Nukes....-.-

Question is, in a SupCom FFA, how viable was it to build a few artillery positions and then tech straight to nukes? And why?

ledarsi brought up a good game. This is a strategy game.

Some strategies are not good strategies. Building a ring of defenses on a small portion of a planet and letting your opponent have free reign of the entire planet and have access to free metal is simply not a good strategy. You cannot win without getting a stronger economy and you cannot get a stronger economy by turtling.

Some strategies are simply poor strategies.

I'm aware it's a strategy game, but strategy games should allow us to play out a strategy that we want, rather than punishing us for a specific strategy, and forcing us to use specific strategies.

Nukes cut out the possibility of ever having a good type of strategy unless the person has just as many anti nuke silo's as the other person does nukes.

Then the game just turns into a frenzy to see who has more nukes than anti nukes and vice versa.

Yeah because clearly thats what every turtle is gonna do ...
COME OOOONN!!!! You cant seriously be that prejudice ...

But it shouldn't matter what somebody thinks is or isn't a great strategy because it all matters whether or not we think it's good, If I like my own strategy and want to stick with it I will, doesn't mean I'll win all the time, or neccessarily lose, but it's a strategy.

If they don't do what I described, then they are by definition, not a turtle.

The turtle strategy is to build a ring of defenses and not expand or gain map control. If you don't expand and gain map control, you'll loose. It's a poor strategy.

uh... what?

It shouldn't matter whether someone thinks it's good? but it matters whether we think it's good?

I'm confused by what you're trying to say.

And I'd also like to point out that a small cluster of t2 eco is enough for just about any turtler.

Basically, it doesn't matter what somebody else says, if I like it, and I want to keep with it, I will, regardless whether I lose or win sometimes.

A small cluster of advanced economy buildings is not enough. You never have enough economy. Never stop expanding your economy and production.

If you like it, go for it. But it won't stand up to competitive play.

I don't play competitively. I like to actually have fun with my games, lol. Oh and, for a lot of people rushing orbital or performing a certain strategy, a small enough of eco is good enough for just about anybody.

@brian:
Turtling means simply building defenses and playing defencively
There is no rule nothing saying that a turtle cant expand or secure additional resources with towers or guarding units and going into attack or counterattack once ready or seeing the opportunity ....
To many of you guys have this bad black and white way of seeing things ...
And i disagree that turtling shall be a straight up bad strategy as you people make it out to be ...

Wrong.... this is pa...... anything over 1v1 a player can squat and hide then launch himself to a new planet and gain their economy......

Just saying.

Not against skilled players.

Generally, one can turtle, they just got to "build their wall" around half the planet. At that point, it is still possible to turtle, after the initial mex collection rush and securing about half.

Really, it comes down to, can you defend off large waves of t1 and if you can you can get nuke first, or can the enemy eventually get units in and if they can they will whittle you down.

If your strategy is to be defensive on 51% of the map, you are not a turtle. The moment you actively contest map control, much less to the extent of ensuring you have a superior economy, you are not a turtle.

Do not confuse being defensive with being passive. The strategy of turtling is to play passively, and to voluntarily cede map control without a fight and defend a small area. Expanding to cover enough of the map to guarantee your economy is superior is categorically not turtling, even if you use turrets extensively.

Contesting the map to obtain a superior economy is the opposite of turtling, even if the opponent is too stupid to contest the map, and you get it for free, and then cover half the map in turrets. Conquering a large area and defending it is being active and defensive, not being passive.

Very much so this. Well put, like always.

Exactly. You're expanding and gaining map control. That's not turtling.

Arguing semantics. Turtling most would agree is sitting on ground and repelling the enemy. Really, any structural heavy play style is turtling. Its hybrid if one does it but still attacks periodically with land armies.

I would agree that sitting on a small metal deposit is a defunct strategy directly against the design of the game, like using anti air as a strategy against naval enemies.

However, playing an expansive game of sit and deny is viable, even if your purpose is to keep 30% land area and t2 near immediately in order to get nukes first, if you t2 fast enough your t2 metal can compete against 70% land with t1 metal. It is viable to victory or defeat.

back to op, i think nukes don't guarantee win, not with widespread land capture, not with bomber fix, not with antinuke buff. They are impressively effective, but I've both sniped rushed built nukes, antinuked the path of an early nuke, and shaken off the hit of a nuke, to proceed for a win.