Nuclear weapon...

Сыграл уже сессий 20, то и дело ядерное оружие, ядерное оружие, ядерное оружие, ядерное оружие,ядерное оружие, ядерное оружие,ядерное оружие, ядерное оружие,ядерное оружие, ядерное оружие.
Задолбало откровенно!

Зачем в игре нужны куча строейний и столько юнитов, если всё сводится к ядерной ракете за 3 минуты игры ?

Я не получаю никакого удовольствия от игрового процесса.
Игра превратилась из разряда для "удовольствия" в разряд "Дрочни за 3 минуты!"
Тактической составляющей нет вообще.

Начинаем игру, на первых парах строим пару экстракторов металла, несколько энергетических реакторов, делаем два заводика, строим в них 4-8 конструкторов, сливаем все ресурсы на модернизированный заводик, запиливаем 8 конструкторов Tech-2 и сливаем все ресурсы на постройку шахты с ядерной боеголовкой параллельно достраивая командером энергетические реакторы и экстракторы металла, после чего хватает одного запуска, чтобы твой противник проиграл.

Какого чёрта ?!
Почему весь геймплей при таком разнообразии построек и юнитов сводится к шаблону "Нагни за 3 минуты" по выше описанному сценарию ?
Какой тогда прок от такого разнообразия юнитов и построек, если они попросту не используются ?
Идиотизм!

Уберите вы эту хрень, введите нормальный геймплей, где задействовалось-бы хотя-бы 90% юнитов и строений.
Сделайте в них прямой смысл!

Anyone have a translation?

Via Google Translate.

C'mon Uber, why don't you just "make them direct sense" already!

I can read Cyrillic and know some Russian. But even if I can read a word I might not know what it means.

In other words, the gameplay is too focused on nukes.

Ты говорите по-английский?

Я немного говорю по Pусский

Pretty sure he means that there is no point in having so many units if the game will eventually devolve into a nuke fest.

He has already played 20 and most/all have ended with nukes.

The middle part I think he says his general strategy involves getting a ton of build power and spamming nukes.

Last part is basically the first part repeated.

I'm fairly sure the original poster won't be able to read this, but this is a good topic and I think it should be discussed.

The balance of nukes is actually pretty close to perfect for 1v1 games on a single mid-sized planet between two skilled players. I have played a lot of games where nukes were used without immediately ending the game, because the players knew how to build bases that can keep running even after losing a big area to a nuke.

Good players spread out, take metal all over the map, put factories everywhere, and keep advanced energy in a lot of different sections of the base. The better players also keep raiding with basic units while having serious battles using advanced units for most of the game. At some point (seems to often be 18-20 minutes) nukes get added to the game, and eventually something falls apart and the game ends. I had a game against clopse earlier that went exactly like this, and each of us was able to launch a nuke. After the nukes, he killed me with gunships while my advanced army was inside his base.

This kind of game can be very fun and actually leaves a lot of room for interesting tactics as long as you stick to the one good meta strategy. I hope that we can eventually get more than one general strategy that can work in a game like that, but I admit the game type I described is pretty specific anyway.

Other game types, like free-for-alls and games on multiple planets, are probably much more likely to be a race to nukes with nothing interesting in the middle. I am not as qualified to talk about those game types as other people, so I will leave it to someone else. I just hope that the final balance dowsn't break 1v1 play in order to fix FFAs.

Some day, Planetary Annihilation is going to have an update with the changelog: "- Now with less nukes!" and half the community isn't going to be sure whether or not to cheer.

Buff Anti-nukes instead. Give them a storage of 5 missiles. There. Now you need 6 nukes to counter a fully prepped anti-nuke.

Welllook at it this way: You're 20 minutes into the game the enemy doesn't have anti nukes. IT will taek oyu 5 minutes to put up a nuke or another 20 to break thorugh with units. What would you do?

I am Russian. OP is saying that any unit other than nuke is useless and asks to remove nukes in order to make gameplay better.

Problem is anti-nukes take too many resources imho. Its hard to counter someone with a bigger economy as they can spam nukes faster than you can anti-nukes. The game should rely on combined forces to deliver wins and not nuke spam (or death laser sniping).

If your opponent have a better economy that's not the game's fault. That's you sucking.

Its a game fault if that's the most important difference. Its Real Time Strategy not Real Time Economics.

You're right, it is Real Time Strategy.
And part of the strategy happens to be economic management.
Why? Because it's not an upfront system.
It's called macro.

Yes, and I didn't say it doesn't have a place, only that I think PA is weighted more towards expansion and economic growth than strategic use of resources. I'm not diss'n the basic concept of economy and unit building only that it seems unit management is a far second to build capacity. If you like that than its cool, its still fun to play to me. But I prefer a constrained resource game where quality of decisions is weighted more than the speed and quantity*. Hopefully as more macro controls come online the balance will swing back that way a bit.

*note - Not that I see an advantage for me, I equally suck in all departments

Zaphod's #231 video exactly shows what the OP is saying.


Removing the ability to assist nukes would prevent the spam and make them more tactical.
Let's say it takes 2 minute to build one. Should i launch it right now or wait a bit for a better target?

You would also need to build a lot more silos.

Two minutes is nothing.