Anti Nukes

How about making anti nuke silos come with one anti nuke already built? Would solve some of the cost issues.

How about removing the need to build antinuke missiles entirely? You just construct the antinuke structure, and it just does its job without fuss.

Antinukes at the moment are also hilariously overpriced and weak (small coverage). Hopefully none of this will matter when nukes and antinukes get a complete overhaul, eventually.

The bigger your base is the less anti nukes you need. counterintuitive isnt it!.
rather than building them where the things you need to protect are, instead build them as close to the front line as you think is reasonably safe. its not like the TA anti-nuke where you have to have the target covered.
against extreme turtles I've even surrounded their base with anti nuke just like we did with AA turrets/fighter patrols when then AI only built planes. (granted i was playing with the prey that game - probably should have just killed him )

At the minimum you only need to cover the shortest line between the enemy's base and your own. to check this build a scout plane. tell it to move to middle of opponents base then make sure that path is covered plus a reasonable margin either side.

I am a big believer that deference should only ever just be cost effective or slightly less than. In the case of the nuke (5410 metal) and anti-nuke (4500 metal) its a metal cost difference of 910 metal, so you are already getting the anti nuke cheaper and I believe the anti missiles are a bit cheaper. So I do not belive the cost is wroung at all you are able to counter the nuke cheaper than the nuke cost to make.

That said I do believe it needs a 10 to 20% increase in range at most, you need to keep in mind that building anti-nukes to cover every part of your base should not be viable and you do not need. You should have to scout out where they are building there nuke and build the anti nuke in a position between the nukes and your base the notion that one can can protect you is a joke. This is possible if you scout properly, also with the anti nuke been cheaper it can be built faster.

Another thing to note is that an anti-nuke launcher has 3500 HP while the nuke luancher only has 1500 HP making it much easer to take out.

The other thing I think that should be looked at is another version of the anti-nuke which only sets the nuke off early rather than stopping it all together. This option could be put in as cheaper alternative that would allow the current anti nuke take on a middle of the base roll only protecting important stuff while the smaller ones and be spammed.

A pre detonating style anti-nuke solution could be a type of turret (a very expensive one) that can shoot down all forms of missiles giving us a defense against missile boats and any other missile units we might see in the future. It would need to be balanced with power consumption and rate of fire but I think another way to counter nukes is a better way to go than making the current one OP.

The problem I have with this is that Nucks can hit 'anywhere' where as Anti-Nucks only defend a set area. Meaning a single Nuck Launcher can incur much higher total cost for Anti-Nucks to protect large areas.

At that point there is not reason to NOT build a Nuck Launcher first really, either he doesn't build enough Anti-Nucks and you deal damage, or he does build enough Anti-Nucks and has ended up spending a bunch more metal than you have.

Mike

Yeah exactly. That's why I think antinukes should be binary. (if it's turned on, it defends, requiring power to recharge another missile. If it's not present, it doesn't work) Defending your entire base with a missile shield is much more expensive than building a nuke to disable their one

Yeah and I like that it forces you to be aggressive and to make things happen. The attacker should always have an edge over a defender because if they don't the game will just be to campy and atm its very easy to put up a defence line that is next to impossible to breach with units so the nuke is needed to punish over campy play.

Also thats why I like the idea of a second way to deal with nukes which only pre-detonates them so you need to think more about deploying it, but is can be made cheaper. Other wise the nuke will just turn into a defense unit, its OK to use a nuke that way but it would be incredibly meh.

Regardless I think we are going to have to agree to disagree except that they need a range increase just how much.

I think the problem is that what you see as an 'edge', I see as a dominate Strategy that always works out in the Nucker's favor.

Mike

+ What was that? Nukes should have more than a singular binary defense? Wow bobucles, you're so smart.

- Yeah, I know.

+ Make my sequel babies.

- No thanks.

/thread.

How about resolving BOTH those issues by reverting the two changes made from FA (proportionally speaking the nuke is the same radius of effect and deals the same damage as in FA) :
-the anti nuke radius 2/3rds that of nuke radius
-anti nuke much much cheaper than the nuke same with silo.

how does that idea sound?

The thing is that in Terms of the Anti-Nuck, the size of the base is a huge balance factor for it and that's hard to judge until the balance gets refined more.

Mike

So the NORAD donut in other words. Just like in real life.

I'm really sorry KNight/Mike, but your repeated and consistent misspelling of "Nuke" as "Nuck" is driving me bloody spare. I could almost sort of ignore it at first but I'm afraid I feel compelled to point out you are spelling it very, very wrong. Again sorry but I just dont want to be that guy that lets a person walk around in public with **** on their face.

You're the first person to call it out, its a relic from the old SupCom 1 days, SOLAR BEAN! (Not the original sadly)

Mike

In jokes only work when you're in on them... apparently.

Good grief, it's been bugging me for ages and causing me quite some distress... Only to find out it appears to be a an old SupCom meme. In my defense I'll only say I've never been much of a forum dweller, more of the, stay up way too long gaming and make ill-advised/poorly thought out posts at 4am guy.

Works fine for me! ;p

Well I've certainly spent more than my fair share of time on the GPG forums! xD

Mike

I assumed it was some kind of joke. Now I know.

The costs of building an anti nuke missilre are somewhat comparable to a nuke but no way in same fair range for their capabilities.

I believe it to be false that you should scout and know where they are building a nuke so you can properly place an anti nuke. If they already have a nuke launcher out, you are already to far behind to place your anti nuke launcher to counter the destruction that it can do...if your defense does a poor job of protecting the buildings it was meant to protect... Then it is just not worth having..and that's the issue with anti nukes.

I don't see that as a problem. Yes the nuke should have some advantages over a anti nuke other wise the nuke could very easily become redundant as an aggressive option. Also dong forget I am not saying to not change the current meta around nukes a range increase with another cheaper option for taking out nukes like I talked about in my other post.

But it is viable with the section of my post you nicely cut out. With a cheaper version that pre-detonates them will sever the job nicely, while still making a rushed nuke viable but there being a counter that is absolute and more of a T3 building.