Starting the game with a nuke

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by godde, November 7, 2013.

  1. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    What if you start the game with a nuke on your commander?

    Would you use it early in the game to destroy the enemies infrastructure or would you save it until you can use it against a juicy target?
    Will you spread out your attacking army or will you bring an anti missile weapon with your army?
    You could raid the enemy base to take out their anti nukes or bomb them.

    I think it opens up a lot of early- and midgame choices.
    Arguably the commander should start with anti-nuke capabilities because otherwise he and his base can just be nuked and then the enemy could move in.

    However there are alternatives.
    Say that the commander starts with 1 or several nuclear warheads. These could then be loaded into a truck, an airplane or a missile.
    This would give players enough time to counter them or intercept them.
    Once spotted, nuclear transports could be highlighted and a vocal "Nuclear warhead" detected could alert the player.
    Nukes might have to be armed before blowing up as they otherwise might blow up in your base. They could be manually armed or automatically when they reach their destination.
    A nuclear transport will not blow up unless it is armed and the nuke could even be picked up by the enemy and sent back at you.

    In 1v1 this gives players another strong piece that they can chose to use early or wait to use later.
    In Free For All this would give all players teeth. Playing aggressively might result in mutual destruction. Something that I've always liked in FFA. If everybody have nukes it might promote diplomacy.
    I guess teamgames are the biggest crux but if balanced correctly it wouldn't be worth wasting 2-5 nukes against just one enemy player at the start of the game.

    I think that the current nukes are a bit too strong for this idea. An appropriate nuke would have a bit less AoE, do a bit less damage and kill the commander in 2 or 3 hits.
    If you are interested you could read this old thread:what-if-nukes-werent-superweapons

    A mod? Maybe I will get to that.
    shootall likes this.
  2. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    I'd say this requires a complete revamp of Nucks. Something like this couldn't be accomplished with Nucks as they are.

    Thought in the end I don't really see the point, just attack the commander with it as soon as able.

    Commander death blasts are already a pain in team games(and even for greifing in general) I don't see the poitn in making things more messy like this.

    Mike
    maxpowerz likes this.
  3. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    Well I do think that Nucks need a revamp and so do you:

    Why would you use it on the enemy commander? He can be repaired easily.

    I haven't experience this(and why should we have to balance the game with griefing in mind anyways?)
  4. ledarsi

    ledarsi Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    935
    The problem with this is that a nuke can kill a commander. This means you have no incentive not to just use the nuke IMMEDIATELY as soon as the enemy's position is identified.

    But if you give the commander both nuke and antinuke, all you are doing is discouraging significant expansion or army aggression. A large base or army just becomes an opportunity to use the starting nuke, again, a weapon you want to use as soon as possible because critical damage early on is frequently very decisive.

    I would also be in favor of a nuke revamp. In PA the old model of TA nukes as super-expensive game enders doesn't really work because nukes don't necessarily deal terminal damage, there are multiple planets, and there are also planet-killing weapons which ARE super-expensive game enders.

    I do agree it would be very interesting to make nukes a normal part of gameplay rather than game-ending superweapons. But having the commander start with one is probably not a good approach. Making nukes affordable, such as buildable by T1 or even by the commander, could be interesting. As you say, having nukes gives players teeth, encourages diplomacy, and adds tension to large bases and army movements.

    But having a nuke from the very beginning of the game that does not need to be paid for introduces some strange problems with using the "free" nuke very early in the game. By making them constructed for resources, you give players an opportunity to construct antinukes and force a decision about how to spend resources to get nukes so early.
  5. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    The problem is that it reduces the threshold of what it takes to kill a comm, even if a Nuck can only bring a commander to half health, it means you need fewer units to finish him off.

    Even if it doesn't kill him, early game you want you nanolathes to be expanding, building factories or defenses, not repairing your commander.

    Mike
  6. GoogleFrog

    GoogleFrog Active Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    235
    I think it sounds like an interesting but quite different game which would need to be designed from the start with commander nukes in mind.
  7. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    Even the current PA nuke doesn't kill a commander. Downscaling the nuke could be a good idea anyway though.

    You wont have an army early in the game. You will have spread-out raiding parties and your expansion is not a significant target either as it will only consist of a few mexes and perhaps a factory. If you waste a nuke on that, I can move out with my commander, attack your expansion and nuke any army facing my commander. If you move out with your commander to provide cover for your army I can nuke your base.

    I do have experience from TA and some Spring games where the commanders really do act as free nukes from the start of the game as they can be picked up by transports and sent to enemy straight away even. This isn't so much a problem in PA as the commander explosion doesn't kill the enemy commander and is quite small.
    But nevertheless if the enemy use their commander to attack you also have to use your commander to fight otherwise you are gonna get behind and I like such positional gameplay. It is almost like chess.
    The commander is a very strong piece and so would the starting nuke be.
    However nuke could actually force the enemy commander to stay in the base to protect it with the inbuilt anti-nuke defence so if players want to push out with their commander they would have to spread out their base to make it a less significant target or try to position their commander between their base and the enemy commander to intercept incoming nukes if that is possible.
    However if you start with nuclear warheads it isn't really that hard to stop nuclear truck. A nuclear bomber could be harder to stop but you can put it higher up the tech tree or make it more expensive. Loading the nuclear warheads into a missile could be the lategame usage.

    Anyway. We agree on revamping the nuke and making it less binary.
    Last edited: November 7, 2013
  8. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    Well it also means I can use my nuke to destroy whatever the enemy sends at my commander or just send it at his base. I'd trade half the health on my commander for a nuke in the enemy base easily considering how fast and cheaply the commander can be repaired.

    Well I'm not sure I can defend a position where the commander starts with a nuke in a missile and no anti-nuke defence.
    Optimal play seems like scouting the enemy, nuking the enemy base with the commander in it, attack the enemy with your commander and then force a nuke on your commander or your base. You will get ahead if the enemy stayed in their base until you scouted him in that case because you hit both the commander and the base.
    Anyway. Feel free to discuss a start with both nuke and anti-nuke or a start with nuclear warheads.

    Edit:Although if it takes a few minutes before the commander can fire his nuke it means he can move away from the base which makes it a less significant target.
    Last edited: November 7, 2013
  9. ledarsi

    ledarsi Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    935
    The commander starting with a nuke idea is certainly clever, and actually not as crazy as it sounds. The specifically problematic part is the fact that the nuke is both "free" and also a potentially game-deciding asset. Which is available from the start of the game. Part of the function of commanders is to prevent cheesy play from deciding the game too early on, and I think giving the commander a nuke creates opportunities to do silly things that could end the game, either for or against the player doing them.

    I am also hugely in favor of positional play, but what you describe isn't really positional play so much as commander-centric play focused on a single unit.

    Instead of an early-game nuke paradigm of having one "free" nuke as well as one mobile antinuke, the player should be required to spend resources to build these things. Going for a fast nuke right off the bat could even be a viable play, although obviously of quite seriously reduced effectiveness if scouted before it's ready because the other player will build antinuke.

    The option to construct a nuke silo using your commander, and also the ability to construct antinuke, sounds much more like positional play to me. Because now you have the entire board to work with, and an enemy antinuke grid of variable density. If there is light antinuke covering a particular area, a concerted nuclear strike with multiple nukes becomes an option. Scouting that a particular base exists or has no antinuke defense opens up the possibility of nuking it, provided the total value of the base is greater than the cost of the nuke, or it has strategic value for some other reason.

    But you also must make decisions about the economic dimension here. Every silo or missile or antinuke you construct uses resources that could have been used to do other things. Such as make troops, support, aircraft, economy, tech up, or go into space. Focusing too much on nukes may make you vulnerable to a variety of other plays, from raiding to a straight up attack, or just being outmacroed by an enemy turtling on a small space with antinuke, and with many far-flung mexes that aren't worth enough to nuke.

    This paragraph makes me think you want to separate nuclear warheads from long-range missiles. This would make the nuke starting with a commander a lot less cheesy/exploitable in the early game, but adds a lot of management to using nuclear packages because you have to assign delivery systems as well.

    I would be interested to hear you elaborate about how you think this multiple delivery system concept would work. Loading nukes into trucks, helicopters, bombers, and then later ICBM's. If the starting nuke cannot be launched via ICBM until later, why does the commander need antinuke?

    Absolutely agreed. Shrinking nukes, making them more available, and so on would be excellent. Even to the point of making them available right at the start of the game. They could require a T1 con to slightly delay when they can be built and require a factory be constructed first, that would also be sensible. But in my opinion everything should be flat-balanced, with the tech tree serving only as a timed release, not as a balancing tool to pay in the form of the factory to unlock superior units and structures. That includes nukes. They should be designed to play for their cost regardless of when they become available.

    But you should be required to make a choice to build that type of asset, instead of being given exactly one for free, as well as an antinuke.
    Last edited: November 7, 2013
  10. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    That's not true. A single nuke can't kill a commander.

    Either way. I don't like this idea. Nukes are way too match altering to start out with one.

    Nukes do a heck of a lot of damage. Therefore they should have a cost. Not just start with one for free.
    spazzdla likes this.
  11. spazzdla

    spazzdla Active Member

    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    135

    I know this one guy that was nuked twice and still won ;).

    Starting with one is a little crazy though unless I also get to start with some fatcories and an ecom too. It could be a cool mod but IMO you'd have to start with more than just your c-man.
    archcommander likes this.
  12. Gerfand

    Gerfand Active Member

    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    147
    yes, but you make he go to RED, and some bomers can kill then.
  13. cwarner7264

    cwarner7264 Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,460
    Likes Received:
    5,390
    This sounds like it would be a fun game mode to play. But I'd definitely say one for the modders ;)
  14. Clopse

    Clopse Post Master General

    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    2,865
    Think it relies on luck a bit. Try kill his scout. Scout his base and nuke it before he can scout you. Then spread you fabbers all over the place and win.
  15. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    :/ only if coms where immune to start nuke in that gameplay mode because otherwise you just put up and air factory get a scout and a bomber...

    would the nuke be strapped to the back of the commander or in a silo? because if it's in the nuke silo I can't see it being viable.
  16. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    Maybe. But even if given more strength to a single unit in the game, the added options could give more strategical play. Arguably such early nukes are crowd control measures. They could fight deathballs and promote thin widespread expansion with following global harassment.

    My idea is that the early nukes would kickstart this type of positional play. When nuclear missiles always looms over the battlefield players will slowly have to extend their antinuke grid where players always have the option to nuke other areas. Also if nukes are more common an initial nuke is not such a big deal.

    Well I don't think a free nuke changes that. It just gives players an additional tool that they can use when they see fit.

    Well the commander wouldn't need an anti-nuke if he only started with nuclear warheads. That was for the case when he started with a nuke in a missile.
    The commander would store the nuclear warheads. Transferring the nukes, to trucks or airplanes seems simple enough although I guess animating it could be a little harder. For example only nuclear transports could be able to arm a nuke while other units could pick them up.
    My intent is to introduce a powerful weapon where the players have to weigh the long term gains versus the short term gains. If you use it early you can destroy a few units but if you use it later you can destroy more units however the enemy is also more likely to have antinukes by that point.
    Producing nuclear warheads could require advanced facilities with high infrastructure demands which could decrease cost while conventional weaponry and missiles require less infrastructure but is less destructive for cost.
  17. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    Here is another alternative.
    What if the commander were gimped after using the nuke?
    Instead of saying that the commander starts with a nuke we say that the commander is simply sending of his fusion core against the enemy. After that he might lose his resource production or ability to charge his Ubercannon for example.
    It wont matter so much if I lose my base and I can just go in Dgun your face.
  18. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    Arguably the commander have to have an anti-nuke or there needs to be a delay before the nuke can be launched.


    It would be strapped to the commander. You would need to kill the commander to take out the nuke.
  19. ledarsi

    ledarsi Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    935
    Alright so correct me if I make any incorrect assumptions or deductions.

    The underlying concept of the proposal is actually to separate the nuclear payload from the delivery system. A nuke 'core' can be strapped to any delivery system. Driven in a land transport, loaded into a bomber, or into an ICBM for long-range delivery.

    The commander begins the game with one such nuke core, and this core is responsible for the commander explosion. However, it can be removed from the commander and used as a weapon at the player's discretion. This presumably has a downside in the form of weakening the commander, such as losing energy generation and the ability to use the Dgun.


    It adds options, but it does not seem like it adds more options than it costs in complexity. For example, commbombing in TA was arguably a problem, and separating out the commander explosion from losing the actual commander makes a kamikaze run with the bomb much more appealing. Furthermore, such an attack using a bomber, or even a truck, is not actually blockable using antinuke. Rushing a unit capable of transporting this bomb to the enemy base seems like a logical move.

    If you have the option to build inexpensive nukes early in the game, then I am just not seeing the advantage of giving away one nuke for free. I see a lot of potential for games ending in nuclear explosions very early, and no real downside to trying to land your free nuke as soon as possible to win the game. You are handing players, right off the bat, a weapon which can and sometimes will be used to end the game.

    Driving a truck over to the enemy base with a nuke in the trunk just doesn't seem like an interesting game mechanic.
  20. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    It is one of out several suggestions, yeah. Probably you would have more than 1 nuke core. Its' an idea I've had for a long time since realistically, why wouldn't you strap on some powerful bombs on the commander if you could?

    Yeah, many people frowned upon the usage of combombing in teamgames or as a way to draw a game in 1v1. There generally weren't a clear consensus if it were allowed or not. It usually only had a soft ban as good players wouldn't perform it.
    Anyway. Here you make it clear from the start. You have a nuke. Use it as you see fit. Balance the game around it. The nuke would be much less powerful than in TA as it is unable to kill the enemy commander in 1 hit.

    A truck is blockable by any ground attack unit. Bombers are blockable by any anti-air unit. The rest is a question of balancing how easy it should be to deliver the bomb to the target location but still both players have the same options.

    I think it sounds interesting. You can use the truck as defence or offence. Actually delivering the bomb to the enemy and arming it without destroying your army sounds like interesting gameplay.
    The point is that both players have nukes. They will have to adapt their play to that, spreading out their base and army to avoid making it a juicy target.
    Right now the players start with the commander. Good use of the commander early in the game will win you games in close spawn positions. I think starting nukes would have similar effects.
    The big downside of nuking early is that if you will only get a few units. The enemy commander can now roam free and any army that you face it with can be nuked.
    You could start PA with only an unarmed builder but you could also go in the other direction and expand the power and options that you have at the start of the game. I think it could be interesting to explore the other end of the spectrum. In the end it is about promoting certain gameplay or giving players different tools at the start of the game which both allows more initial choices but also sets the tone of the game.

    It could be seen as a way of empowering the player, giving him choices and nice explosions to watch.
    Players could go "When you start a game of PA you start with a frikkin nuke! This game don't mess around.".
    Last edited: November 8, 2013

Share This Page