anyone getting sick of nukes?

i can see myself only playing in non nuke games in the future, like in TA.

all my games tend to be like this - having a really good game for half an hour, some nice back and forth, countering with defences, upgrading armies to tier 2, backed up with fighter squadrons, make a little territory here and there, gradually gaining ground, maybe then lose some, found a hole in their defences etc etc oh **** they have more nukes than i have anti nukes. game over.

like all the strategy that went before was just a way to pass some time before the nuke race.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope ☢☢☢☢☢☢☢☢
but by all means join the balance discussion meeting

I know what you mean, but yes it's a balance thing. Right now, if you're quick about it, a nuke in the middle of the enemy's powergens or adv factories nips things in the bud. They are handy to crack open a turtle for sure, but I do find myself now building a nuke quick smart rather than getting a big bunch of advanced factories up and running. There was something good fun about sending a ridiculous group of tanks across the map; now even if you try that sometimes the big tank blob gets nuked.

Of course these things can be addressed - the metal to build the nuke is likely to be more than the tanks it blew up; and sending tanks in multiple groups is wise.

Some slider settings for things will get us a long way I think. If in addition to turning certain unit/building types on/off if you could have a slider for how expensive they are, that would allow hosts to disincentivise or encourage certain types of match.

Nukes should be getting shot down by some kind of air or orbital units as a first line of defense. This is not currently possible, so you pretty much die without anti nukes.

The anti nuke's short range isn't much help either, as a large swath of its coverage can still be whacked by aiming at the edge of its range.

Nukes probably do need some balancing.

We'll see what Uber does with Beta.

In a situation like that without nukes then your opponent would have just invested in tanks instead of the nuke and outnumbered, outraided and overwhelmed you earlier.

Hopefully nuke defence can become more common and less binary to so we can also see an increase in nuke use without turning the game into a nuclear war....every time at least.

If you have a even game with aloot of "back and forth" while hes at the same time building enof nukes to overwhelm your nuke defenses, then you have allredy lost.

Hes outplaying you with his superior economy (even game, but he still can afford aloot of nukes), possible solutions:
1. Become better at managing your economy.
2. Become better at raiding his economy.
3. Watch out for nukes and make taking nuke launchers down a top priority (It takes quite a while to build one and then build nukes from it, theres plenty of time to scout his base and do a raid in that time, if you dont notice his nuke launchers before he nukes you to bits, then perhaps you should scout more).

Not if the other player is purposely only committing forces to 'back and forth' in-order to go primarily into atomics.

Effective use of laser towers and a mobile force can easily hold another player back.

Its bad to assume that because a player can go for nukes that the other player is not a good player, not everyone plays the same.

I think you're missing the point garatgh and I made that if the opponent had been investing in units instead of the nuke then it would not have been so evenly back and forth because the opponent would have more units and more successful raiding. The eco used in building nukes could have gone into more eco, more factories, a t2 air snipe, a catapult creep etc which all would have produced the same outcome.

Thats true enough, still if nukes become an object of 'If you can build them, you have already won' then what would be the point of having anti-nukes?

Or the point of even firing them, as at that point it might as well be a wonder victory from age of empires.

Not really, it's a case of if you are evenly matched but they manage to build a nuke then those resources could have gone into anything else which would have also given them an advantage.

Also nukes aren't an instant win unless the planet is tiny. There's only so much stuff a nuke can destroy, if you protect your commander and your power with anti-nukes then stuff like mex and factories are very easily rebuilt and a nuke's best usage can become destroying large groups of units.

That being said I do believe they are perhaps a bit overpowered at the moment but nukes really are not an instant win button at all.

You know what I mean zaphod, that is nukes are a luxury that you can only build if you are winning then you will never see them in games.

As they are currently even still there is no reason to build nukes over building a sufficiently powerful army other then to go for that late game snipe when most of the factroy's were just destroyed.

I know what you mean. I see a nuke as something to resort to when you are so evenly matched in the ground/air/naval wars that neither player can gain an advantage. I think we need to see how nukes get balanced because it is more efficient to invest in nukes than antinukes.

If they are a tie breaker, doesn't trying to build and use them put you at a disadvantage of losing the tie?

Sure, they need to fit a role where they are useful as viable options, e.g. you could concede some unit production and map control but invest in the targeted, highly destructive capability of a nuke. It's all down to the balancing.

Speaking of nuke: does the anti-nuke works? I'm very slow for nuke, and each time I launched one, the anti never worked. The best was nuking an anti-nuke...

No idea why they don't just roll the two disparate units into one.

Ok, so, what do you guys think about the idea of advanced fighters and those missile ships having the ability to attempt to shoot at and destroy nukes in transit?

Like the fighters could need a bunch of direct shots to kill one and the missile ships would need like 2 or 3?

That's a bit OT (I don't know if nukes are OP, I just think they are a silly game-ender)
However, I'd like the anti-nuke to be a large range Laser-armed Satellite launched into orbit,
as in the "Star Wars" Reagan program...