NUKES!! WAY TOO O.P.

Why are nukes different from tanks? Because it would be boring if anything was just like tanks.

Well generally the prices should be balanced in a way that makes it reasonable to place an antinuke in some important spot and be done with it.
Yes others parts of your base will be nuke-able. But consider the price of a nuke. Try to build your base in a way that creates no "sweet spots" for nukes where a nuke hit is a net positive for your opponent.
If you have to create a sweet spot, put in an antinuke or scout a lot and make sure your opponent does not have a nuke.

I think the current prices are indeed a bit biased towards nukes, especially considering the range of the antinuke and the amount of space a big base needs.

However it is simply false that having a nuke just wins you the game. I've played a few games by now where I did not have a nuke or antinuke, got nuked multiple times and still won, because I spread myself enough (see above, some of the nukes hit actually resulted in a net loss for my opponent) to preserve my economy even after 3 or so nukes hit me.

Unlike bombers, fighters, AA, battleships, frigates, destroyers, missile ships, submarines, orbital lasers, orbital fighters, mobile AA, mobile artillery, attack bots, the commander, laser turrets, artillery and static AA?

No, people seem to be quite entertained by having units that all act like each other.

Yes, we should all build out bases under anti-nuke shields instead of actually dealing with the problem.

Quite TRUE! in fact from what I can see a nuke only has a 25% to net you a win from the enemy not having the dedicated bianary counter!

It also have a 25% for you to lose as well by having the nuke intercepted!

But what you have missed from my earlier post it that anti-nukes can net you a loss by the enemy not even having nukes!

And that leaves the defending player with a 50% chance to lose, a 25% chance to draw by not building the counter and NOT being nuked, and a 25% to win by successfully countering the nuke.


ITS A FLAWED MECHANIC! and by balancing it like in FA you are left with a unit (The nuke) that is hardly even worth building unless you have already won!

I dont understand your logic. A nuke is nothing like a tank, so why should the mechanics that work around the nuke be anything like a tank? A nuke is an end game option, why should it be easily countered? And why would it need more than one counter?

And all your logic is based on terrible players. Who in the **** does not scout?

That I have not said, read again. I said a well planned base does not need antinukes all over the place.

Your just ignoring arguments you don't like basically by throwing in random % values that ignore so many things that they are outright meaningless.
How about scouting? How about spreading your base? If your base is spread enough a nuke hit will only result in a loss for your opponent.

And it is at this point that I will stop bothering, because arguing against the mechanics of SupCom is impossible on this forum.

Edit: I really do experience the ultimate apathy from discussing ideas on this forum, and hell maybe forums in general, sure I get emotional and stressed seeing my ideas ripped apart here.

Sure, maybe they are right maybe I scouting is the answer, maybe if I had scouted and removed the fog of war as an option for the enemy to hide behind I could see every move the enemy makes and thus eliminate the possibility of them building nukes without me having the counter to stop it, or by using a suicidal attack into enemy territory to eliminate the threat.

If I had designed my bases better or spread them out then the damage of any single nuke would be mitigated and the effect would nullify the missiles making them no more then another component in the game.

But I don't see it that way, or even as game enders designed to allow players to end a conflict early by giving them a tool to use on the other ending game early mechanic of the commander, doubling the speed at which the game ends.

Maybe I an such an arrogant fool that my huge, massive, COLOSSAL, MONUMENTS LACK OF SKILL WORTH OR EVEN REASON FOR BEING ALIVE AND EXISTENT means I cannot see the simplicity of the mechanic, I am blinded to its pure intended balance and elegant design, that I am blind among thousands that agree that the nukes are the single most greatest mechanic that has ever graced our RTS games.

Maybe I cannot comprehend how nukes could be anything less then perfect.

Maybe I am nothing more then a drama lama who needs to chill out, and enjoy the finer things in life.

Maybe I should just leave the forum and leave the nitty gritty details to Cola_Colin and Gunshin who feel like I ignore more competent arguments, and feel like I am perhaps even incapable of reading. And should not stand in the way of players who are just simply better then I am, that my enjoyment is second to the enjoyment of someone who can play an unfinished game so much better then me, and how the examples of similar game mechanics in previous games nullify any concerns, questions or suggestions that could possibly be made.

That this game will be the total undisputed APEX of RTS gaming.

This is why I feel apathy discussing my ideas on these forums, and I am sure many agree too that the monopoly that your arguments hold on this forum are nothing but stifling the community of this game with the same rigid thoughts and conventions that drove all of us away from the truly popular RTS games like Starcraft.

And you will find that the same happens here.

If that is just one of a few conditions that should be met before a nuke could be launched, then that gives the other player more options to try and prevent you from acquiring nuclear capability. It makes acquiring nukes more challenging than limiting fabs. So I don't really agree that "well, looks like the other team just put a uranium mine down.. GG!" No. You must collect the resources to build the missile, and put a nuke satellite in orbit to launch them (so long as he has at least one). If these things are required to launch a nuke, he could put 1000 fabs on 100 nuke silos, but, until these conditions are met, you can't launch a nuke. If you can shoot down all the nuke satellite(s) then his nukes are off line (even if he has 20). The resource would be collected just to be able to build the missile, so denying him the resource eliminates the chance he could build one missile even if he has 20 nuke silos built already. That pretty much makes the number of fabs irrelevant.

Or if it's too much trouble to shoot his satellites down and his resources are well defended, then you could go the classic route of defending your base with ABMs or destroying his nuke silos. Taking out his power is another way to mitigate his ability to acquire nukes. At least my proposal would add more interesting options than being limited to just 5 fabs because people think that would even the playing field.

You're ignoring the key issue.

If you don't have uranium, you're screwed.

And more importantly, PA is now all about being the first/only one to claim the uranium resource spot. This issue would be compounded on large FFAs or multi-team matches.

Unless uranium resource spots were rampant and common, which would make the mechanic irrelevant.

I don't think introducing many super expensive game enders is a good idea. Lots of cheap things are better than one big expensive thing. Having everything revolve just around that one expensive thing seems not like a very good thing to me.

If you don't have metal you're screwed.. so I fail to see the point. At least uranium would only be required to build nukes, not to produce ground, air or sea units. So if the other guy gets his hands on all the uranium, there are still other ways to prevent him from getting nukes. It would be just another strategy available at your disposal.

Then why you like the current nuke mechanics is totally beyond me.

Certainly seems that way.

If you base ideas on the inability of players to think about how to play the game and improve themselves, i have to step in, because like all RTS games, there needs to be an 'Easy to learn, difficult to master'.

Because currently the game does not revolve around nukes.

See I don't believe nukes apply to the players who have the inability to improve, but more to the players like you who are already the best.

Why would you as a player build an anti-nuke over a nuke unless to defend the one weak point in your base (The commander)?

I disagree, as even the lack of nukes can even effect a game by their mere looking potential and presence.

No, colin is genuinly right. Nukes really are not that big of a problem in terms of gameplay at this current point.

But, like i stated on the first page of this thread, im wanting to see a change to nukes which would remove the assisting of fabbers, rather than increasing the cost since they can be spammed at the mid-late game fairly easily.

Like colin also said, having the game revolve around nukes is just bad, so why add other ways to counter nukes in the first place?

How would that perpetrate making the game revolve around nukes?

Just because units can shoot at more then a single other type of unit, does not make the game revolve around them in any sense!

But keeping the counter to a unit confined to a single other unit just makes it far to easy to bring in a gameplay that revolves around the one unit and it's counter.

That would be like if bombers could only be countered (or even shot at in this case) by fighters, and fighters could only shoot bombers.

There are lots of ways to deal with nukes. I.e. you can even snipe it with t1 bombers.

WRONG, you can deal with their constructor.

Not the nukes themselves.

As far as I know nukes have hitpoints and can be damaged like any other unit. In fact considering their price they are a pretty juicy target for bomber raids.

That is simply false, only the anti-nuke missile can kill a nuke missile.

So what is wrong about preventing the nuke missile from ever completing? That's a pretty effective way to deal with nukes.