New Planetary Nukes

As the name of the thread already says i want to talk about the new feature (Planetary Nukes)

My thought is that the planetary nuke looks a little bit strange. Because you can use the normal nuke launcher on the moon for that. For me it should have a new building or just a new unit named Planetary nuke which has some new design and a animation like if an orbital unit is moving in the space.

Now it takes nearly the straight way to its final destination. But it looks like a zig zag path.

What is the rest of the community thinking?

I've been tossing around the idea of having the same launcher but building different nukes out of it. For now it's fine though.

I really like the idea of having distinct nuclear missiles which can be built from the same launcher. My initial thought behind this is that it requires players to have a specific strategy with their nukes.

Ok that sounds great. Then you can chose what you want nuke the moon or a spot on the planet

I want interplanetarial nukes, nukes there is capable of moving between planets instead of just between the planet and various stuff there is in orbit around the planet. As it is now people are still able to hide away on distant planets in the solar system forcing me to spam lasers and orbital fighters for years before i am finally able to win (games goes on for 2-3 hours sometime ).

Picking a nuke type sounds neat. One could recon a players nuke base and be left at a guess as to whether its interplanetary or not. Nuke poker, the best kind.

.......why not just quit when stuff like that happens? It's not like there are any rankings or anything on the line....

Mike

I never thought about different nuke types, I think the idea is worth exploring.

I would love an Anti Orbital nuke to be an option as a nuke choice.

As long as we're talking about potentially different Nuck Types...

"To me a much better way to address the issue of Nucks being boring and one dimensional is to simply start from scratch. Ditch the idea that the Nucks are these huge weapons that make everything else look small, we have a new weapon for that role now, KEWs.

Then you gotta break out the differing types of weapons for this because in most cases a Nuck traditionally tries to mix high damage and large area of effect to make itself stand out form other options but in the end what it's doing is trying to do too much at once. Tactical Nucks can probably fill the role of High Pin-Point damage with other types like 'Iron Man' Jericho style missile taking up the Anti-Army Role. A Napalm Missile might force an enemy's retreating forces to take further damage and losses or go around buying time for your chasing/flanking forces to catch up. You can even do things like having some of them being 'Terrain Following' while other take paths more akin to SupCom Strategic Missiles, potentially reducing thier time 'exposed' to ground based '"counters".

Speaking on "Counters", we need to open those up too, with weapon types playing a big role, a laser might have longer range but take longer to kill a missile, a huge Kinetic Cannon might be able to knock out any missile in a single hit but would not be able to track and kill multiple simultaneous missiles. It sounds weird but all these fancy balance levers we use on units are really just as applicable here. Given how we're on Spherical planets we can apply all the new considerations we have to make with regular defenses with these. There are lots of potential ways to tackle these "counters" and only trying them will reveal a nice selection.

I think there is plenty of depth just waiting to be explored, but we have to be willing to view these weapons in the context of PA."

From this thread in the Backer's Lounge.

Mike

I would like to see smaller asteroid KEWs deal damage equal to what nukes do now, while also leaving a small crater.

Certainly plausible, thought maybe a bit on the small side to be honest, Expanding on the KEW setup we have currently is really it's own topic thought.

Mike

I love that idea.

All nukes should be interplanetary, but different missiles have different ranges.

If Kerbal Space Program taught me anything, it's that if a missile can break orbit, it can go pretty much anywhere.

IMO an interplanetary weapon would be best stationed in the orbital layer. Not for any particular reason, but it's going to have to be there sooner or later.

That's a good idea Brian.

Another option would be just applying an energy cost depending on where it is being launched to.

1.Have a base amount for launching the same missile on the same planet. Eg 5000 energy**

2.Higher cost launching it to destroy objects in orbit on the same planet . Eg 10000 energy

3.Even higher cost for sending it an orbiting planetary body or orbital units on an orbiting planetary body. Eg 20000 energy.

4.The largest cost sending an Inter-Solar Ballistic Missile. Eg 50000 energy

So basically you use the same missile for either destination, but you use more "fuel" depending where you want it to go.

This would also be prohibitive for massive nuclear spam. It would also promote the use of energy storage.

**Disclaimer
Energy costs are subject to review

why not an energy cost for its time in the air??

So then what happens when you energy stall while its in mid flight? It drops to the ground and sputters? That would be terrible I think! (although hilarious)

You could make it "pre-load" the energy requirement. Maybe as you move the attack cursor around an energy number pops up indicating the cost, then when you click, it starts fueling the missile trying to drain that much energy from your storage, and then it fires once full. This would make it difficult to fire at incoming armies (depending on how long fueling up takes), but it would still work against bases, which is as it should be IMO. This would allow you to add tactical nukes that come premade with a set amount of fuel (though small) and also with a smaller warhead, for quicker launches but less damage and less range.

I don't quite think that is a good idea.

• Nukes are devastating on a planet where you have more land to expand and not feel the effects as much.
• Moons and asteroids are so small that a nuke can destroy 1/3rd of the available land to build.

I would only be okay if the nuke strength was reduced for interplanetary nukes. or considerable in cost

seemed like a better thing then what was above etherway I don't mind it being the same nuke into orbital though my question is if the nuke can hit a moon in orbit why can it be out of range on the other side of the planet?

Because less fuel is required to travel around the planet when it is in Orbit than when it is near the surface. Plenty of fuel required to get into orbit. And then there's the added benefit of whiplash around the planet.

Wouldn't it make sense for the interplanetary nuke to launch from the orbital launcher?