Assisting Nukes/Anti.....calmly

sorry the text doesnt portray your sarcasm well enough for me to follow......

Well the offense and defense is necessary to accomplish tactical and strategic goals. its a matter of knowing when to attack and when to defend. the thing about offense is that it can provide you the advantage of momentum by applying your offensive strengths against enemy's weaknesses (COGs (centers of gravity) while as Sun Tzu says "invincibility lies in the heart of defense" He also says.. Paraphrasing here: "use strength to attack enemy weaknesses and feign weakness where you are strong (and vice versa)."

Defense however can be inherent in offense (hence the saying "a good offense is often the best defense") but that has to do with, like I said, it's proper application

Keep in mind. Sun Tzu also says that the best form of attack a strategist can employ is to apply his strengths to attacking the plans of the enemy. Siege warfare is dead last.

The whole

Is the entire problem with how nukes work.

and this is an extremely viable solution to the problem that was figured out 16 years ago apparently........

I assume you mean TA, and its Anti-nukes correct?

Ahh but this is the question....................




Does it?

so you say 100 plus engineers should be ineffective??? with so much eco up for grabs and unit caps with apparently no ceiling (awesome) 100 is quaint in the scale of things

Can't the same thing be said about Advanced? or Orbital?

The first person to get to another planet or to get to Advanced has a huge advantage over the other player. Particularly if the other player waits.

If both players get to advanced, or get a nuke, or get to another planet at about the same time, then the advantage is pretty even.

But if one person doesn't step up to advanced or doesn't get to another planet, then their way behind.

And that has to do with poor strategic choices, not with balance.

If you ignore an important facet of the game and get beaten by it, then that facet isn't overpowered. It just means you made a poor strategic choice.

The fact that there is so many threads complaining about nukes tells us there is a balance issue here.
I'd also like to note that one thing about TA's anti nukes is they where unlimited in range as well.... They ALWAYS intercepted nukes at the half way point between the two launchers. So you could use nukes defensively if you wanted...
It also had the problem where all the launchers on the map would fire, regardless of where the actual nuke was targeted...

No, because advanced units, are units, can be killed by other units, and behave like units.

Orbital units, are units, can be killed by other units, and behave like units.

Nukes are not units, cannot be killed by units, and do not behave like units.

Advanced units counter other advanced units, orbital units counter other orbital units, Nukes don't counter nukes, they win the game, you counter nukes with the anti-nuke, but that anti-nuke is worthless otherwise.

Do you understand?

Did you not read my post? I did say that I didn't feel the ratios were correct but that the general principle is sound to me. Not only that but you wildly exaggerated my intent. I get the feeling you don't quite grasp the effect SupCom's system actually had, what part of the system is causing your confusion?

Mike

Ok **cracks knuckles** (bare with me if I quote too much)..

Well that's where all the intel part comes in . Intel is very important part of strategy.. I'm not insulting your intelligence, just like to highlight that point. I'm sure it would be a challenge to have to find the nuke silos before you would know if he was finished or how many he has, but that's part of the game. Either you can find a way to sneak a peak at his base or he is very well defended. I just wouldnt think your inability to do so should limit his ability to use as many fabbers as he needs to crank a nuke out.

Maybe there should be an alarm that goes off when it's launched, or a countdown timer to impact. Or a rough line indicating the trajectory of the missile from launch to impact. Just throwing ideas out there..

First I should say that not many games would end up like the perfect straw man match you presented. But maybe in a perfect world.. There's lots of hypotheticals we could use. I'd rather wait for the devs to balance the game first.

Well, I believe, if I'm reading this part correctly, your point about the Anti-nukes drove the PA fabbers (like that analogy? Maybe it wasn't original, i dunno ) to allow you to receive one interceptor as opposed to none upon completion of a silo. That would have clearly put the nuke guy at an advantage, otherwise. However, with the choice you just mentioned, yes, you could send at least half your fabs out to build another launcher or use them to continue building another interceptor (you'd probably weigh this option by determining if building a second Anti-Nuke will provide the more coverage you need, or if you do have sufficient coverage, would it be less costly/quicker to build more silos? (That's something we'd both maybe need to look into, as I am not good at remembering numbers..)

I'd have to look, but is it more costly to build a nuke silo and a nuke warhead combined than it is to produce at least one Anti-nuke (with an interceptor provided)? If it is, I'm unsure of the problem. But, if so, I can see your point. Even so, at the same time, if your enemy has more fabs on an Anti-nuke than you do on your Nukes, then assuming that helps build the anti-nuke the quickest, player B's dillema may be non existent. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is, I don't think there should be a limit on the amount of fabs you can put on building nukes for the sake of evening the odds.. If the anti-nuke and nukes are unbalanced, then I believe there are more options to solve this problem (like the solutions I provided that you drug ova here from the last thread ) than simply limiting fabs. I guess I just like the game to be consistent in that aspect is all..

That's why you build more interceptors or silos, depending on how much more efficient doing one thing is over the other.

I think a couple things need to happen (I haven't played the game as much as probably you have, and I'd have to get in there to verify both our points, but hear me out. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong). First, the anti-nuke has limited coverage, so you would need to build multiple if you have a large base and need overlapping coverage. If Anti-nukes are cheaper to produce than nukes, then I wouldn't worry about nuke spam if you can crank those babies out faster than he can build as many nukes as you have interceptors. Yes, Nukes do have unlimited reach as opposed to the Anti-nuke, but if we implemented an objective based system to in essence "activate" the nuke with whether it be a satellite launch for notional coordinates (using imagination here), or to gather the uranium resources necessary to even begin constructing a warhead (like in my last previous post), then that gives the anti-nuke guy time to prepare without compromising the integrity of allowing as many fabs to produce any type of unit possible in the game (as it stands). I mean, at least, if we are going to limit fabs, make it across the board and not just because you feel this is just to handicap a person that prefers to use nukes. But, that's just me driving my point home.

I agree with this guy's statement here.

I have and it is still as awesome as the first time I played it!

I kind of like the idea of a closed silo. At least it keeps the defender on his toes wondering if you got a nuke in the tube ready for some spectacular fanfare at any given moment. But, then again, I am totally cool with being able to see how much "time i have left on the clock by looking at his progress" or having to gamble on whether or not my opponent is aware I got something cooking up for him.

my example would probably never happen. it was perfect world example to show how one sided fabber assist can be. with both players being entirely even at every aspect except for that decision on the nuke game. its quite obvious that the win falls to the nuke player Heavily. i repeat that was a heads up display of how the nuke guy wins. also progress of your missile would still be available, the only thing being suggeested here is keeping construction in a silo so fabs can not nano assist it.
as you say you have played TA and it was awesome!!! guess what?? unassisted nuke building.....

well perhaps i dont understand your contradictory nature sir....i have copied your text for you to read again...... first you think its not compatible then you say you like it?? if my ratio wasnt a proper example, what is?? 36 fabs sounds like a good number from a game with miniscule scale compared to PA. with multiple bodies under control eco for eons 100 fabs is a pile of flea **** in comparison to the scale of the rest of the game, so please explain the advantage of SC's system that you are trying to unveil.....

Or simply too many noobs whinning about it ...

I never said that, I said I wasn't sure how compatible it was, it worked with SupCom's Building system mostly because of how you could separately define a unit's Build Rate AND a specific item's Build Time(which had no effect on a unit's overall cost, only it's drain rates while being built), as far as I understand it the only way we can do something like that in PA's system is to simply make something cost more which isn't ideal.

Again, I like the idea of it, it makes assisting less appealing, much like the roll off time for factories in PA but it simply might not work with the way PA's economy is setup.

Cverything in the game now is a balance issue, because there hasn't been any proper balancing.

Mike

I personaly would like to have a sweetspot on that like maybe
Were 20 fabbers build something like 20% (just as example) and were 40 fabbers build only 30% instead of 40% ? .. like yes feel free to assist it but only so much are realy useful that it doesnt make too much a difference if you use more ... but only if you use A LOT more

The problem with systems like that is that they are arbitrary, if you didn't know anything about that system you'd think the game was bugged because your fabbers aren't working to thier full capacity. An example of a good system to limit the usefulness of assisting is factory roll off time. No matter how many fabbers you have assisting a factory there will always have a certain time 'between' when it finishes one unit and when it can start the next one.

Mike

Very arbitrary....... but the system you speak of hails from TA where everything had independent build time and costs. Making no assist possible is still very viable to me and solves so many of the current nuke complaints. Granted the binary issue you and ign speak of constantly is still there however it places a much more welcoming approach to new players which I have heard nearly everyone say should be encouraged.

Aside from beeing arbitrary thinking about it there also would be the problem that it might not be transparent to the player ...
Roll of time does matter to factories but nukelaunchers are a bit of their own problem as their ammunition doesnt stack so roll of time doesnt mean anything here
I am still for asisting nukes maybe the energydrain should be the limiting factor as in if you want to build more nukes faster you need a considerable ammount of energy
yeah i think i disregard my aformentioned idea ...

Isn't that the current requirement???? You guys are suggesting drastically changing these two buildings to be economically different, as am I, in such a manner that is definitely wtf???? Remodelling so missiles if both kinds are built in a silo is a much easier explained reason. Simple visuals provide the answer as to why you can't assist build these two launchers. Not to mention all the mathematical code involved in your suggestions..... no assist requires no specialized crazy code other than..... no assist. However I see you guy's side at the same time... same as assisting a T1 factory is inefficient, it's just better to build two factories instead of trying bot assist....

Massing t1 factories may make more sense then assisting but the same cant be said for t2 facs on many video i watched players immidiatly assisted their t2 facs very rarely t1 ... also you cant just go round and say oh i dont like this or this requiers to much codework to balance better throw that out ... nukes bad out with it ... advanced tanks evil kill it with fire!!!