Make Nuke Failure a Curved Chance Instead of a Hard Cutoff

[wispy belfry]

Changing the nuclear G failure limit from a hard cutoff of 200 Gs to be a chance of failure between, say, 180 and 220 (maybe larger). Between these ranges, depending on the G force impact, the nuke would have a chance of failure based off of a cube root graph; 180 Gs is a very low chance of failure while 220 is very high.
This is a minor change that wouldn’t cause much of a difference in actual games, but I think it would make nuke failures feel less artificial.

[gloomy flame]

rng mentioned 🐴

[maiden lily]

Do they feel artificial? Seems quite likely that machines fail on too big of an impact adding rng too it wouldn´t help in my opinion

[wispy belfry]

At this point I’ve had like 5 nukes across 3 runs fail at 201-205 Gs and I’ve also have at least 2 instances of having my nukes survive release at the last second as I’m damaged, on fire, and about to hit the ground

And like I said, minor change to make the game feel slightly better

[wispy belfry]

Guys what does arrow_up_down mean, and is it worse than

[small ocean]

arrow up/down means a neutral opinion. ⬆️ is an upvote and ⬇️ is a downvote

[honest mango]

is just a straight up no

[modest bramble]

Yes please this would be so nice

And maybe a G estimater for nuke drops or like a reading which shows if it has enough time to arm or the RALT needed to arm it

[random harness]

i don't think you're supposed to use point contact at all, i'm not even sure how slow you need to be flying to even activate it, they're really intended to airburst

[wispy belfry]

Im fully aware, but it’s a last resort when the other option is just crash and die

I don’t know if my aircraft cushions the nuke or something but I’ve done it twice before while falling out of the sky

[vast oxide]

It's worse, it's a "how many times do we have to remind you"