NUKES!! WAY TOO O.P.

And pa has entire planets for resources..... your point???

Besides like I said remove fab assist and decrease build time no problem there that I see.

hey, im not agreeing with you because of your points. For all i care, your biggest problem is likely stopping them from getting to nukes. But for those of us with slightly more experience, nukes are not really much of a problem. It just leads to what i consider a more bland gameplay.

hey!! I'm talking about bland gameplay as well foo.... read the part where I won with nukes???? How I had a never ending death stream???? How it was way to much cheese???? Apparently not. Also I'm not the op. My point is the boring gameplay introduced and once again the framework for the op strategy of just build nukes. Read, think, then type please.

And in 1v1 preventing the enemy from reaching nuke power is definitely no problem. But any game larger than that where people hide and turtle while others fight. Sorry its inevitable, perhaps you should practice all parts of the game to see the flow of things on many levels. From a 1v1 perspective the game is nearly complete,1v1 doesn't even require other planets. I have yet to play a 1v1 over 45 minutes.....

Before you all go crazy with no 1v1 isn't,I mean in comparison to the 40vs 40 goal.

I agree with the remove assist part, that's fine. Just need to a little faster to build or they are pointless.

My argument was about nukes being totally different in both games. There are much more valuable targets in Ta than pa for your money, and it's easier to keep a base safe in Ta so they tend to be smaller.

Whereas bases in pa are larger and harder to protect, which leads them to being vast bases where it is hard to find a target which costs 32k metal.

Yes the build speed should be increased with no fab assist. Most definitely. I would think lower missile cost would be the answer since both launchers use resources at a high rate currently.....

I am glad my point has been seen by those with experience in TA. All these points are correct. Especially since your able to spam an endless amount of nukes and nuke all your metal spots so your Eco crashes anyway. And Idc who you are your not just gunna throw down anti nuke silos to protect your metal its just not cost efficient.
So that point of get better eco was a hella flawed point. Cuz then you don't have enkugh eco to counter the endless amounts of nukes with 30 second time span. Which makes nukes expendable. Which means you can nuke thw metal spots and everything not covered by antinukes then keep hitting the anti nuke area till its got no more anti nukes. And since you nukes his metal 30 seconds ago he doesnt have enough Eco to even come close to keeping up. So come on people use some common sense. Assisting nukes and anti nukes is way to op nukes are meant to be stratically launched and cripple not complety destroy and so far 89% of the time spamming nukes will utterly destroy you.

On another note I saw one post refrencing that he dodnt want the game to go forever when the enemy is on another planet. Well here's what I say to that...

The games still in beta. But all of you that appose this idea can't see past your own nose. The end game is suppoaed to give you all kinds of means to attack other planets, however if you allow nukes and anti nukes to be assisted you wouldn't need those other methods just spam nukes every 30 seconds and reign death on their candy assess in all directions. To other planets. Rendering all other methods of interplanetary traveling pointless to use.
I mean why would I send a transport to the other planet with an army when i can just nuke them to death with nukes every 30 seconds?

Theres not really an arguement against my point. And those of you who think they had good reasons....well.....they were moot.

And its not like you can counter 30 second intervals of nukes. I mean what if he nukes your tank or dox armies? Why not right? He's gunna have another nuke up in 30 seconds to then he can nukes your factories while their trying to produce more dox so you can attempt to counter it....oh and sweet half of his factories are outside hos anti nuke range ill just nuke right on the rim of his anti nuke range and still destroy like 15 factories that are actually within his anti nukes range. But since the anti nuke has such a small range that doesnt matter. What was that anti nuke for again? Oh ya that nuke that still destroyed 20 of my 30 factories because of the anti nukes small range.....fml and no ome can argue with that point. Idgaf who you are

As a matter of fact I challenge anybody who saisassisting nukes isn't op I will do nothing but rush to nukes and test these theories of counters to nukes you opposers have and see how well that goes.

Really? Do you find that the case?

I find that it is fairly easy to protect a base to the point that a unit attack is completely pointless. It's relatively easy to spam artillery everywhere you need it later game, it's relatively easy to use fighters to protect against bomber swarms. And so on. Nukes practically become your bread and butter unit for clearing a path for other units to move in.



So a target for a nuke is relatively easy to find. You can remove either the defensive line, and move units in later, or remove the stuff the defences were protecting.. nukes seem to be used most to bypass defensive lines and armies


Of course, the issue there is that units aren't really good enough vs defences. I expect that some formational stuff and some unit stuff could change that.

Ummm isn't a nuclear weapon considered by physics to be the MOST destructive weapon created by humanity? I'm not sure if you get the concept of what a nuke is? Besides it's less then the destructive of a moon so it cannot be OP

I have yet to play you but if you think this is true And a good strategy I know I will beat you. Rushing a nuke should never win. Any decent player will have scouted your plan after 7 minutes and build for the next 5 accordingly. I have been able to expand and double nuke a com at 14 minutes against much less experienced players but it simply wouldn't work against anyone I respect play wise.

I don't follow.

How does assisting both nukes and anti nukes make anti nukes obsolete?

Both players can assist both buildings. If your opponent assists his nuke and you don't assist your anti nuke or you don't build a nuke at all, that's your fault – not game balance.

Nukes that pass over the anti nuke get shot down. So if you build a ring of anti nukes around your base, then your base is defended against nukes.

Why should nukes not be assistable when everything else is?

Once nukes aren't assistable, then people will start complaining about how over powered advanced vehicle factories are because so many levelers get pumped out and I can't defend all sides of my base at one time.

You can't arbitrarily pick one building to not abide by the rules of the game and let all other buildings abide by the rules of the game.

Defensive pelters to me are opponents way of saying they are happy with what they got so feel free to expand. Easier to scout turtles and out produce them than try attack.

It seems to me the advantage of making nukes un-assistable is that it forces the player to use more launchers instead of massively assisting just one, or a few, launchers. Un-assistanble launchers can be cheaper. And if they have a fixed maximum missile count they can be even cheaper. Parallel construction is more interesting than massively assisted serial construction precisely because it is less efficient. It also means that nukes cost time, regardless of the strength of your economy, which acts as a universal control, and makes each nuke strategically significant even if you have the resources to build many of them.

I also think that antinuke should not require such a huge cost to fire, and probably should not have an ammo count or resource cost to fire at all. The price of nukes can be scaled down by the cost of the antinuke missile, and make the antinuke cost zero to fire. Investment in antinuke missiles is one hundred percent dead weight that the player would never like to spend. And the only result is that a lot of resources vanish from the board in the cost of the nuke and antinuke mutually canceling.

Antinuke should be limited by the rate of fire of the unit/structure, not the number of missiles that the player has purchased. The antinuke itself should be the full cost of a certain amount of fully automated interception capability. More antinukes means more interception capability.

Okay...Brian I urgently implore you to play TA before saying things like that. Nukes are supposed to be a scarce stratigic crippler against your enemies. If your able to pump out nukes every 30 seconds then the stratigic value of a nuke is set to 0. Which is nothing the last time I checked. Being able to pump nukes out every 30 seconds means you can nuke anything anywhere and not care because 30 seconds later your gunna have another nuke. I strongly reccomend you play TA before arguing this topic. Because it is obviously clear that every TA player that has posted on this thread has agreed with me. Because TA was the most balanced rts game of all time. There's a reason why nukes weren't able to be assisted. And since this game is based off of the famed game TA you can't ignore those kind of balances regardless of what scale you put the game.

You clearly have no intent to discuss this because you genuinely believe that you can't be wrong. You are far from a top tier player so your arrogance is unjustified.

25-30 t2 bombers is a cost-effective and easy counter to snipe the nuke launcher.

The only real problem with nukes is when you have >2000 metal income and can spam them incredibly quickly. I guess slow unassisted nukes makes it a little easier to scout and react but there's still some problems from nuke launcher spam.

In Supcom build power of a nuke launcher was 2000 so assisting nukes had little point compared to building another nuke, some middle ground might be nice.

I was fighting A 1v1 and after massing a large force of levelers and ants I was nuked twice, completely destroyed my base. My ants and levelers then moved in from behind and sniped the commander. Nukes are OP? I guess ants and levelers are OP?

I think the point is that you get to direct what your economy is doing. Do you hav 20 t2 fabbers assisting a nuke or did you build twenty vehicle factories and ten leveler factories to pump out an army? Sometimes one is better than the other, and in my case, I was able to beat my enemy because his devotion of resources to the (very expensive) nukes meant he wasn't building any actual units or structures to defend his commander. It's all about tactics, not about this or that being OP.

I really do feel like nukes in themselves are a badly designed mechanic in the long run, no one to blame but they really need to be rethought and designed.

Why is it that nukes should be a unit built from a factory that is immune to everything but another specific unit, from which this countering job is it's only purpose?

Why should it be designed in a way that ignores the conventional rules of the rest of the games units?

Also Brian if you had read some of my later posts I gave prime examples of how nukes make anti nukes obsolite. And its true very rarely do I see anti nukes late game.....and when I say rarely I mean the chances of me seeing an anti nuke is 146328:1 depending on how many people are playing PA.....and numbers don't lie. I am part of a clan as well and we all frequently discuss the game when we are all convercing within our teamspeak. And ill be honest only 3 of the 16 clan members we had that play PA won't play anymore until more balance is brought to the game. And one of their big reasons of not playing was the situations with the nukes. Another fact that doesnt lie is that there are never more then 350 players playing PA on any given day (and im on almost everyday) compared to the 2000+ people that were playing when beta originally launched. So obviously if their is a post about the damn nukes at least once a week and 50 people respond to that post and agree with the problems of nukes OBVIOUSLY there is something wrong with the mechanics of it.

Like the saying goes 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

And I hate to say this but if your going to play a game based off of TA but think that mechanics of the game should be all different. That means your the jackass that sits there and spams nukes like a jackass without any restrictions......I urge you to stop talking about mechanics you know nothing about