What are some good games about Nukes / Nuclear Warfare?

Got my copy on Steam since my old disc got fucked up.

>mfw the first game didnt have a soundtrack so they just put in a bootleg tab on the ui that let you directly import playlists from windows media player

Attached: 1530311707514.jpg (359x480, 68K)

Command and Conquer

Fair warning:
The economy system is absurdly complex and can potentially get irredeemably ruined during a game.
But you can make religions illegal and legalize polygamy or whatever

Delightfully janky and fitting for the time it was produced at

Attached: 1560188438421.jpg (1032x919, 79K)

Mercenaries 2

BANNON WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING FORTIFYING THAT POSITION

Attached: screenshot3.jpg (800x600, 62K)

Damn this game is kino

A while ago I heard someone say WW3 will be similar to WW1 in that it will be the first time all these brand new weapons will be used. There will be a rubber meets the road adjusting period followed by militaries becoming acclimated to the new tech and improving upon it. I wonder what large scale infantry battles would look like in WW3

I always enjoyed nuking the shit out of Core in Total Annihilation

Attached: yo buddy.gif (300x168, 329K)

Does TA hold up? Especially graphically?

Fallout 2/New Vegas.

It's worth noting that India and Pakistan proved in their last war that two nuclear-armed countries can engage in large-scale conventional warfare.

based

>A while ago I heard someone say WW3 will be similar to WW1 in that it will be the first time all these brand new weapons will be used. There will be a rubber meets the road adjusting period followed by militaries becoming acclimated to the new tech and improving upon it.
No, there will be a "destruction of human civilization" period, followed by militaries (and governments, for that matter) collapsing entirely.

>I wonder what large scale infantry battles would look like in WW3
There wouldn't be any.

WW3 means nuclear war, and nuclear war means the end of the world. You can't win a nuclear war.

BANNON!

>you can't win a nuclear war
bullshit, it just takes good intel and a heaping handful of luck. Your first strike has to destroy enough of the enemies ability to organize and carryout a retaliatory strike; that means taking out the chain of command, nuclear silos, and military installations. It'd fucking suck to live in DC or a Nebraskan cornfield but nuclear war wouldn't be nearly as bad as the Soviets wanted people to think.

>nuclear war wouldn't be nearly as bad as the Soviets wanted people to think.
what's a few hundred million deaths right? lmao

What did I miss something on CNN?

God I wish

People like to pretend that nuclear war would end life as we know it, it really wouldn't. WW3 would fucking suck but it's not going to wipeout humanity or end civilization.

Best game nobody played. How this didn't become a major succes with sequels is beyond me.

>People like to pretend that nuclear war would end life as we know it
it probably wouldn't but it would lead to mass death on an unprecedented scale followed by a nuclear winter which would kill millions more due to famine. It would most likely lead to the collapse of western society but not end all life on earth. Who would wanna live on an earth post nuclear war tho?

>Your first strike has to destroy enough of the enemies ability to organize and carryout a retaliatory strike
The enemy would know you're launching a nuclear attack the instant the missiles started flying.
Unless you think the army is capable of coordinating a country-wide simultaneous surprise bombing run on every single nuclear missile silo in all of Russia/China, which would is fucking madness considering World War 3 probably won't start with nukes and the enemy will be on maximum alert for any hint of a nuclear strike.

>nuclear winter
Stop it with this retarded fucking meme, you could burn all of Western Europe to the ground and it'd produce less ash than your average volcanic eruption.

>bullshit, it just takes good intel and a heaping handful of luck.
Protip: If your strategy depends on "a heaping handful of luck", you're already fucked.

>It'd fucking suck to live in DC or a Nebraskan cornfield
Or any major city. Or anywhere that relies on a functioning government for vital services, AKA absolutely fucking everywhere.

>WW3 would fucking suck but it's not going to wipeout humanity or end civilization.
Wipe out humanity? Probably not. End civilization? Absolutely. There would be people who survive. They'd wish they hadn't.

>In 2014, Michael J. Mills (at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR) et al. published "Multi-decadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict" in the journal Earth's Future.[141] The authors used computational models developed by NCAR to simulate the climatic effects of a soot cloud that they suggest would be a result, of a regional nuclear war in which 100 "small" (15 Kt) weapons are detonated over cities. The model had outputs, due to the interaction of the soot cloud:

>global ozone losses of 20–50% over populated areas, levels unprecedented in human history, would accompany the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years. We calculate summer enhancements in UV indices of 30–80% over Mid-Latitudes, suggesting widespread damage to human health, agriculture, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Killing frosts would reduce growing seasons by 10–40 days per year for 5 years. Surface temperatures would be reduced for more than 25 years, due to thermal inertia and albedo effects in the ocean and expanded sea ice. The combined cooling and enhanced UV would put significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global nuclear famine.

just a meme right?

Why is this thread making me want to rewatch Threads

Attached: 1501452188486.png (900x600, 762K)

If you like documentaries you should watch countdown to zero

>over cities
yeah a meme, population centers would be tertiary targets of an out of control regime at best. Any nuke not spent on a nuclear silo or airbase that supports nuclear bombers is a nuke wasted

>population centers would be tertiary targets of an out of control regime at best.
You think major cities wouldn't be primary targets in a full scale nuclear war?

>waste nukes killing a bunch of scared confused civvies who'll all kill each other or starve to death post-war anyway
or
>attempt to preemptively destroy enemy nukes and shut down any and all military and government presence in the country
What do you think the big players would want to do?

yeah, because it makes no fucking sense. If you have initiative you remove your enemies ability to retaliate, you destroy as many of his nukes while they're still on the ground as you can and you destroy military infrastructure. And a nuke is hardly a surekill so you spend multiple on every target, which very quickly ties up your arsenal.

based

Duke Nukem 3D

Are you braindead? What about the enemy submarines with 20 nuclear missles and each missle has 10 warheads, there is 0% chance that you'll know their positions during your first strike.
What about the russian missiles hidden inside their trains, so they are also impossible to detect before a first strike?

You'll never know the positions of enough of the enemy missles to make a first strike be worthwhile.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-23_Molodets
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon-class_submarine

based

Congratulations, you've figured out why WW3 never happened even though at multiple points the USSR or NATO had enough of an upper hand to try it and why it will continue to not happen.
Hope you enjoy proxy conflicts until the end of time

m.youtube.com/watch?v=CVz5KD3EI5E
Guy who did the special effects for that also contributed to this.
Also has the same morbid atmosphere as Threads.

True, but on the other hand, it's Russia. At least half of those missiles would probably just self-destruct when they tried to launch them.

based

peace walker
starcraft 2

Here's a free one: ICBM.

You can download it here: icbm-game.com/

Attached: xHP90o6.png (1536x2048, 1.76M)

Regarding the Typhoon class, there are six of these submarines, each with 20 missiles, each missle with 10 warheads. 6x20x10=1'200 nukes.
There were 56 train-missiles, each missile with 10 nukes= 560 nukes.
And each of these nuclear bombs would be several times stronger than the ones used in Japan.

If you say that half of those would fail, you would still look at 880 nukes that can't be accounted for during a first strike. And each of these nuclear bombs would be several times stronger than the ones used in Japan.
And that's considering these two systems only, there might be other submarine classes capable of the same thing.

Mutually.
Assured.
Destruction.

Airbases were also targets, and many are in spitting distance of population centres too. And Soviet ICBM's were notoriously powerful because their guidance wasn't the best, and check out the yield-to-blast radius of those nuclear weapons over densely populated areas and you'll see just how bad it was to live in metropolitan areas in the 1980's.

This game is apparently a joke, but I was surprised to learn that Wang computers wasn't a joke but a company that really existed.

Command Modern Air/Naval Warfare although its only a small subset of the game.

Subcom FAF for just general nukage

What’s it feel like if a nuke went off in your face?

>play modern warfare remastered yesterday
>get to aftermath
>remember how awed people were by it, how there's nothing you can do and how you just wander forward, take in the destruction, and die from your wounds, no daring escape where you manage to somehow find a way out and survive the blast
>the scripted death seems kind of trite now and the at-the-time contrived and expected daring escape sounds way more interesting

how things change

Having one of your main characters die wasn't anything special in 2007 and it isn't anything special now.