Expanding on Nukes

In my opinion, nukes are one system in PA that must change from how it has formerly been implemented in TA and SupCom. In previous games the nuke serves as an endgame asset which can be used to break stalemates and bring a game with a great deal of development by both sides to a quick end.

Because PA is designed on a much larger scale, and contains planet-killers which serve as the true ultimate high-cost game ender. Nukes need a new role.

In addition, the old nuke system is highly binary. A small and discrete number of extremely expensive nukes is either successful for tremendous, game-ending level of damage, or they are intercepted by antinuke wholesale, resulting in a huge waste of resources in the intercepted nuke. A more dynamic system which has a wide variety of ways that multiple, less decisive nukes can be used would be much more interesting, and creates more opportunity for counterplay by the opponent.

To accomplish these two goals of redefining the role of nukes, and of expanding the depth and counterplay of the nuke system, I propose the following.


Nuke Mechanics

Nukes should also have their functional mechanics tweaked slightly. First of all, units and structures should have a specific and limited missile carry capacity. A vehicle launcher might carry one missile, a cruiser might carry several. The size of the missile is also significant. An ICBM silo might store one big nuke at a time, or a tactical nuke silo might carry a dozen cruise missile tactical nukes. If you want more nuclear storage capability, you should build more silos, more vehicles, or more ships.

Missile units should construct their missiles slowly, and cannot be assisted. This means you have no reason to camp these units in a production center, and it also means that the count of missiles you have available is a very limited resource that must be used carefully. Even if you have a large amount of economy, you still can't just throw it behind mass missile production on one launcher. Instead, you have to build more launchers which construct nukes in parallel.


Small Nukes

The first component of my proposed expansion of the nuke system is to create very small nuclear missiles. A tactical nuke is not a large intercontinental ballistic missile, but has nuclear yield. Tactical nuclear missiles, such as using a cruise missile chassis, would have long range compared to ground combatants, but extremely short range compared to current nukes. And a tactical nuke's yield would be much less than a current PA nuke, but still large.

The important feature about these weapons is that they are single-shot weapons for large splash damage. They cost a substantial amount, but they aren't so expensive that they are uneconomical to acquire in quantity. In the PA economy, a cost of a couple thousand metal might be appropriate. For now let's suppose about 2000 metal for each tactical nuke.

Tactical nukes can be carried by structures, ground units, ships, and even strike bombers. They can be carried by a variety of very affordable mobile units. A tactical nuclear explosion is large enough to wipe out a sizable group of units, and can be highly efficient if it hits a large army. However they can also be intercepted by missile defense and will do no damage.


Gun Missile Defense

Missile interception should be an important consideration for any army or base. Having nukes be more prevalent means players will have to consider what density of antinuke to place where, rather than whether to build it or not. I propose creating several types of missile defense with functional differences between them.

Firstly, a gun antinuke that does not need to construct missiles. This type of antinuke would have the shortest range, but still provide considerably better coverage than PA's existing antinuke, and must be very inexpensive. Gun missile defense should be cheap enough to be constructed in quantity over a large area if desired. This type of missile defense works against all types of missiles, including cruise missiles, tactical nukes, and ICBM's. In fact, it could even double as anti-air if desired.

Instead of constructing a fixed count of missiles representing the number of nukes that can be intercepted, it fires continuously and semi-inaccurately at any missile in range. It takes several successful hits to take down a missile, depending on the durability of the missile. And once the gun takes one missile down it targets the next missile, if there is one. Several overlapping guns will take more missiles down faster.

Each gun deals damage to missiles over time, so the longer the nuke is within range the more missiles will be taken down. A large area covered with gun-based missile defense will be more effective against nukes aimed through the coverage of more guns. A missile barrage is more likely to succeed by targeting closer to the edge of the missile defense grid, minimizing its time within range. And the strike becomes smoothly less effective when the nuking player is more greedy by nuking deeper within the grid.


ICBM/IPBM Nukes

Intercontinental ballistic missiles are the more traditional super-long-range nukes. Essentially, the current nukes as implemented in PA, with changes to antinuke and the existence of smaller, shorter-range nukes redefining the purpose of the ICBM. In PA, the unlimited-range missiles would also be useful for interplanetary launches, not just a local conflict.

Vastly more expensive than small, lightweight tactical nuclear weapons, ICBM's can reach anywhere on an entire planet, and can even be used against other planets. But the high cost of each missile and the likelihood of interception means these weapons are risky. Overwhelming antinuke with ICBM's is vastly more expensive than using smaller missiles from a shorter distance.

ICBM's should be far less efficient weapons than smaller nukes. You are paying for flexibility and range, and forcing the enemy to defend an enormous area, for immense cost. Players can be relatively free with cheaper and more expendable tactical nukes, but should exercise caution when using the big nukes.

Although ICBM's should be more available, I think it would be preferable to intend players to rely mainly on a larger number of launchers of tactical nukes. ICBM's would be relatively rare by comparison, and would be best used in small numbers to complement a player's existing nuclear arsenal, adding a strategic capability that must be used carefully to supplement the main nuke gameplay.


Missile Antinuke

The second type of antinuke is a long-range missile, similar to current antinukes but with very long range, and best used to intercept ICBM's and not small missiles. Missile antinuke can very reliably take down a small number of nukes from a safe distance. Especially when fired from another planet, the extra range is critical for missiles descending vertically down onto the planet's surface.

However, a single site has a quite limited rate of fire and is highly ineffective against multiple nukes. It provides effective defense against limited nuclear bombardments, but does not stop a concerted nuclear strike. Many nukes inbound simultaneously will overwhelm its ability to intercept them.

The primary limitation of the missile-based antinuke is the rate of fire of the silo, not the cost and existing count of the missiles. Missiles could still require construction, but they should be inexpensive.

The site's long range creates a long flight time through its coverage, and therefore the antinuke installation can fire a different number of shots depending on the nuke's flight path. A barrage aimed near the edge of its range might only lose one missile. A barrage aimed near the center would give the antinuke time to fire a second missile. A barrage that flies completely through the range of the antinuke might give the site time to take down a third missile.


Conclusion

Cruise missiles and small tactical nukes would be much cheaper and more available than the full-fledged interplanetary ballistic missile. Players can construct many launchers cheaply, and also build many missiles relatively cheaply.

To counter them, players should use gun-based antinuke which has limited range, but intercepts missiles with its rate of fire and does not have to pay for missiles. Missile defense guns also defend against ICBM's flying through their range, so directing expensive ICBM's to fly through a large area covered with antinuke is not a good idea. Expensive ICBM's can also be intercepted by missile antinuke which is a long-range version of PA's current antinuke.

The intent of this system is to make nuke gameplay less binary and more dynamic. A larger number of missiles can be fired separately or together, and can succeed or fail separately without having an overly determinative effect on the game.

im getting sick of nukes now

NUKE NUKE NUKE...... -.-
feels like the whole game is build around nukes now.....

just my opinion.

I think nukes should be remained to antimatter bombs or exotic particle bomb, just to keep with the whole super advance robots theme. wouldn't have to change much else, maybe the animation.

Doesn't even have to be antimatter, just something that's abit more advance and in keeping with robots n shizzle.

We have been using nukes since the Cold War, I would have thought super amazing robots would have something abit better.

That is because nukes are extremely decisive, and their counter is both expensive and not efficient enough to be an effective deterrent due to its high cost and very short range.

Adding in highly efficient antinuke will curb the dominance of nukes.

Agreed. Nukes need to be unassisted by fabbers and take a fair while to build.

Having a general anti missile defence and a missilt anti nuke would be great to. That being said, we do not yet understand what other units/buildings/weapons are to be implemented. It may well make these ideas moot.

... Orbital anti nuke ...

The same concepts of a gun or missile antinuke system might be available on a variety of platforms, including structures, surface units, ships, and even satellites/orbital units.

There are still soooo meany things uber haven't finished yet, orbital is a massive feature and it's no where near finished and there's loads of features they have mentioned that we haven't even seen yet.

I think it's minor thing ATM, if you scout properly and expand they won't have the resources to build a nuke and defend, and if they do you will see it and can strategically attack it.

Nukes are the kind of thing that once in the air there is little to stop it safely.

In other words you want 2 types of missile trucks and missile bombers added to the static missilelauncher and missileship we currently have ...
I say let the nuke stay as it is now .. it is the icbm you talked about
What you want are more powerful mobile indirect fire units with different range and splash aswell as an appropriate counter like a antimissile anti shell point defense system be it static or mobile
...
Short answer ... and I know you hate me saying it as much as I have to use it again ... the rooster is not done yet ... balancing nukes is not neccesarily done to change how it works but adding additional units/structures to diversify longrange combat so Nukesilos are not the first thing you rush torwards to ...

Ps: I hate using the term tacnukes .. nukes are nukes and tactical stuff is tactical stuff ... don't call it tacnuke ... if its not as powerful as a nuke it is not a nuke ... aside from that not every scyfy missile has to be nuclear no matter its dmg and AoE ...

A "nuke" is called as such because it creates the explosion by a cascading reaction in the nucleus of heavy elements. They are large because they have high yield per weight, and the original early bombs had to be physically large in order to successfully detonate. During the Cold War, nuclear strategy changed to revolve around having silly numbers of increasingly powerful missiles as 'bragging rights' in a game of geopolitical chicken. Nevertheless, tactical nukes have always constituted the vast majority of every nuclear power's nuclear arsenal, with far fewer strategic nuclear missiles of the "massive ICBM" variety people associate with 'nuke.'

More sophisticated modern nukes are actually smaller than the monster missiles developed at the height of the Cold War. Advances in miniaturization and missile technology means the payload is now a larger consideration than the rocket, meaning it is more efficient to use smaller missiles with smaller payloads, and a nuclear payload can have extremely large yield in a small package (again due to miniaturization).

A "tactical nuke" also known as a "non-strategic nuclear weapon" is meant to be used on a battlefield, and not to wipe out a whole city or other strategic target. This means they have to be small, and of a very precisely measured yield because your own troops are nearby. Tactical nukes generally have yields of less than 100 kilotons (approximately), and in fact most types have very low yields, even less than 100 tons. Such a nuclear payload might be used in an artillery shell or small missile, is both small and inexpensive, and doesn't carry the political consequences or signature of an ICBM launch. A single artillery shell being able to deliver the same explosive power as 100 tons of TNT is ridiculous, but according to your definition it isn't a "nuke" because it doesn't wipe out an entire city. Larger numbers of smaller, more sophisticated nukes is, however, vastly better than the old Cold War paradigm of huge nukes. Modern nuclear strategy depends on low-yield "tactical" nukes almost exclusively. The multi-megaton "megabombs" of the Cold War are dinosaurs.

Tactical nukes are vastly more common and important than what you associate with the word 'nuke.' The meaning of "nuclear weapon" refers to its mode of action, not its size. But in any case, that isn't the point. The point is that nuke gameplay using a larger number of smaller, shorter-range nuclear missiles would be better than having very large and decisive nukes.

The main nuke gameplay should be using many smaller, shorter-range tactical nukes that can succeed or fail independently. Large ICBM nukes act as a special additional strategic capability for high cost. But neither is extremely decisive in one shot the way a planet-killing asteroid would be. They can blow up a lot of buildings or units, or they can be intercepted, but either way a single move using nukes is not overly decisive in the outcome of the game.

I think the main issue with nukes is their binary so-so gameplay. Once the game reaches that *level,* units start to matter less and less, UNLESS YOU ARE BEHIND.

I just finished a game where the other side was....well....they werent getting it when it came to the nuke game.

I lost, mostly due to there being another team out there, but I still lost, because after having a long range exchange of nukes, they finally started nuking what I could not protect: My far flung eco. This was a one planet game, mind, so it wasnt IP, but once I lost my eco it was over. I could still field quite a few units, but it didnt matter, because he could nuke them to hell in my base.

A sure indication SOMETHING needs to change.

I like your ideas lebarsi, they just might work. Wish the game was farther along so stuff like this would become a priority

How nukes work how common they are or have been used in history doesnt matter
This is a fictional scyfy game
However the general mindset about nukes simply is the association with the bigger multikiloton to megaton multicitybuster weapons ...
Your weaponlesson wont realy change that
How a missile works or what or elements it has Weither nuclear plasma ion proton antimatter or whatever exotic element an writer comes up with doesnt matter to a player
What only matters to missiles is range accuracy damage and AoE

i expect more diverse longrange weapons and specialised units to come anyway

Why wouldn't the laser platform be able to shoot any missile out of the air...

And ever tried to intercept a missile without blowing it up? ...

Seems like half the people on here are trying to make nukes smaller, and the other half are trying to get more game ending superweapons added that are even more powerful than nukes.

I disagree with the no assisting it component. It would be the only structure that cannot be assisted. It wouldn't make any sense.

I also think people should be building more anti-nukes – especially with the latest buff.

Nukes aren't as OP as most people make them out to be.

I think also that a play should set the path of the nuke by himself and the system correct the path. Sometimes my nukes flying wherever they want

People are complaning about nukes because there are currently only few to no inbetween options that close that gap in power that seems to be there for them
Im personaly ok with how nukes currently are because i expect them to bust a good chunk out of a base and not just 2 or 3 buildings
You want some smaller callibers that are a bit more flexible? Totaly fine ... ADD them in but dont just change the existing weapon that is meant to be the way how it works ...
And i love of how people always reffer to it as a game ender like as if it is THE 100% killer of the game ... actualy any weapon that deals damage can end the match ... be it the asteroid nuke
Artillery bomber tank bot or even armed scout ... anything can

Nukes are still very binary, that much hasn't changed. The OP makes a good attempt at fixing these issues by giving more options. More types of nukes, and perhaps more types of nuke defenses would go a long way.

I still don't see where the current anti is not effective.... especially after receiving a bit more polish in the latest update. Agreed its binary, but you just seem to be introducing more binary with a smaller bang. No matter what you try its going to be binary, missile vs anti. Unless you want planes to start throwing themselves into missile paths. Anyways I'm fine with nukes currently.....

exactly!!!! Anything can win a game....... nukes aren't that hard to counter especially now with a missile included. It's just a matter of remembering.......

Could you please use less unneeded punctuation, when reading it, it sounds like you first shout and then regularly drop awkward silences.

It's not a matter of remembering at all. It's a matter of scouting, and a proxy nuke can be very hard to scout. The point is, building an anti-nuke should ideally be a reaction on seeing a nuke. Because building an anti-nuke when there's no danger of nukes is just a waste of your time. Having to build an anti-nuke every single time, is just a bad gameplay mechanic.