. Good idea or completely terrible? Hmmm! Why not, I would support it as long as it was VERY expensive. Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by gillinic on May 21, 2021 20:50:01 GMT -6
Yeah it'd have to be expensive. If it was implemented I'd see it as a choice, not something you have to go for - like how most navies don't use nuclear power in ships. It'd be expensive and a long term investment in research and money, but if you choose to go for it, the up sides make it worth it. At the same time, you wouldnt want to be punsihed for not choosing to go with nuclear power.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 21, 2021 21:36:31 GMT -6
Yeah it'd have to be expensive. If it was implemented I'd see it as a choice, not something you have to go for - like how most navies don't use nuclear power in ships. It'd be expensive and a long term investment in research and money, but if you choose to go for it, the up sides make it worth it. At the same time, you wouldnt want to be punsihed for not choosing to go with nuclear power. Good article |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on May 22, 2021 0:13:05 GMT -6
I think it will be a lot of work for the programmers, for not much gain.
The biggest problem will be simulating damage to the nuclear power plant. No nuclear powered vessels have been in combat so we don't know directly what happens, the best we can do is to extrapolate from the numerous disasters that have happened over the years. Some of those can be pretty nasty, and result in either ships being dead right there (China Syndrome or a Chernobyl incident) or major contamination (K-431) possibly of a major part of your fleet.
|
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on May 22, 2021 16:45:06 GMT -6
I wouldn’t mind it but I feel that in order to truly take advantage of it the game would need to be expanded past 1970. I would also like to know how midlife refueling would be implemented.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on May 22, 2021 17:09:26 GMT -6
I think it will be a lot of work for the programmers, for not much gain. The biggest problem will be simulating damage to the nuclear power plant. No nuclear powered vessels have been in combat so we don't know directly what happens, the best we can do is to extrapolate from the numerous disasters that have happened over the years. Some of those can be pretty nasty, and result in either ships being dead right there (China Syndrome or a Chernobyl incident) or major contamination (K-431) possibly of a major part of your fleet. The damage to a nuclear power plant isn't that unique, minus the contamination making it harder to perform repairs. Chernobyl is fundamentally very different from a naval reactor - the RBMK 1000 that exploded at Chernobyl produces 3200 MWth under normal operation (and, at the time of the accident, exceeded 30,000 MWth). A large naval powerplant like the A5W produces a small fraction of that at 550 MWth - a naval reactor will almost certainly not explode like Chernobyl reactor 4. K-431 is a better example, but even then, almost all of the contamination was within the immediate vicinity of the boat. China syndrome is a hollywood movie that is utterly absurd. No, a nuclear meltdown _anywhere_ isn't going to melt a hole through the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on May 23, 2021 0:37:40 GMT -6
Yeah, and people in the know know it won't reach China because it's not an antipode to US territory. China Syndrome still the term created to describe a meltdown with a core successfully leaving the reactor confines by a nuclear physicist called Ralph Lapp in 1971 which was in turn based on a report from a group of nuclear physicists lead by W.K. Ergen in 1967.
Oh, and the movie you deride? Every incident in that movie has occurred in real life. The ending was overly melodramatic, but calling the entire thing absurd is completely wrong.
Also, consider that most AP shells have an explosive content of less than 1 ton of TNT. Chernobyl vapourised 7,000 cubic metres of water, requiring an energy input of 4,000 tons of TNT. Granted, you have a difference in the amount of power generated between land-based and ship-based reactors, and as a result the maximum amount of energy that can be released will be lower for ship-based reactors - but even just 1% of that value is 40 tonnes which would be as catastrophic as a magazine explosion and would result in the vessel sinking rapidly in just a few seconds.
However, I think a good point to make is that there have been enough incidents in peacetime that have resulted in serious contamination of ships interiors that have resulted in the ships having to be effectively abandoned for years before it is safe to repair them for further use.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on May 23, 2021 17:19:23 GMT -6
Sure, but that's already something that can be easily represented in-game. You don't need significant new mechanics to say "okay, the reactor goes boom and the ship is destroyed", you do if you're experiencing "contamination, possibly of a major part of your fleet" (since then you need to do things like calculate contamination plumes and so on, which while possible with what the game gives, would be a fair amount of work).
That said, boilers should already catastrophically explode if hit by shellfire/inrushing water (look at Benlomond as an example of a ship splitting in half when the boilers go up). I want to say I recall this happening once or twice to me in-game, but I can't be sure. The part that causes the explosion in both cases (a pressure vessel full of steam suddenly experiencing a change in conditions causing it to violently rupture) is the same regardless of if the heat is being produced by burning oil or fissioning uranium. The exception is cases where the reactor goes prompt critical, but I'm not sure if a naval reactor taking battle damage would cause that to occur. Regardless, it's not that much work if it is the case - if steam boiler explosions currently don't occur, then ignore it, and if they do, make it more likely for a ship to catastrophically sink after machinery damage if that's the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on May 24, 2021 11:52:12 GMT -6
I think it will be a lot of work for the programmers, for not much gain. The biggest problem will be simulating damage to the nuclear power plant. No nuclear powered vessels have been in combat so we don't know directly what happens, the best we can do is to extrapolate from the numerous disasters that have happened over the years. Some of those can be pretty nasty, and result in either ships being dead right there (China Syndrome or a Chernobyl incident) or major contamination (K-431) possibly of a major part of your fleet. The damage to a nuclear power plant isn't that unique, minus the contamination making it harder to perform repairs. Chernobyl is fundamentally very different from a naval reactor - the RBMK 1000 that exploded at Chernobyl produces 3200 MWth under normal operation (and, at the time of the accident, exceeded 30,000 MWth). A large naval powerplant like the A5W produces a small fraction of that at 550 MWth - a naval reactor will almost certainly not explode like Chernobyl reactor 4. K-431 is a better example, but even then, almost all of the contamination was within the immediate vicinity of the boat. China syndrome is a hollywood movie that is utterly absurd. No, a nuclear meltdown _anywhere_ isn't going to melt a hole through the planet. The most probable damage would be a radition leak,and honestly it could probably be ignored all together. Other option would be that engine hits reduce crew quality, but even them would not be to realistic, as most of the casualties of the radition leak would take much longer than the battle duration. I would just suggest making it expensive but being the best option for extreme range ships. I would also recommend making range more impacful, specially outside of the home area. |
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 7, 2021 17:24:36 GMT -6
I think it will be a lot of work for the programmers, for not much gain. The biggest problem will be simulating damage to the nuclear power plant. No nuclear powered vessels have been in combat so we don't know directly what happens, the best we can do is to extrapolate from the numerous disasters that have happened over the years. Some of those can be pretty nasty, and result in either ships being dead right there (China Syndrome or a Chernobyl incident) or major contamination (K-431) possibly of a major part of your fleet. While I'm not knowledgeable about naval reactors specifically and thus safety measures to protect from damage people generally aren't hanging out too close to the reactor itself. Barring loss of power or damage to other systems I don't see why a hit to a reactor or reactor containment would force an evacuation of the ship. From my knowledge of power plants you would probably conduct emergency repairs and evacuations from some areas to protect the crew and limp into port whenever you get the chance (unless you lose power completely in which case, either get repaired in the middle of the ocean with very specialized crews or get towed back to port). Either way however it probably wouldn't be a case of "reactor hit every man for himself!" |
|
