Nuclear Missile Takes TOO LONG

That don't work here. Honestly, i'd rather just increase the cost of the missile, more than even the launcher, then make the launcher really cheap.

None taken. Last game I played was FIFA 14. This be my first RTS.
Yes, I do know the full use of the shift key.
What I didn't know was fabricators can be used for assisting production of vehicles and bots.
I knew the rest of what you typed.
Thanks!

Well welcome to our little corner of gaming comunity were your dreams are destroyed by high apm players.
Soo what do you think about rts in general? just curious..
And welcome to the forums also

Interesting... my record time is 15-30 seconds (with 3 planets worth of resources and more fabbers that I could count working on 10 or 20 launchers)

Because neither is needed? I've said many times: the nukes are fine. We only need to fix the antinuke. currently they fire more than 1 anti nuke per nuke when a swarm flies in and can therefore deplete themselves too fast. Also First anti nuke should be free or only cost 50% so an emergency anti nuke is more viable.

can it be 7 minutes? ... 7 sounds like a good number ...

excluding the build power of the structure itself, 50 T1 fabbers would take 70 seconds to build it with a stable economy. unless im mistaken and the nuke costs more than 35k metal now?

that's... ...because it's a brain thing. the number 7 has attractive properties... like the color red.

think about it seven pounds, Se7en, windows seven, all that stuff. a lot of it has to do with the number seven being entrenched in expressions and culture since the dawn of men. How many sins? 7 . how many dwarves? 7 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_(number)#Media_and_entertainment

Actually, the number seven has been programmed into our heads by the God who created us.

Unfortunately, noone can really verify this, because God keeps waving the reporters away with his no comment reply. It's pretty ineffective at driving off the conspiracy theorists, however.

I know this is probably set in stone, so it is pointless to suggest a contrary design. But in this case I will do it anyway.

I think nukes and nuke launchers should be relatively inexpensive, but impossible to assist with production (unlike units). What this means is that there is a mandatory time cost to construct a nuke. And it would probably be best to impose a fairly strict capacity limit per launcher as well (i.e. one ICBM per silo, or perhaps 6 tactical nukes on smaller launchers). If you want more nukes, you must construct more launchers, and cannot simply throw more build power at a single launcher the way you can with units.

A player who controls 100 silos can build 100 nukes in parallel. If they have 100 nukes completed and on standby, they can launch 100 nukes at once. But no matter how much economy they have, those silos will all have to wait to construct more nukes.

Under this design, it makes sense to use many nuke launchers which may be in various states of launch readiness. And the decision to use each nuke carries some weight because your nuclear arsenal takes time to replenish, regardless of how strong your economy is. Larger economies can obviously afford more launchers, more production in parallel, and more nukes stockpiled. But regardless of your economy you still cannot throw an arbitrarily large amount of buildpower behind a single launcher to hammer out nukes as quickly as possible.

lol whatever, it's psycology, have you ever tried the tests that make you think of a certain color and thing for questioner to "guess"?

there's an obvious use of red in commercials because it sells. Did you know Tarama was never pink? You can buy it without the food coloring in it's natural shade of grey but sales for the natural blend are abysmally low.

Conspiracy theorist over and out.

basicly you want nukes/missiles to be like artilerycannons in supcom (iirc those werent assistable but boostable with adjansency that we don´t have here) just with far more expensive ammunition and loadingtimes

A nuke would be an asset that would take a long time to construct, and which you might want to save for an opportune moment to use after it is completed.

Artillery has a much shorter fire time, with much less cost to fire. Consequently, you want as much of your artillery as possible to be always firing.

The similarity between the two ends with the fact that their attack process can't be assisted using build power, even though it costs resources.

Actually, I queue long lists but don't apm that well. I am okay at this game, dont win very often against players but I was always more of an AI player.

Anyway, all those sounded like common knowledge, even for me whom never heavily played TA or SC, I have played it more since PA Kickstarter than since it has been around. I mostly played RA2 of any RTS, with hours in that game playing sim-base.

Nonetheless, I thought this game is awesome, today I played a 1v1v1v1 against AI on 2 starting planets with 2 moons each. Its such a challenge competing for planetary spreading, yet so much fun. I am glad either the AI had trouble fighting each other on the other planet, or just ignored making halleys (can they make "16" halleys?) so I could an win.

I hope anyone and everyone enjoys it the same. This game may take years to properly add every single useful feature we can think of. Right now, it's still wonderfully fun.

Rock on fellow comp-stomper.

nuke is already super fast... and anti nuke should be faster than that

Doesn't red make you hungry?
Isn't that why almost all fast-food companies use a lot of red?

yes. it makes you salivate and imagine that the given meal is of a meaty, tasteful sort.


Girls wearing red have more chances to be hit on.

More red cars are sold a year than green or blue.

That's because red is also associated with lust/desire/passion. Unless communism is sexy.