NUKES!! WAY TOO O.P.

Kay im really getting flustered by stupid responses like that.....the point of this thread is bringing out the fact that if he concetrated all of his fabbers on pumping out nukes he would have nukes you twice. 30 seconds later nukes your army. 30 seconds later nukes your comm. GG bro

And there would have been nothing you could do because 30 seconds in pa is not enough time to concentrate on redirecting or countering another strike and also because it takes forever for units to move any where

I think anti range is fine atm....... just no assist is all im harping on here friend. just like TA if you remember anti in TA required several due to its small range as well. not quite as many due to the conventional square map but still a big base required a nice front wall of anti. they secret there, and here as well, is to place your anti on the edges of your base. not in the middle with stuff on the edge of its range expecting it to be safe.

like i said that isnt a good 1v1 strategy, but 3ffa and above youre probably going to get away with it. 1v1 no one should ever let that happen to them......

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 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could it be that you misinterpreted what you read? I'll make it more clear:

He was doing basically what you say he was doing, assisting his nukes and he hit me twice... yet I won.

Listen man, be respectful about expressing your opinions. If someone presents evidence that contradicts your point and you don't like it, you can't just call it stupid. It's rude AND is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Additionally, your dubious claim that people aren't playing because of nukes has proof from... yeah, nothing. You have no way of knowing why people do or do not play, and your evaluation of others' opinions on nukes is the opposite of scientific and is an exercise in cherry picking.

To anyone else reading this, I strongly suggest that everyone ignore this obvious troll and perhaps his aggressive and disrespectful personal attacks are grounds for closing the thread altogether.

Double post.

whoa!!! man calm down some. no need to be so snide and angry towards ppl. the whole point of the forum is to have nice logical discussions of fact and opinions. no one is going out to insult you. just expressing their opinion on the matter same as you did when you created the thread. disagreement doesnt always mean FAWK YOU!!! i just simply means i disagree. you then provide more examples and pros to your side of the discussion to try and sway thier opinion. you cant please everyone bro, just take a deep breath, burn one, play a match of pa, then come back to this discussion

nah dont close it. definitely a good discussion point following the lineage of TA up to PA. agreed OP needs to calm waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. but still a decent discussion point.

you provide a singular example, with a large mitigating factor........ was said opponent of equal skill level???? one example isnt a good enough basis for such a claim that nukes arent OP. my example provided previously was a totally made up scenarion but set in the perfect world where both players are evenly matched and make all the same exact moves at the same exact time up the point of nuke/anti

Why not introduce other elements into the game (uranium, plutonium) to mine, so that people have to fight over the resources to build nukes. This might solve it being "too cheap to build", and people cranking them out prematurely. Perhaps before you launch a nuke, you need a satellite (orbital) to guide the missile first. Ya know, kind of like a series of objectives to check off before building nukes, as opposed to making them more expensive, or not allowing fabs to build warheads (fabs assist everything else, so why not nukes also?)

If TA was the most balanced game of all time, go play TA and don't waste our time.

Well now. Personal attacks. Classy. Especially since you know nothing about me.

Also, logical fallacies. Fantastic. Your claims of the total number of people playing the game based on this one mechanic you have an issue with is completely unfounded. Especially since the results of your own poll indicate that most people don't have an issue with this mechanic.

You also conveniently ignore the results of your own poll and ignore several of my points.

Classy stuff.

Also, why should this game be a carbon copy of an older game? Why should this one mechanic be like an older game while other mechanics be different than said game?

Just because there's a post a week doesn't mean there's something wrong with the mechanic, especially when the general consensus of each and every post is that nukes are balanced. This is evident from the results of your own poll, the comments on this thread, and the comments on the older threads. A vocal minority doesn't mean "obviously there is something wrong with the mechanics of it."

Honestly, I think you just need to improve your gameplay. Scout more. Attack more. Spread out your base. Snipe your opponent's nukes. Do something.

I urge you to use logic and not resort to logical fallacies and baseless personal attacks.

Have fun. I won't waste my time here.

interesting ideas here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! seems like a very cool implementation....

sytarn please be careful about your choice of words. Personal attacks will yield you nothing. Just because somebody has a different opinion than you does not justify attacks like that.

I'm not talking about that interpretation of extreme turtling. I'm talking about defensive structures during normal gameplay between good players. I.e. I'm talking about two equal players who are both pro-enough to have expanded across the entire planet.

Please tell me you learned from that game you had with Zaphod, where you said you had nothing to deal with incoming units, and he told you to build defences using the small army of fabbers in your base.

You can protect your base using only Levellers and Ants, and they still end up just as dead when the nuke drops.

I think the game you are mentioning was the other way around. Was also around the time of the turning point where PDs were much better than units. I see what your saying but I think there is a difference of building for an immediate threat as opposed to using resources building defences for security.

I think at the minute the main problem is how overpowered static defences are. This leads people to looking for gaps in the balance for game Enders like the assisted nukes or the t2 bombers. This is human nature.

TA is not balanced. 99.9% use arm and the late game is always a hawk (stealth fighter) war.

If we underpowered nukes; catapults pelters and lobbers will be used to keep death blobs away.

Underpower air and nukes and the games last much longer.

Probably. That was purely done from memory.

Ah ok...

What I mean is, early game you can defend with units. Then late game you can defend with defensive buildings. And at that point, unless you get lucky, that turning point is when nukes become the defensive line crackers, and actually armies become less important.

I meant building defences for the immediate threat. No point building a maginot line for an attack that never comes.

Agreed entirely.

I'm thinking that unit roster may solve issues? The thing about Stompers and Shellers is they don't do a very good job of counter-attacking artillery, because their range is so short. It could be nice to have some more mobile siege units.

And likewise, I think some AoE for air would do a lot to rebalance them. Spinners and Stingers are a noob trap as is.

Who says fabbers couldnt help artillilery to fire faster?
Also i absolutely disaggree with putting in some arbitrary third resource ...
supcom didnt have that PA surely doesnt need it now
Also if you scout the enemies base why do you need orbital radar to decide were to send the nuke ... these are more advanced robots with more advanced technology
(i know not the best reasoning) Its not like their warheads are that dumb
Also askin to put up extra orbital launcher and extra orbital radar would merely delay
The first 2 or so nukelaunchers in cost and production .... you are not fixing anything with that

The problem about 3rd resources, and 4th resources, and so on, is that it very much becomes a resources game.


I think the model of only having 2 resources is a good one.

Depends on how you make it work though
Rise of nations had like 7 or so resources and managed to not be a ressourcegatheringchore ...

Sry for doublepost

So basicly asking to turn pa nukewarfare into supcom tacmissilewarfare ... i dont realy know would have to see how that woud work out ... i fear that would turn the game to much into a missilesnowballmatch ... and infinite ammo antinukes defenetively should have a high energy cost in that case ...
However i disagree with not allowing fabbers to assist nukes
As some people stated before beeing able to steer your eco to where you need it to is very important and is what helps you to survive or win nukes shouldnt be an exception to this

Uranium/Plutonium are far from arbitrary, as they are needed to make nuclear weapons and they would strictly only be mined for that purpose. But, it was just ideas I threw out there to help people think outside of limiting fabs in producing nuclear warheads. Because I don't think that is necessary at all.

Well, just because SupCom and TA have this, or don't have that doesn't mean PA couldn't get more interesting and become more in depth than simply playing SupCom or TA on a sphere map as opposed to a flat one. Don't be so rigid to think SupCom or TA couldn't have been improved upon, even if it involved more types of resources. And it doesn't even have to get that complex. But for now, I'm problem solving and throwing ideas out there maybe people haven't thought of yet.

My point with the orbital was to, again, present better solutions than limiting fab assists on a nuke silo because one thinks nukes may be overpowered. It was an example used to show that maybe instead of A (limiting fabs) we do B (create objectives for the player to achieve before being able to produce a nuke missile... or, to basically earn it) which was my whole point about introducing mining plutonium/uranium (fighting over a more limited strategic resource as opposed to metal and energy), and then launch an orbital satellite, the purpose of which is solely to allow nukes to be launched. Once these 2 conditions are met then you could be able to build and launch a nuke. If a nuke orbital satellite could be taken down or any of the plutonium/uranium mines have been interdicted, limiting the resource to build a warhead, then this could provide other options for people to keep the other player from nuking their base, as opposed to just trying to destroy the silos, or shooting them down with anti-nuke missiles. It would make it more interesting than limiting fabs, compromising the integrity of the current game mechanics.

Also, If you really wanted to get geeky, a warhead's CEP (circular error probable) *adjusts glasses* (i know people hate the real life talk here, but humor me..) could be reduced significantly with GPS (which is why I chose to introduce the possibility of an orbital satellite strictly for nukes). Yes, technically a nuke could be launched without GPS, guiding on inertial navagation system only, but making a satellite a prerequisite to launching nukes in game would be the dividing line between the game and real life. So there.. it wouldn't be real life.. but close enough .