Reduction of nuke power (or make anti-nukes better)

Let's check the number of posts that recognize nukes as playing a completely redundant, unnecessary, and poorly fleshed out role in PA:
Posters 1, Uber 0.

All right. Carry on.

Grumpy old man here throwing in my river of resistance.......i have no complaint as to current settings, aside from the edge of range glitch. If you go anti first every time then you have nothing to worry about. But what do I know, the cries of those unwilling to learn out weight those that do once again....

Id prefer a number of new counter nuke options, leaving the anti-nuke as the best, but with additional weaker anti-nuke options in a pitch.

Should nukes be in the game at all? They only have two points of interaction with the game world- the launcher, and the defender. Everything else that happens around them may as well be ghosts, with no ability to interact on the nuclear level in any way.

Asteroids already exist as super weapons. These super weapons can be attacked, constructed, captured and fought over in exciting ways. With nukes the interaction is a few lines of code:

Code:

Build launcher
If "nuke launch" then
     If "has nuke defense" then
            Yay! Survive
     else
           damn! screwed.
   else
   welp, that was a waste of time

This would be just fine if PA was a text based adventure game.

Well nukes are there to give a player a scalpel compared to the asteroids hammer.

But most players have a very bad habit of putting all of their eggs in one basket, discounting the assassination mode that is.

Still you are lobbying for that commander only cloak....

It is a nice suggestion and I would like to try it once, but I think that in that instance nukes would make normal units completely useless and turn the game in a turtle fest.

Yes, I agree nukes in PA aren't that game enders like in other games. But because of large bases a nuke or 2 shouldn't be able to end a game. But eventhough nukes aren't what they used to be, they should still be very dangerous and have a price that fits the description.

Compared to the size of a reasonably large planet, one nuke doesn't really do all that much damage. It makes sense to make nukes vastly cheaper than the almost uncounterable planet-killer weapons, and to have antinuke be very inexpensive as well. If you have many armies or bases, losing one to a nuke is painful but not game-ending.

In order to overcome antinuke, you just have to fire enough nukes. But antinuke can defend anywhere along the flight path, meaning the further you nuke inside enemy territory, the more nukes it is going to take in order for one nuke to successfully hit. You fire a large salvo knowing that many of them will be shot down, and you have to decide how greedy to be, and how much flight time through enemy antinuke you want to risk. Bigger nuke launches are more likely to succeed, but could also be split to hit multiple areas covered with less antinuke. And the more missiles you use, the more expensive that launch becomes, and the more damage it has to do.

I am envisioning nuclear missile submarines with 16 launch tubes, enabling them to carry 16 short range nukes and the ability to launch them all at once if desired. I am envisioning many silos strategically placed all over a globe both to hide them and to get a good launch trajectory into enemy territory. Each silo storing one large ICBM at a time, but for quite low cost so you can make quite a lot of silos all over the place if you wish, and fire a huge volley all at once. And I am envisioning large nuclear salvos at the fringes of enemy territory, with many nuclear explosions on both sides over the course of a game, and many failures that get intercepted by antinuke.

Firing the one nuke and seeing it succeed or fail is binary and boring. Deciding how many of your 50 nukes to use, when to use them, where you should nuke, and how much antinuke you think might be in the way, could be an art and a science. Deciding how to use the many nukes you have chosen to construct creates a lot of interesting choices that can have vastly different effects on the game.

You act like fifty nuke isn't a GIANT INVESTMENT...... If only artillery weren't so strong I'd say someone turtles to that point impossible....... then again if they were making such a move they wouldn't have economy for much else. Provided you were playing smart and constantly scouting then they shouldn't ever achieve such a goal...

I have been known to stockpile nukes like that.

Its all about shooting once and only once.

Still usually that comes when I also build an air force to me me look stronger then I actually am.

Nukes would be an excellent terraforming tool for PA. Their sheer size and power is the correct way to flatten mountains or build canals. Such a function is wonderfully unique, and can not be easily matched by other units. However, terraforming nukes can not work if they aren't cheap to build and easy to defend. Easy as in, "build a few interceptors and some AA turrets" easy.

Nukes do not belong in a game ending role.

This is flat out WRONG. Defense covers one spot, nukes can attack many spots. The advantage always goes to the nuke.

Remember Seton's Clutch? The first guy to build a nuke gets to choose who out of 4 players didn't have the anti nuke. Extend this situation to a 40 player match and the outcome becomes even more slanted.

let me play DA again

what is the big deal ... nukes serve only one purpuse which is straight forward destruction ...
asteroids while cataclismic in destruction CAN serve multiple purposes ... and depending on the situation you realy should think twice to easily sacrifice that metalboost exrtabuildspace/capacity or heaven of yours
an asteroid is not just a superweapon ... ... it is a multipurpose superweapontool!!! ... compared to it the nuke by itself is a joke ... why make it more of a joke ? ... yes it might be able to hurt the asteroid but the asteroid can hurt in differend and worse ways

@bobucles and how do you want to end a game if the actual gameenders (asteroids) arent in?

@KNight how much does a loaded nukelauncher cost?

i dig the idea neutrino stated having a loaded anitnukelauncher
with a bit more range ... but seriously if you dont build that then its realy your own fault ... everything else just asks for turtling more
be it defensive or ofensive turtling ... nukes ask for engagement
if you just wait then you deserve to burn in radioctive fire
same with longrangeartillery in supcom
it is like a endgame pokerround game were the stakes get much higher that you cant always just throw your weaker hands away

I think one of the best ways to solve the nuke problem is to tweak both the anti-nuke and the nuke itself....

For the nuke... I'd say make a unit (kind of like a fabricator) that can only build the nuke launch station and the nuke.... These builders are even more expensive than the t2 fabricators and they use lots more power and metal. I'd say there is no limit on how many you can build..... I don't really think you should change the price of the nuke......., but maybe even cut the price to around 30000 power or so...... I think this would really help to move the nuke to it's on "level" if I can say that.... There is a lot of strategy in the whole nuke system but.... I think they need to be harder to get

For the anti-nuke just make it's range larger!!!!!! I think that the price is good but the RANGE really need to be increased... on a larger map you would spend most of your time just protecting from some nuke crazy person!!!

I just played a game last night and used a about 8 nukes as last resort to take to teams out.... and I really just thank that the nukes need to become a "back up" attack method... or some thing close..... I really don't think that the developers intended for someone to build 20 nukes and "win" (if you call that winning).... If i'm playing a game where someone launched 15 nukes at us.... I don't think that is very fun at all.... there's no strategy in it at all!!!!!

Nukes should be another facet of normal play. Currently they are so expensive and so binary that they are completely separate from other systems in the game like using ground units.

Making nukes EVEN MORE expensive is a bad idea because they are already exorbitantly expensive to the point that the decision to make one is a game-tipping commitment of resources. They should be cheaper and more accessible so you mix them into your normal play with armies, planes, and so on. And antinuke should be tremendously cheaper and more available, and should be very efficient at stopping nukes.

Both sides build many nukes, both sides make antinuke, both sides try and use their nukes to inflict as much damage as possible in an environment where the other side has antinuke in many places, but not in others. Firing nukes blind is a good way to waste a lot of resources in a hurry, but a carefully engineered large nuclear bombardment can wipe out a key army or base.

Planet killers are the extremely inaccessible stalemate-breaker. Nukes should be just another part of normal gameplay, despite the fact that they can vaporize an army.

ssssssssssssssss..... i dont realy like that
making nukes and anitnukes too accesible
can make the game focusing too much on missile and longrange warfare ... and honestly making
stuff cheaper in order to built it more could create more issues then it would solve ...
while i agree to balance the unitrooster so everything
may work along well thogether i kind of feel that would also make the game even more difficult to oversee and understand what is happening with lots of different stuff going on on the battlefield ...
so generaly i am of the opinion that a unit should be as expensive as it is powerfull, safe against beeing countered/shootdown and the risk/reward ratio it has on various situations

you realize all you have to do is build five anti in the flight path and have them loaded. Easily attainable with scouting to know what your enemy is doing...... so if you die that way you're right it's lack of strategy but not your opponent's........

sorry but if one nuke is an extreme investment for you then you obviously aren't expanding, therefore your decision to turtle to nuke power is a failure all your own......I have no problem building several nukes twice as many anti and quite a few orbital launchers in a 4ffa with the added twenty to thirty factories I have pumping units out the whole time.


Yet still I hear cries for cheaper everything..... NO!!!!!!! Leave well enough alone I say. And I don't even like cheese factors.... nukes.....I only use them as defensive barrier crushers since that's about the only sensible way to push through someone's defensive artillery laser turret wall currently. ( Yes thirty or so factories worth of units dies quite easily to a decent turtle... that's a problem. You guys want to address something address that. The fact that 400 plus units a nice a bag of t1-2 dies so easily against a handful of pelters....

But your assuming that my enemy is going to build his nuke all in one place.... Someone just say a few post ago that some of the strategy is building nukes in certain places.... and I agree... it is.... But right now with the range the anti-nuke has it would take 15 to cover a good size base!!!!

ok so you can spread 15 out...... realitsicly you dont want a cluster of anti in the middle of your base anyways.



also playing properly you should be constantly scouting your enemy seeing what they are up to and where to build. letting them flank you with nukes is once again your fault. you shouldnt be trying to rob the precoscious turtle of his nuke strat just because you dont scout. wow never thought id be on the side of a turtle XD
so zack1028 my suggestion to you is learn to use your intel units more efficently, radar, scouts, not shut down one of the few almost perfectly working game mechanics that are implemented currently

it is as legitimate a strategy as building bajillions of tanks and send them into a general direction ... it´s called steamrolling ... others may preffer strategies with more tactics put into it trying to skalp bits and pieces out of the enemy before going for the final blow ... it realy is steamrolling or sniping with occasional harrasment thrown in for good measure ... remember Pearl habor? Hammer vs needel?

PS: does someone knows some movies or documentaries that show deepstriking?

i like to mention some of the pokerstrategies that are used there while surely poker is a bit about luck and not realy comparable to an RTS since there actualy is no luck but strategy, tactics and most importantly building up which is eco and army,
there are tactics and moves that are quite usefull use in here as well imo
as you do want to build up here as well in which case is your stack/bankroll

for instance you don´t want to use every given card to you
you wait for those Cards you are sure of that may win you a round or eventualy the game
the other thing to consider is how to use them in a round
generaly what you want to do is to build up your stack your economy/army
the more stack/eco & army you have the more things you can invest into and risk

playing tight isn`t neccesarily bad ... playing turtle on the beginning isn´t bad
as you want to build up your stack/eco and secure it
playing aggresive/offensive may be helpfull as you disturb the turtle/thight Player
but if you do it wrong you might hurt yourself badly and lose important stack and become vulnerable
so what you should do is try to read your opponents/scout ... prepare your moves then see how he does react so you know when you got your cards you know how to play them against him
you may as well even play weaker cards if you are sure what may work against your oponent

the Problem with playing thight/turtle is sooner or later the stackes get much higher
which means you may get at a Point where you have to be more active you may have to Play carlds you usualy dont played before you have to engage otherwise the stakes become to much and you get yourself eaten ...

... ... ... yeah that may a bit weird to read and of course there are a lot of nuances i didn´t dig into but i am not hear to explain the whole pokershebang also considering there are much more nuances in a RTS game... so does the thing makes sense? ... i think so ...

TL;DR: you can play turtle but sooner or later as the scale/stakes rises you need to engage

I'll take one on my spot check.

Let's see, you can use

• standard "shoot him until he dies" play
  
• gain an edge through reclaim
  
• energy mechanics and economy failure (attacker friendly)
  
• army drops (from transports, cannons, or orbit)
• jump/hover/surprise units that flip the battlefield on its head
  
• Krogoths (if that's your thing, there is definitely room for one good one)
  
• Permanent planetary damage (this includes nukes, sans the strict killy role)
• Dead Commanders

In accordance with the rules set out in Pathfinder 3.5, I fail to see the problem.