Assisting Nukes/Anti.....calmly

Since someone had an uncontrollable temper, i fear my point was lost in his good point he brought up (despite his attitude) in the discussion of nukes. the point was that nukes/anti shouldnt be allowed assist from fabs ala TA the starting point of this great war......

true both players can assist both buildings......but in instances where no one has adv sat, or your opponents aa is to thick to get proper scouting into the heart of their territory: how will know when their first missile is done?? how will you know when theyll fire it?? where?? when did they start construction exactly?? xactly how many fabs is he using ???

you say build a ring of anti but even in the most perfect of matches fab assist on nukes makes the game one sided entirely after that point. by perfect match i mean even 100%, both players doing everything exactly the same evenly matched in all aspects. both hit t2 at the same time. both players begin mass producing t2 fabs. now heres where the advantage falls to one side. player A goes straight to anti nuke, player B goes nuke. both players have their t2 fabs rolling straight off and immediately assisting the construction of said units. naturally player B is finished with his nuke first and must now start the missile build. player A finishes shortly after with one missile loaded and begins producing the other two. now player A is faced with a dilemma at this point. remember both players have a constant stream of fabs the entire time of construction and continuing. player A must decide to siphon off his construction crew to build another anti for more coverage, or assist the one to ensure his missile keep up. as you can plainly see already player A is essentially fawked. player B doesnt have to make this decision and just continually piles fabs to his one singular building. if player A pours all his fabs onto his one anti yes he will defeat player B's nuke hands down but only in that one small space. no matter how perfectly player A places that one anti its just not going to protect his entire base no way at all. he can hang into the game for a smidgen longer hiding his comm at the center of its protection but his doom is inevitable. thus leading to what other players have stated is their complaint, the only way to counter a nuke is to try and get there first.

play TA my friend $5 at gog.com and like i said earlier still full of loads of fanboy support at tauniverse.com even being 16 yrs old XD
i hardly doubt defending ones base from ground units to be a complaint especially provided the OP of current artillery, and the slack roster. as Ledarsi said it requires more strategy with nukes only being available at set intervals instead of return rate that shrinks more and more with each fab you pile on. like i said if they are were remodeled to perhaps store missiles in a silo then it would fit better and provide a visual reason for unassisted building. the selection is not arbitrary its with plenty reason, biggest of all providing more strategy to the game, and removing the aforementioned 40 threads of i hate nukes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Going for nukes is pretty much always better than going for anti nukes. Being offensive is better than being defensive.

Saying "that game does it" does not address or nullify my point.

Why should nukes not be assistable with everything else is assistable?

dragging your good idea into a better atmosphere. i like the ideas but with fab assist you still end up with the scenario depicted in the example of 100% perfectly matched players.

i know "that game does it" is not a legitimate reason in any sense. the example of the perfect players was my reason sir....


but still total ANNIHILATION ..... planetary ANNIHILATION.....c'mon has to give it just the slightest bit of weight. regardless my point was the example i provided

Just because these two games have the same word in the title doesn't mean these two games must do things the same way. If that argument were valid, then we'd have the same unit roster and we'd be playing on flat maps.

So... I'm confused. You're saying "that game does it isn't a legitimate reason, but I'm going to use it as my reason anyways?"

Your "perfect players" analogy just goes over game balance and strategy and doesn't offer any reasoning to why these two buildings shouldn't be assistable while everything else is assistable. It's inconsistent and doesn't make sense.

Your point is that you should build nukes rather than anti nukes. Not that nukes shouldn't be assistable.

Assisting nukes can be an easy win though. Especially if someone happens to spawn on a lot of metal and then just focus on rushing a nuke whilst bunkering themselves down. If they get a nuke done while you focused on expanding and building a sizeable groundarmy or maybe anti-nukes to protect your base.. well you are fed. They will blow up a big chunk of your base. I do like the idea of nuclear missiles not being assistable, so if you want to have a constant stream of nukes, you need many silos, not just one silo and about 20 adv fabbers.

no thats not my reason the analogy was.....

no my point was that nukes at set intervals make for a much more in depth game by forcing the player to consider where to fire now, when even, have i made enough to brave a deep strike?? or should i just crack the back door with one and spend the other resources on units???
hell it provides that cushion of love that everyone wants to provide the new comers. buying this game and playing your first few online matches to nuked out of the galaxy will not be very appealing.
how does my analogy not say that nukes shouldnt be assisted? just because it says going nuke first is the optimal choice doesnt mean my point isnt there. why be forced into going nuke first ?? making anti obsolete..... removing fab assist from both buldings removes the, "you must go nuke first law." its just good all around and makes plenty Sense

sorry but saying its inconsistent doesnt hold water to me. where has this requirement of consistency over fun, and playability for video games been carved in stone??


trying to do the math behind my analogy just to place fact behind it, but im having trouble finding the most recent ant and nuke costs as well as their missile costs...please help

And now!! a fantastic bunch of points on my side of this discussion brought to you by an extremely well spoken member of the community as well as a few interesting suggestions of his own....

at certain times, not always. There is a ying - yang between offense and defense in any game of attack/defend one is never entirely better than the other only at some times does one hold advantage over the other

Attack is the best form of defence, there is no balance to it.

http://pamatches.com/wiki/

http://pamatches.com/wiki/buildings/defensive/anti-nuke-launcher/
http://pamatches.com/wiki/buildings/defensive/nuclear-missile-launcher/

Except that doesn't hold true in actual gameplay. First off, spawns are very well balanced. We all spawn on pretty much the same amount of metal. And if you focus on your small group of 5 to 10 metal, then you leave the entire planet of 150+ metal open to me. I can claim the entirety of the planet and will have a much stronger economy no matter how many times you nuke me.

Also, I always build spread out bases. One nuke won't take out a "big" chunk of my base.

If you read what I said... I said "pretty much always better." In this game, being primarily offensive is pretty much always better than being primarily defensive.

I'm not sure how applicable/compatible it would be with PA's setup, but I like how it was handled in SupCom. In SupCom you could assist, but the Launcher's Build rate was such that assisting simply wasn't a good use of engineers, it took 36 T3 Engineers to double a Launcher's Build Speed, compared to a T3 LAnd Factory where it only took 3.

I don't think the same ratios are that great, but I like the basic idea behind it.

Mike

checked there buddy didnt see individual missile costs......
spawns are crazily unbalanced still from planets ive played recently........
also your punctuation mark before "Being offensive is better than being defensive." is why i assumed so

sorry but if your offense meets the defense it cant defeat without enough numbers and you refuse to hold off your attack until ready by playing defensively. the person who responded efficiently to your Attack Attack attitude by playing defensively, now has amassed the force necessary to overwhelm your empty resources and extreme lack of units from constantly sending them into the meat grinder. so yea despite what you claim you have to play defense at some point. even if both of you attack each other at the beginning some one is going to lose conflicts and be forced to repel attacks in certain areas. playing attack attack with no defensive moves is foolish.

no im not a turtle by any sense, actually i follow the code of attack attack myself

Dude.....its in the art of war. You defend by attacking, and attack by attacking.

No game mechanics, no stats, its the logic of war.

Then you didn't look very hard – they're on there.

Each Anti-Nuke missile costs 17,280 Metal each.
Each Nuclear Missile costs 34,200 Metal.

@igncom1 is right.

Attacking is the vest form of defense. And that has to do with war – not PA balance or gameplay or whatever.

If I can destroy your nuclear missile launcher, then there's no point in me building an anti nuke. If I can destroy your attacking units before they get to my base, then there's no point in building defensive structures.

"The best defense is a good offense."

That's how war, sports, and most everything works. It doesn't matter what the stats are.

this is also known as philosophy my friend, even sun tzu was forced to make defensive actions despite his writings. the philosophy does make sense but sorry youre going to have to play defensively eventually, perhaps not against every opponent, but you will ....

Why would I defend me, if I can make you defend you?

Like, why would I defend my base, if I can sit outside of yours and prevent you from leaving?

Its more of a offensive defence.

im not saying playing aggressively isnt to your advantage. it most certainly is which, as i said previously, is why i too am an aggressive player. the way you guys are portraying it however, suggest that you should just go nuke first everytime and therefore let the advantage lie to the player that reaches this ability first. no need for anti in that world you live in then because once you have the launcher up, as stated, all thats required is spam fabs to createan almost never ending stream of nuke death.

EX-*******-ACTLY!

You get my winner-of-the-thread award beer4blood! You busted this WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE OPEN!

please read what im writing....initially you can go straight offense on wither side but you will meet an opponent that will force you into an offensive stance at some point.yes to get out of your defensive hole you will have to make an offensive action at some point in time. but deciding when, where, and how to break your defensive posture will decide your escape from such a hole. sorry attack attack can make you lose sometimes if you dont understand slacking off and waiting for the right opportunity.

now please with the derail and sun tzu, blah, blah, blah, back to the nuke assist