Something needs to change with nukes.

The ineffectiveness of anti nukes (range) is the problem with nukes at the moment.

I beg to differ.

What is your opinion?
I think increasing the range by 100% makes it a little easier to defend against nuke spammers.
It is too easy to build 10 nukes or more and wipe out any where on the map.

I feel like the whole nuke/anti-nuke mechanic is badly designed.

I posted it earlier in the thread, but I can say it again.

Anti-Nuke has approximate equivalent range of nuke. Very big. Half planet size or so.

An anti nuke automagically fires when a nuke enters range, going to the nearest possible collision point. This would be half the distance if it were aimed directly at the anti-nuke, further away if there is any sort of angle involved.

If the nuke detonates before that point(still larger than what we have now) it is wasted, but anti-nukes are cheaper.

Anti-nuke being launched this way acts as a warning to allocate fabbers to possibly assist with anti-nuke production the same way nuke whorers can spam nukes with assisting, even if it doesn't actually kill the nuke. You'd be able to then transition to nuke defense far more safely as long as you were paying attention.


In a large FFA game, this means that one person building anti-nuke could potentially protect other people, and that you could bait multiple anti-nukes with a single nuke. It would make the nuke interaction in FFA games far more interesting if you ask me. Using other people as a barrier against a nuker and not prioritizing them and the like would make things pretty darn cool.

People used to say that. Then the anti-nuke range was increased. And now people still say that...

So people will continue to say that until a single anti nuke covers half a planet and then nukes are pointless.

At that point, id would be like have an insta kill weapon that you can even see our reasonably counter.

Seems a tad silly,

I think anti nukes covering too much ground is a bad idea.
I am thinking of a way to improve anti nukes...A very tough thing to balance.
I think I will let Uber ponder this one.

There's no reason nukes cant fill the the role they do now, they are in no way game ending as the scale of the average base is considerably less vulnerable to this type of weapon as opposed to previous games and similar weapons in other series, and really are just another tool in base-cracking and blob destruction arsenal. IMO, in the situation the OP mentions the nuke building player deserves to win providing they want to win that way, personally its not for me but...

Yes it works, but it works in the same way that you can make a round peg fit in a square hole, so long as you have a sledgehammer available.

Why not push past this dated Binary Gameplay Mechanic and create something more dynamic and just flat out better?

Mike

di

i cant read everything you write it would pu

over analysis mike we just need to increase range on anti nucks by 300%

I disagree, and there ain't no such thing as a over analysis, not on a web forum.

That doesn't solve anything thought, it' just pushes the issue farther away but it'll still happen.

Effort is better spent solving the issue, not trying to work around it.

Mike

we will see what happens. and besides why worry about what an idiot like me thinks.

because the 'flat out better' idea's are all dangerously leaning in the other direction ie nukes become almost useless and situational in the extreme, or they don't provide adequate security without spam (basically they become anti-nuke 2.0 only without ammo), I am speaking of course of hi-rof nuke killer turrets and related suggestion. The anti-nuke is a real-world inspired & TA inspired counter to a powerful (and expensive) situational weapon, it was always meant to be binary and the nuke/anti relationship should stay with considerations* - if players use them as intended they're far from boring (most common and absurd statement relating to nukes) they create tension when you parts of you base are vulnerable, of course if players spam them like crazy its un-fun but the same can be said of literally everything...
Seriously most other games don't even have a counter to their 'super weapons,' they either suck (red alert 1) or it just turns into a superweapon slug-fest C&C Generals im looking at you...

* an alternate nuke counter wouldn't be amiss but it really shouldn't be a weapon, which is why the nuke redirector from supcom2 appealed to me. An imperfect passive defense that can really, really ruin someone's day if they haven't been on to it with their pre nuke launch scouting.

I wouldn't nerf the nuke or buff the anti nuke, if anything I think the anti nuke is too powerful. What I would do though is let players detect nukes that are under construction. Add some sort of radioactive scanner building or possibly a satellite. It would act like the deep space radar but show any nuclear missile built or under construction on the planet the radioactive scanner is built on. Another thing I'd consider doing is making nuke silo's with built (or maybe even building) nukes on them explode like a nuke when they are destroyed. This means it would be risky to keep nukes built and sitting in your base while you wait for others to finish.

I like this idea... i was going to suggest that the nuke silos should be highlighted by the satelite radar..

Add this nuke is a danger of exploding would really stop spamming

I actually think that making the nukes take up a much larger space, might help.
It creates a much larger target and makes spamming them a little more costly in space...

Having the silos appear on long radar as there built would help give players a target to attack...

Maybe the warning gets smaller as the nukes are built?

I liked the way RoN handled nukes.


There was an armageddon timer that defined the maximum number of nukes that could be launched.

When the timer hit zero, everybody died, nobody 'won'.

And every time you launched a nuke in anger you had economic penalties made against you for a given period of time.

Given, there was a cap on income for economy.

And it's a completely different game.


Thing that irradiates me about nukes is the boring design of them.

And the godawful sound.

You're wrong sir. Your anti comes preloaded with one shot. Its easy to spam out a few with a bunch of fabs, the anti launcher that is. Should the price of anti missiles come down?? Yes. Range seems tolerable to me as is.

Go play TA then tell me it doesn't work. Anti isn't even preloaded in TA. It should be implemented for a build so doubters such as yourself can see how effective actually waiting for your nuke to finish in its own time is.

It requires launching of that missile you had to wait patiently for a much more thought out strategic decision, instead of an endless slew of missiles from one launcher. Who cares about proper scouting or radar when you can spam another in ten seconds. You don't you can fling blind and carelessly, all you need is a general idea of your enemies location.


The idea is tried and true. It worked very well in TA. It deserves at least a shot in its offspring game.

A very nice balancing mechanic but I think it is very much tied to the setting and victory conditions of RoN and would seem rather out of place in PA.
How about a system akin to Defcon where every nuke site doubled as an offensive and a defensive option? Attacking with them opened you up for counter-attacks so it caused some nice build-up of tension and dread rather than a simple race for the first nuke.