Something needs to change with nukes.

This argument is more structured and easier to follow. I agree with most of what you've said here, though I still disagree with the opening statement that nukes are so broken they shouldn't be in the game.

• Such as the ammo system-- I mostly agree with this, at least with regards to anti-nukes. I think anti nukes should be far cheaper, only cost energy to reload ammo, and that it should only take a few minutes to rearm all 3 missiles.
• Theres also the issue of an ongoing maintenance cost for anti-nukes-- If the cost of anti-nukes is reduced, the micro management removed, and the pace blatantly superior to nukes this issue is moot. I would like more anti-nuke options, but for static defense of your base the current structure can be rebalanced to be viable without changing core mechanics.
• Limiting assistance to nukes and anti-nukes is the wrong direction-- I do like limiting... infact, I like eliminating build assists on nukes. It is an important component to keeping the balance between nukes and anti-nukes. With the current system they both have unlimited assistance and half the game becomes micro managing your anti-nuke production to make sure it out paces your enemy. If they are both non-assistable then it removes the micromanagement from both. the idea is not that unprecedented. We don't have fabbers assisting holkins or catapults to help them reload faster.
• There is nothing to discourage having many launchers within a small area-- I'm not the only one who disagrees with the idea of micro base always winning. It's not the area, but the cost that matters here. If I control 2+ moons I can WAY out produce a small base's supply. Even if he quietly builds his nukes at a slow pace over a span of hours he won't have the economy needed to rearm all of those missiles after the initial barrage. There are far too many players in this forum expressing an opinion opposite of yours to accept "Turtles own FFA" as a an undisputed fact.
• there is no viable way to protect armies-- I absolutely agree. I think most forum members I've read agree that a mobile anti-nuke is a good idea. There are several viable options for this and there has been a lot of great discussion on the topic.
  
• you must have more nukes than the target has anti-nukes-- This bullet is true, but I'm not convinced it's broken. I don't think anyone should be completely untouchable just because they built 1 or 2 anti-nukes. No matter how we rebalance the nuke system we should always have the ability to oversaturate the enemy defense and land a hit. The debate here should be focused on what constitutes a healthy ratio of defense vs offense. 3 to 1 feels a little low because anti-nukes have a tiny radius. I'm entirely OK with making a single anti-nuke cover an entire 250m moon and having a relatively fast reload rate. We're forcing the enemy to commit with at least 4 nukes if he wants to hit a developed location while removing the need to micromanage any anti-nuke operations. I believe making anti-nukes super easy to use and super effective makes the nuke into a situational weapon instead of a "go to", but not everyone agrees that's the right way to go.

There are even more changes I'd like to make to nukes and anti-missile systems in general, but I don't think they are "broken" right now.

What if I have 2+ moons and manage to get a teleporter on the moon of your planet. I then immediately crank out 4 nuke launchers and hit your man base on the planet before you can react? I've then essentially conquered that planet without using an army at all...

I half agree with this, if that's possible lol. I think that you should be able to over-saturate an equal skilled player only if it's combined with a conventional attack. If my enemy knows i've got nukes and builds a couple of anti-nukes I shouldn't be able to out pace his anti-nuke production unless I take out some of his anti-nukes with bombers or something. If I am successful with my surgical strike and then the nukes hit, fair game. If He saw my nuke plan coming and I overwhelm him without any other attack, that's bad no matter how much more eco I have than him.

Your example lands a single nuke... that's hardly the same as conquering a planet. Especially if this is a large planet it may take many MANY nukes to clear the whole planet out, and if your assault is from an impromptu moon base the counter attack can be devastating too.

I don't like the current cost and reload balance of nukes and anti-nukes, but I think you're over exaggerating the problem. If the anti-nukes reloaded faster and cheaper you could reach a fine balance. Balance is a small problem and very easily settled in the long run. If you don't like Uber's balance then you can simply load up one of the countless mods we will have once the server is released.

Now, I said *balance* is easily fixed. I still dislike the current binary relationship of nukes and anti-nukes, and there are many more interesting ways to address it, but that doesn't imply that it's *needed*. The game can be balanced just like it is. I don't expect Uber to make nukes vulnerable to anti-orbit weapons while in transit, but I would, and I promise we'll have mods for making the anti-nuke much more interesting.


You say it shouldn't be possible between two evenly matched players, but I disagree. Evenly matched does not imply using the same strategy. A player who is expanding and attacking is going to have a huge advantage in this fight already. I already support some of the most all encompassing anti-nuke defenses ever suggested on the forum. If I had my way they would only be viable on disputed territory or half broken bases, but I still think that if a player can safely invest his whole economy into nukes he should be able to land some nukes. Especially if the nuke-assist is removed it will take him a long time and a lot of money to make his apocalypse happen... I don't think the balance of nukes are the problem if you do nothing while he builds.


My idea's run like this...

• All ICBMs enter orbit once launched.
• Let the umbrella target nukes, balanced so 1 umbrella can stop 1 nuke. Cannot fire if unpowered.
• Let Anti-nukes auto build ammo, 30 seconds per missile, reserve of 3 missiles. Cannot be assisted. Very large radius, very costly. Reloading requires energy only (like a catapult or holkins reloading). Only fires after the nuke descends from orbit (assuming the umbrella missed it).
• Avengers and orbital platforms could try and fire on the nuke, but should have trouble hitting it.
• Add orbital anti-nuke, and naval umbrella for mobile anti-nuke.
• Nuke Launchers will cost much more, and take longer to build.
• Individual nukes require energy only (like a catapult or holkins reloading) and have a build time depending on the warhead chosen, expect 5-20 minutes. Cannot be assisted.
• Nuke Launchers would have attack area, and patrol area commands for bulk attacks and sustained bombardment as nukes are finished building.

My version would have nuke-defense much easier to maintain without any micro, but nukes would also be easier to build and attack with. Single nukes would be weaker than ever and any attempt to get a missile through would depend on firing several missiles at once expecting several to be intercepted.

If paired with your ground/air attack you could knock out enemy power and their nuke defense would be much weaker without the umbrellas.

I would go even one step further and remove anti-nukes from the equation entirely. Let the nuke defense building be a ground based laser. Its killspeed could be low and its energy consumption high thus enabling an attacker to overwhelm it with high numbers - either concurrently or sequentially.
It would make defending against nukes easy from a mechanic perspective - only energy is needed, no metal, no assisting fabbers. On the flip side prolonged nuke defense would take its toll on production and intelligence as soon as energy storages are depleted - making them choice targets for conventional weaponry and allowing insertion of hit squads if radar is down.
Should the umbrella become that building? Only if nukes become the predominant threat coming from the orbital layer - as long as there are orbital fighters in the game it would be too easily distracted.
Natural extension of the concept: A T2 Relay Satellite - acting as a mirror for ground based defense lasers, extending their range (merge with laser satellite?).

I'm currently of the opinion this doesn't solve enough of the problems. The anti-nuke solution not only needs to have no metal or ammo cost, but must also be mobile. A T2 vehicle perhaps with an anti-nuke (/orbital) laser that can be spammed but with perhaps a long time between shots. This will protect armies, expansions and bases alike. The should have no operating cost IMO and fairly cheap. Give them 2nd priority for bombers (just under air defense).

Combine this with the buffs Pendaelose suggested for nukes and a secondary use for the anti-nuke tank (such as the ability to shoot orbital units from the ground as well) and we've finally got nukes to a playable point and removed their binary nature to boot!

I think that goes too far. Everything outside your base and thus anti-nuke screen should be fair game. Since only armies of significant size are worth nuking it should suffice to make nukes slow enough to be evaded by all but the biggest formations. Apart from that - look at my proposed T2 Relay Satellite - that might fulfill the role you are looking for.
Orbital gameplay is another matter entirely and should be balanced separately for now.
Nukes will always be binary - the moment they stop doing that they degrade into simple missile launchers.

I agree with a lot of the things you guys are suggesting in general, and think I would change a few things from how I used to think it should work. Nukes are cool, but shouldn't get too overcomplicated either. There should also be some meaningful differentiation to make them viable at different points in the game. Hopefully this doesn't become a game about just firing nukes at everything after ~15-20 minutes (that's what asteroids are for!).

Create two nukes classes: Tactical and ICBM

Tactical Nukes: Tactical nukes should be 2/3-1/2 strong as current nukes, with a higher damage drop-off curve. Annihilate everything near the center, then decent descending damage to everything in the outer blast radius. This allows for units to chew through the rest of the damaged units assuming you have an assault force prepared, but won't allow you to simply nuke all to oblivion. The price per nuke should also be a reasonably cheaper than the current cost, for their reduced damage (but not so cheap they're spammed instead).Tactical nukes cannot be assisted! They build in the vehicle they are made in, or inside the static launcher, at a set rate. They don't go into space, and can't be hit by orbital. These are the early nukes, and they are less devastating. This is a one shot resource sniping, base busting tool, not crippling, entire-game-ender.

There could be a slightly cheaper static turret version, and more expensive vehicle versions in each T2 plant. So a nuclear sub, bot, tank, and aircraft. Give ALL of these type appropriate limitations and balance (for instance, plane has shortest firing range, and weakest health). Firing distances can and should vary between units within a certain range, somewhere within the hundreds of meters range, including for the static version. This means that unless you took some risk and got whatever nuke unit in range, or built a static turret sneakily close to their base, you would be unable to simply turtle tactical nukes in your own base. Nuke units would require by their nature some strong unit support to not get killed.

ICBM/Interplanetary Nukes: What it says on the tin. These are space-faring nukes, and are mean, later game weapons. They can hit what the current interplanetary nukes can. They fire from their own large launcher, and pack a bit more punch than the current nuke, with a less dramatic damage drop-off curve than the tactical nuke. More expensive than the current nuke, but assistable, to ensure it is primarily a later game weapon. I like the assist on this also having a risk; the missile can build on it's own under shielding that closes around the unit for protection, or you can unshield it to assist. If the nuke is hit while it's unshielded, the nuke/rocket should blow up with the force of a tactical nuke. It would suck, but not entirely destroy your base.

Nuke Defense: For tactical nukes, a cheaper, laser based turret that fires a beam with a set cooldown time would be nice. It takes a set amount of energy only to charge, and has a set cooldown time. The range should be a bit smaller than the current anti-nuke. ICBM's would need to be hit by two anti nuke devices, but are also targetable by umbrellas and avengers (they do much less damage though). No micro involved!

EMP effect: A nice bonus may be to make the damaged but not destroyed units in the edge of the blast suffer from EMP effects for a few seconds after the blast, allowing prepared units to rush in and get some free kills against inoperational defenses as well. I think this would encourage using units along with nukes as well.

I think this would provide a nice base busting gradient from tactical to ICBM to asteroid to planet killing asteroid (at least I think it was said there would be different damage levels for various sized asteroids). I just woke up so I may not have written this super well, but hopefully this is all somewhat legible.

You lost me right there: They should be differentiated so that they are both viable at every point of the game.
Apart from that your suggestion appears to be a convoluted combination of the methods described by Pendaeloose, others and me. I would rather see a simple yet elegant solution to the whole affair instead of adding layer on layer on layer.

edit: them spelling errors... ouch

It must be said that right now antinukes are pretty much useless against concentrated nuclear bombardment.

You don't need a great number of nukes to break though even the most spammed antinuke defense line, as they seem to have trouble doing their job when clusters of missiles are clumped together.

For example, the other night in a ffa in a default system i captured the lava moon, and test this by building 30 + nuclear missile silos. One player had two antinukes, fully stocked. It only took 4 nukes, in one burst, to break through and land. Only one made it through, but that is all is needed. It took out his defences, and another two clusters of three missiles each finished the job.

I don't know if that is just an incorrect observation, and i don't know if i prefer that or not, considering how much additional resources i had to expend to create all 5 nuclear missiles.

It was awesome to play about with, and it was obviously the other players fault for leaving me so uncontested... but at the same time it didn't quite feel right. I should have had to use more than that to overwhelm two fully stocked antinukes (checked beforehand via scouting with plane spam).

They probably should be more reliable?

Thought id throw that out there.

Yea anti nukes are really there to stop single/double/triple nuke snipes. Any more than that and their usefulness drops off. also if enemy is concentrating hard on nukes then anti-nukes can only hold out for so long until you have to build a nuke of your own or destroy their nuke some other way.

i find it funny that people only like to use anti nukes or their own nukes as an answer to nukewarfare you guys have an army for a reason antinukes dont stop a nukelauncher .... only the warhead ... stop treating nukes as units ... they are just manual projektiles
you wont ever stop a berthacannon with just pd ... in fact there is non to that

Whoops, didn't mean to say that. This

is correct to me, just like the philosophy concerning T1/T2. The weaker nuke that units can carry and is cheaper, would be viable the whole game. And you could build the ICBM whenever as well. What I meant to say is that it would be more likely, via player choice, that they would start using the cheaper, more mobile nukes for earlier base breaking, and mix in ICBMs when the enemy has gone off planet/has some absurd level of defense. In the same way that generally, a mix of T1 plants are used for assault before jumping right to T2.

Now, when we get multiplanet starts, maybe someone rushes an ICBM or something to ruin someone's day. But due to it's cost, that sort of thing will naturally be normally used at a later point in the game. I didn't mean to say they stop being useful at any one point, more that simply due to their design, it will be likely they'd be used that way. The crux of the idea is getting nuclear gameplay in earlier, but with a few more limitations that make it a bit more challenging and strategic to use. Range and strength limitations allow the defending player a bit more safety if they can maintain a bit of a perimeter around their base. It also means that to perform a nuke assault on another planet, or strike anywhere on the main, a significant new investment would need to be made, making the balance between doing that vs teleporter/orbital assault more interesting, IMO.

I see what you were intending and I have been a bit harsh in my response.
I for one would really hope that Uber were releasing some sort of design document listing the units planned for release and their intended roles. Right now all we can do is guess what their roles are and due to the constant random balancing those might change every build. I don't need to see any stats for the units I just want some confirmation that the unit roster is clearly defined in concept at least and not changed on a whim if the numbers seem off.

OMG this x 1000. I've been calling for this since beta started because really that's when such a document should have been finished! This "Gamma Phase" crap is exactly that. Crap. How about instead of inventing new dev phases they use the ones they claim they are in for what they are intended.

Make no illusion that the roster is in constant flux and that every addition is Ad-Hoc. They are very much flying by the seat of their pants. When Scathis says "I think we know how we want X to work" he is thinking of X in isolation and has no idea what the final game will look like... I doubt anyone at Uber actually knows what the final roster will be, or even what roles they will include.

The thing about this is it's hard to do. You may say something like "I want a big fat tank that's expensive, slow and tanky". However when it gets into the game, they don't always act as you think they would in your head. It may be a case where it just isn't fun. By the time its been balanced/reworked, it ends up a completely different unit.

Creating a list of units and what they will add to the game is pointless. Things change and people will get upset.

And it's their right to do so... there's nothing wrong with it. I would prefer the units get added as needed to mold the gameplay in an enjoyable direction than have excess, overlapping, uninspired, and unneeded units get rammed into the game because a design document was made 2 years ago that says it should be there. I don't have to know Uber's final vision to be able to say I enjoy the game today and I look forward to future development.

As for the rest of your post...

I don't really endorse the "Gamma" label, I think it's a very spiced up way of saying "we are still working on it, but it's much closer to done", but I also understand the business pressures they are under. Keep in mind that this forum community represents only a tiny fraction of the full sales and playerbase. The best game on earth is a failure if it can't drive sales.

And I am afraid that this is how some of the units are designed. Big, fat, expensive, slow and tanky is not a role. It is a bunch of attributes.
A role would be a 'line-breaker', to take expand your example here. And I would like to know if Uber really has roles for all their units.
I don't mean to attack their design goals and process, I am just beginning to become really cautious.

Honestly, I think they are doing a hybrid here. they included a few units right off the bat because people expect them, even if there are no truly distinct roles (bots and tanks). With this units in game they are trying to differentiate a little, and also starting to look at what combat roles are needed and filling them. It's a slow processes though because as you fill one role you create new ones make others obsolete. It's best to fill a very limited number of roles and then play with it for a while before jumping onto the next one.

That's debatable, but I'll agree to disagree. For me, it's unsettling. If you have no goal then how do you know you are moving in the right direction? Without a destination you are just wandering and who knows where you will end up. I don't care about them not having specific unit rosters ready yet, but to not even have all the roles fleshed out? Feels like they took the term "cruise control" a little too literally...

No offense taken; I wrote that right after I woke up when I was kinda out of it, I should've edited more! Upon rereading I can totally see how you would take away what you did, I just didn't write it clearly.

I'd really like to see nukes tried that way, and may even try making a mod (never done that though, plus 0 programming experience, so it'll be a challenge for sure).

As for unit balance, I understand what you're saying. It is difficult/somewhat pointless to try make balance suggestions now, when Uber may drop in a few units soon that totally invalidates those suggestions. On the other hand, this is a game a lot of people are actively playing; if they pour in a complete but unbalanced roster, it could totally ruin the gameplay for a bit, and they are working on an awful lot at once right now. They may not have the resources to focus on such a huge balance pass all at once.

The Gamma thing is fine by me, they are just trying to trumpet a large new feature set coming into the game. This will also remind casual fans that the game is progressing, since they most likely only follow the Kickstarter updates.