Emergency Anti-Nuke

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by Geers, February 23, 2014.

  1. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Were they your fireflies? Was it your nuke? Did it clip through them or simply miss?
  2. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    I had enough fireflies that if it missed them, it got insanely lucky. I shall test again.
  3. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    But whose nuke was it?
  4. ikickasss

    ikickasss Active Member

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    114
  5. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    My nuke.
  6. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Maybe it doesn't work with friendly fire?
  7. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Err.. yes that was my entire point earlier in the thread? The nuke won't detonate on friendly units. So the units have to be unfriendly.
  8. thetrophysystem

    thetrophysystem Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,050
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    if that worked, it wouldn't be optional.

    it would be very mandatory. It would be optional if losing was your option. Itsa nuke ffs...

    I mean, its optional for you not to use air against an air only opponent. Go ahead and tell me the other winning option though.
  9. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Have a chance of deflecting a nuke at the cost of your entire air force. Sounds fair to me. It was possible in SupCom but how often did you see it happen?
  10. vyolin

    vyolin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    479
    PA is not a game of chance but a game of choice. Mod material, I say.
  11. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    This is not a major gameplay element, this is a "holy bagelburgers what do I do!?" last-minute desperate attempt which will very probably not work. It's like trying to take down the Death Star with two Y-wings. Sure, it might work, but there's an overwhelming probability it won't. But since the stakes are so high, you might as well try. Like I said, this is entirely possible in SupCom, but you never saw other players try because the odds of success was so low and it was more important to keep your air force intact.
  12. Taxman66

    Taxman66 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    343
    Then why is there accuracy involved? Why does micro help you come out on top in a battle?
  13. vyolin

    vyolin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    479
    The nuke might have been a desperation move in and of itself - a last ditch attempt upon discovering that you have no anti-nuke coverage around your commander.
    I don' see no reason why you should be given the chance to have your behind saved by a myriad of scouts swarming over your base in such a case.
    If you are arguing in favor of total simulation I want you to remember that this would then include friendly fire and damaging collisions as well. I don't think we want to tread that path.
  14. vyolin

    vyolin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    479
    Micro is not chance but simply more decisions. Not microing is the decision to focus efforts on something more worthwhile.
  15. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    This was all entirely possible in SupCom. But it was almost never used. I don't see it becoming an issue.
  16. vyolin

    vyolin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    479
    If it isn't being used but would become an issue if it were - why keep it?
  17. Taxman66

    Taxman66 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    343
    By microing you're taking advantage of accuracy parameters and formulas written into a units specs. For example if I move my units while attacking, I increase the chance that projectiles miss. If I wish to micro my air units for the hope of a rare event such as to intercept and block a nuke that should be as legitimate as the former instance of manipulation.
  18. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    It wouldn't be an issue. Assuming it works, you lose your entire air force. That's not something you want happening if the enemy is shooting nukes. I'm willing to bet some ground structures would still be damaged too.
  19. vyolin

    vyolin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    479
    Depending on the cost of nukes and the expended airforce that might favour one side or the other. Apart from the reliability issue that I have with this there is another factor to consider that has been mentioned before: Given the flight altitude of air units and the explosion radius of nukes wouldn't it be in the realm of the possible for the nuke to also affect the ground albeit smaller in radius? Which would invalidate or at least be detrimental to the whole sacrifice thing.
    On a different note: What about gunships? They can hover and are thus far more reliable in intercepting projectiles. One could easily deploy large screens of them to shield against projectiles with trajectories akin to nukes. Not so fond about that thought, I have to admit.
  20. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    This doesn't seem to work. Just did some testing. This didn't do anything:

    [​IMG]

    It went straight through.

Share This Page