I'm new to this game so humor me for a moment. What do you think about an orbital anti nuke station? This would be a valid way of locking off a planet from interplanetary nukes. I'm thinking a unit about as expensive as one and a half anti nukes, which would require about as much power as an advanced radar. and shoot lasers at all nukes in the orbital layer with a large range. these could be placed to stop nukes from one planet or around the planet defending from the nukes. it would be quite venerable, but also quite useful since it could shoot without you having to build a anti nuke every time. it would fire slowly, but you could place several next to each other. remember, it could only fire at INTERPLANETARY nukes. Combined with orbital fighters and a laser platform, this could be a very powerful defense, or siege weapon when attacking or defending a planet. please leave me your thoughts on this matter.
Vanilla Anti-Nuke launchers intercept nukes that are launched from one planet to another. And since nukes orbit the planet before striking, interplanetary nukes are very vulnerable to anti-nukes. So I don't think we need a new form of anti-nuke defense.
I really think that this would help the nuke/anti-nuke imbalance that is occurring right now.........
I honestly dont .... id wouldnt make too much a difference you basicly just build the same defense just in orbit were it might be safer against most attacks but thats it ...
Then it'd get shot down by enemy orbital fighters. I don't really think there's much, if any, of an imbalance right now. And if there is, this new structure definitely wouldn't help since most of the "issues" take place on planet to same planet nukes.
Then it'd get shot down by enemy orbital fighters. I don't really think there's much, if any, of an imbalance right now. And if there is, this new structure definitely wouldn't help since most of the "issues" take place on planet to same planet nukes.
But it would allow for another way to destroy orbital nukes (incoming nukes).... thus giving more options in nuke defence.... and with the orbital fabs coming into play.... I could add some strategy when someone is lanching nukes....
No imbalance....uh..... well your just blind to the dozens of threads and post by people about needing more options to destroying the nuke..... Nukes on planet and nukes from above..... there all do the same think and they all hit the same!!!!!
Again there isnt realy much of a difference weither orbit static ground or mobile or maybe even naval its the same nukedef in the end weither you use it against planetary or crossplanetary nukes nukelaunchers could also be the same ... would that make nukeplay overall more intresting? I dont realy think so that said im not entirely against it im merely questioning its use when you have something that works already
I was just saying in would allow for more options.... I would much rather mobile anti-nukes first... before orbital though
IMHO, the interplay of nukes and antinukes isn't very engaging right now. By the time you build a nuke, your opponent has either such a sprawlingly massive base that a nuke launch will do very little unless it's a doublenuke commander strike, or their base is so depressingly small that a single nuke will wreck the entirety of their production or economy or defense, or all 3. It's very binary and somewhat boring. Nuke Defenses are really only good for defending Commanders. My blunt suggestion would be to simply remove nukes, but that isn't really in the spirit of Annihilation type games. I think making them act more like incredibly destructive tactical missiles, instead of, you know, nukes, would be more conducive to interesting gameplay. As in, using Nukes as a point defense or a surgical striking tool instead of a WMD. Generally speaking WMDs are no fun. The shock and awe value might be attractive the first few times, but soon it just becomes "Press button explode bad guy."
Honestly im actualy ok with its binarity (though i assume mobile nukes/launchers will be added soon aswell will that make nukeplay more intresting though? ... rather doubtful) I think there shouldnt be much focus on nukes but on your army ... nukes are a mere addition to long range play with catapults and holkins i would like to see something like crossplanetary railartillery Also to me nukes feel more like tacmissiles already their aoe seems smaller then in supcom
And a good point..... I wish nukes would take the back seat and people would focus on there army more..... Not saying that nuke shouldn't be played, but they should be more like the back up thing...... Unfortunately this is why people are asking for more nuke defenses because it is really annoying when your playing a game and some one there decides to play the "nuke play"..... and I really think that is because it doesn't require much play experience or strategy......
Well, thinking back to when I actually played PA competitively, I left around when nukes were implemented. The specific reason for this was that planets used for competitive matches were tiny compared to what people used in PUG games. We had two reasons for this: One, small planets made for more interesting matches between both the players and the spectators. Two, the lag was so bad back then that a 300-400m radius moon was all some of the best players could handle. I remember Cola Colin repeatedly said to me (as he was obliterating my base from all sides with Ants) that he was getting about 2 FPS while I was downright infuriated with my 10 FPS. I still can't comprehend how some people are that patient. Nukes aren't so bad on gigantic planets assuming players know what to do with that much planet. Then they do indeed feel more like tactical missiles than actual nukes. But on tiny planets designed for 1v1s or 2v2s, a single nuclear missile launchers means a right and proper doomsday for your entire war effort, due to the limitation of expansion. A few minutes before the "nuking" phase, you would often encounter your expansion limit and a "no-man's-land" would form between you and your enemy's major bases. Then nukes came out, you lost/won a base or two, and then the entire game tumbles from there. No point in trying to resist, unless you have a nuclear weapon yourself which you hope to snipe the enemy Commander with. Aside from that, defeat was inevitable and - wait for it - binary. If I knew how to solve this problem I would propose a solution. But as it stands, if and when I do get back into the competitive scene, I'm going to be asking to play with the No Nukes setting, as I remember the game being significantly more fun (if less flashy) without the addition of nukes.
This is what i dont get if you have so much problems with a enemies nuke then why dont you get everything in gear to destroy the launcher/s if i scout a started nukelauncher i dont go wait until its finished but get stuff like bombers out if you are a good player then the unitrooster shall offer you any other option to counter nukeplay efficiently without having the need to go nuke yourself ..... to me this again souds like a overall unitbalance issue then a problem with just nukes themselfes ...
I have no idea how good Bombers are nowadays, I heard they got a huge buff against static units, but now they're also much more fragile against ground-based AA and fighters. Based on what I've read, both competitive players and public gamers spam ground AA and fighters like the apocalypse will come in the form of demon pterodactyls.
Didn't we already have a thread about orbital defenses with the same name? Oh yes, we did. I know because i created it.
