Assisting Nukes/Anti.....calmly

The ultimate problem is that anti nukes are a stupid idea entirely. As of right now there are only 3 defenses to a nuke:
1) Build your own nuke first.
2) Kill the enemy's nuke before it fires.
3) Build an anti-nuke and hope he doesn't snipe it just as easily as a nuke launcher would get sniped.

That's hardly strategeristifying.

In which case i have to ask wouldnt it be also kinda logical to be able to boost ammo regen for say artilery with fabbers aswell

There's no counter to tank shells or lasers there is no counter to aa misiles none to artillery shells ... Shall there be no counter to a nuke aswell because of this?

I've played a few games of PA now (and unfortunately nuked in almost every game) and I played a bunch of TA back in the day. I think what is most annoying about the nuking in this game is the only counter is like bobucles said, build anti-nuke, or take out their nuke. Anti-nukes have a extremely limited range and are stupid expensive to build.

Maybe my vision of the game is all wrong, but I would like to see there be a cheaper "anti-nuke" solution, such as an flak cannon or something that could shoot down missiles without having to build anti-nuke missiles continuously. I saw this idea in another thread and really liked it.

I believe that this would make nuking a person harder, but with some strategy (i.e. focus down anti-nuke turrets) and then launch your base destroying weapon. I'm sure there will be people that will disagree, but I feel it would add at least a little bit more counter play to the nuke fest that I see going on now.

Are you unfamiliar with how war works?

How to counter tank shells: Kill the tank. A billion units do this.
How to counter lasers: Kill the laser towers.
How to counter AA weapons: Kill the AA.
How to counter artillery: Kill the artillery.
How to counter nukes: Kill the launcher.
How to counter nuke defense: Kill the nuke defense.

That's why nuke defense is stupid. It has a single function, against a single weapon, against a single unit, and it is defeated by literally everything in the game. It's so bad that even building one can be more harmful than doing nothing at all. Not many things qualify for such a prestigious lifetime failure achievement, but nuke defense lies near the top.

Ok so its stupid to invest in systems that can minimise loses ... got it ... ....
... i sooo absolutely disagree ....
single unit? Finished Rooster ? Also may be one type but on multiplanetsystem maybe like 10 or 20 of them if players went that crazy ... yeah im exxagarating a bit put its not imposible to happen
Probably the simpliest answer for you would be ... If you find it stupid dont build it ...
if you think people are stupid for using them then go for it ..
also (and as much as i hate using RL stuff) we use stuff like patriots to intercept missiles too because sending bombers are also quite some expensive pieces

Winning the game has a way of minimizing all losses.

Nuke play is shiny, but there's nothing particularly engaging about it. It could definitely use some love.

So what is your idea to solve the issue?

What you're failing to acknowledge is the fact that only a handful of pelters backed by a holkins and sprinkled with lasers and walls will SMASH!!!!! THE FAWK !!!! Out of the army you described..... so no is not always the advantage to the ground forces. 1v1 yea sure it is. But like I said several times that's not where the issue lies..... it lies in any game over that, and you have expended all resources in a ground war. The mass of your forces is gone from that comm you just killed. Sure you're reproducing it quickly. But little time was allowed nor were the extra resources available to properly anti. Meanwhile turtle man who has sat quietly has amassed enough storage to easily reproduce many missiles at will....... you're dead....

One of these things is not like the other things...

In order to be a threat, a tank has to come out of his base and attack yours. In order for a laser tower to be a threat to your base, it has to get built in your base.

In order for a nuke to be a threat, it just has to exist somewhere on the planet, usually surrounded by a defense that's as absolutely impenetrable as possible (although if you don't have eye-in-the-sky, I can probably just build it on some distant part of the map where you won't incidentally notice it). This is what makes nukes into an exceptional weapon, requiring an exceptional counter.


Incidentally, if we're talking about real war, anti-missile defense systems have existed for years. Russia finds them to be upsetting.

Pelters are definitely OP and Holkins are very good... but I really think you are overestimating their ability to stop an attack like the one I described. And besides, what if I had 20 T2 bombers as well? Then not only could I crush the holkins and pelters but, if you weren't careful, I could snipe your commander in like two passes max.

There is no single solution to fix the issue. Nuke play is a lot of issues that add together into a boring outcome. Most of the problems stem from treating nukes like game enders and nuke defense as an anti game ender. It is a one dimensional design for a game that already has better game enders.

I believe you underestimate them... ive personally had hundreds of units fall before such combinations.

Regardless we're entering the land of what if again. What if I had this and what if i had that.......

This is why I created my perfect world scenario. It shows the outcome of an actual heads up anti vs nuke battle. Both players matched each other in all other situations.

So anti requires a reduction in cost or assist for both factories should not be allowed assists. I don't think a slight increase in comm health would hurt either. I say it should require exactly two nukes to kill a comm, not 1.1

50 levelers = 78,750 metal
300 tanks (ants?) = 67,500 metal

1 Nuke launcher + 1 nuke missile = 39,610

So "all things being equal", I should have 3 fully loaded nukes to your 350 ground units. This isn't counting the cost of the numerous vehicle factories you must have. (5 advanced factories + 10 T1 factories = 33,050 metal...almost enough for a 4th nuke)

Yeah. I'm pretty sure you're going to lose this fight because as your 350 ground units are rumbling towards my base, I'm going to double-nuke your commander with a nuke to spare in case I miss.


Not that the leveler rush is a bad idea, but I think it's going to involve getting fabricators up near the enemy base and building T2 factories right there and sending them in ASAP to hopefully draw resources away from those nukes. Which is risky in itself because T2 factories are dreadfully expensive. For 1000 more metal you could build a Catapult and just attack with that instead.

So basically ground attacks suck. (I notice the big "spam gobs of T1 units" trend flared up and died pretty quickly. Ground units seem like a good idea until you run up against a competent opponent who can dispatch hordes of them without breaking a sweat.)

^ yes observations of a ground unit warrior.... i saw the same thing. everyone goes t2 bombers and nukes. I shall never let the blob die however

I dont think they are "threated" as gameenders .. its rather the decisions and deeds of your enemy that may turn it into a gameender .. does that make sense?
I guess far more problematik will be the crossplanetary warfare with nukes

I guess solving the overall nukeproblem could be through adding a set of alternatives to the longrangeplay .... each of those may come with their own pros cons and issues
but may be handled through other maybe existing options so all stuff synergyses well

I welcome anyone here to a 1v1 challenge. You rush a nuke, and I'll attack with ground units. Let's see what happens.

"YO! you use your strategy, and only your strategy in a way I can predict and I will use it's direct counter! That'll show you!"

This isn't how we prove our points, and nor are we concerned about how the less skilled players act with the current tools.

Its all, about how the skilled players work. Because to discuss anything less would be pointless in their eyes, they don't care about the game of a less skilled player, only their game.

So we can't discuss it from the less skilled side of the fence. Only the more skilled and more vocal minority side.

And I agree with bob, there is something seriously wrong with how the nukes work. Because people call them game enders when the battlefield has made them much, Much smaller.

So how are they still called game enders rather then to still latch on the the previous and smaller games scale of them?

They don't 'end' games any better then a platoon of tanks.

And then you try the same thing in a 5-way FFA and you lose because you couldn't rush all of the nuke-rushers. You get caught in the crossfire.

If nuke defense is stupid, then nukes are stupid, and if nukes are stupid, then everything else in the game is stupid. C'mon guys, this is gettin ridiculous.

Why? Because we disagree with you?

And actually, while we are still in beta let be the first to say that currently, the game is pretty freaking stupid.