Nukes, anti-nukes, and ways to change them for the better.

So, as we all know, the state of nukes in the game is... less than perfect, to say the least.

Everyone has their own spin on how they can be balanced, some say the anti-nuke needs an entire overhaul, others say the nuke needs an overhaul, some say the nuke needs to be unassistable.

So, I'd like to give my take on the situation, and offer my two cents on how to, as the title says, change them for the better.

SUGGESTION #1: Commanders and nuke-resistance
So most people like to say that the only problems with nukes is that they are very difficult to counter because of the cost and scarce availability of anti-nukes, and that they are way too easy to mass-produce. And while those problems certainly are big and difficult to avoid, there's a third less spoken about problem that I think is just as important to the development of balance in nuclear weapons, and that is it's simply too easy for them to kill a commander.
While I do understand that nuclear weapons are supposed to be beyond powerful, I don't think that they should be able to one-shot a mildly damaged commander, and with the advent of the armour system that came not too long ago I was disappointed to see that the commander didn't gain a bit of resistance to nukes.

As it stands nukes deal 11,000 damage, and commanders have 12,500 HP, which means that if a commander was dealt 1500 damage, a nuke would finish it off.
To put it into perspective, this essentially means that 4 Gil-E shots to a commander is enough to end the game.
That is unacceptable.
And thankfully, it is easy enough to fix, by either increasing the HP of the commander, or giving the commander say, 5000 damage resistance to nukes.
Oh, and decreasing the strength of nukes, but I actually like that they can destroy all structures.

SUGGESTION #2: Anti-nuke and nuke availability
This one's been discussed a quintillion times, so I'll keep it short.
Anti-nukes should be much cheaper, and nukes NEED to be unassistale, churning them out non-stop is far too easy as it currently sits.

SUGGESTION #3: Multiple anti-nukes and infinite storageSo, the storage of anti-nukes has also been discussed quite a bit here, and as the top suggests, I believe they should be able to hold an infinite amount (or at least, much larger amount) of missiles.
However, multiple types of anti-nukes is something I see less, and I'm kind of curious as to why.
It's been confirmed that there will be multiple types of nukes, but why do anti-nukes need to stay the same? Especially since MIRV nukes will render anti-nukes utterly useless.
Some ideas I thought up for different anti-nukes are:
1. EMP Anti-Nuke, an anti-nuke useful for multiple missile strikes, when it destroys the first, it leaves a lingering electromagnetic field that takes down any nukes that enter it. After 30 seconds or so it goes away.
2. Recovery anti-nuke, an anti-nuke that, when shooting down the nuke, will convert it into metal and add it into your metal stockpile.
These are only a few examples, and I'm sure Uber can think of more (and better) ones.

Now, before I go into the next suggestion I'm going to stop you from replying "that's way too micro intensive for a defensive structure".
I propose that radars be able to detect nukes, instead of showing them as blips.
That way, the anti-nuke can detect how many nukes are coming in, and use the appropriate countermeasure based on its findings.
Also, the anti-nuke, after construction would be default to infinite build of each type of anti-nuke, changeable to the player's preference.

FINAL SUGGESTION: Alternative countermeasures and one bout of silliness
While things like mobile and orbital anti-nukes have been suggested before, there are 2 other ideas that I've been thinking about that I want to throw out there.
Also another slightly sillier idea that I'd like to see happen, despite the obvious balance issues.

#1: Recommissioning the Peregrine
A lot of people want to rid the game of the peregrine, but I prefer to think in a different way than that, and instead re-work it to be an aerial anti-nuke with lowered HP and DPS.
It can attack nukes in transit, but cannot take them out in 1 hit, but instead 30 or so, where it can only hit it twice or so/second this would have to change the HP value of the nuke and damage value of the anti-nuke, but I think it would be an interesting dynamic.

#2: Redirecting counterI'm actually not entirely sure as to how this would be implemented, maybe as another anti-nuke missile, but I'm not sure.
At any rate, it'd be as it states, it'll redirect the nuke to its origin point.

Silliness: Nuke droppers
Yep, planes that drop nuclear bombs.
I know the T2 air is already...
Slightly less than balanced.
But I'd still like to see, even as a client-side mod, a plane that can drop nukes, because it'd just spell jolly good times.

Anyway, so that's my idea pool. What do you think?

Nuke resistant commanders is a terrible idea. It's arbitrary.

I think we need to wait for Uber to do a few things.

1. Rebalance nukes when they add more nukes
2. Rebalance the economy
3. Add cloaking commanders

It's very likely that those three changes will fix nukes.

or just get rid of nukes until we can implement them later when more stuff is added (such as T3 but for some annyoing reason uber isnt calling it that) and it means that players are more developed and can start working with nukes and anti nukes better

Except nukes are still good in their current implementation. Not ideal, but still good.

They're only a problem if you don't play the game right. Mainly, if you don't scout. If you don't know your opponent is building a nuke, you deserve to get nuked.

"Tech 3" units are not being added – that's a good thing.

Anti-nukes already take reduced damage from nukes, don't they?

If you reduced the damage of nukes, it's worth noting that adv. energy plants have 4500 health and adv. mexes have 5000 health. You could reduce the damage of nukes to say, 6000, and they'd still be sufficient to kill everything but advanced factories, and Commanders could survive two nukes.

As an aside, why do T2 buildings need to have so much health? Makes it so difficult to harass...

How is it arbitrary? Wouldn't it make sense that the commanders would be hardened to explosions, even nuclear ones?

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that destroying the commander was supposed to be the most difficult part of this game, it's your method of victory after all.
Why, then is killing a commander equal in difficulty to melting ice near a fire?
I know it's a WiP, but the vulnerability to nukes is just silly.
A resistance or increase in commander HP would at least work as a temporary fix, until nukes are better balanced, no?

The Commander is already hardened to nuclear explosions. It takes two nukes to die. Complete immunity to nukes is completely arbitrary.

The commander isn't supposed to be the most difficult part of the game. The commander is supposed to be a liability – the devs have said that time and time again.

It's a terrible "fix" – even temporarily. It's not even a fix. It's just an arbitrary change that isn't consistent with anything else in the game.

Nukes are fairly balanced right now anyways. As I said. If you're surprise nuked – then it's your fault because you didn't scout and react accordingly.

People keep telling themselves the reason they lose to nukes is because nukes are way inbalanced. They're not. This mindset is simply an excuse for not properly understanding how to play the game.

its all good and fine in the "pro" circles to say nukes are balanced. Something being balanced doesn't mean some people at some level of play know how to work around it. balance means it is a reasonable, and FUN, strategy for ALL players at ALL levels of play.

And right now, they are not. at all.

Just make anti-nukes much cheaper. Let the turtles turtle. Stop trying to force one play style, that is starcraft bullshit that doesn't have any business here.

The turtles can turtle. They still need to be breakable.

That's...
Actually a good point...
I got nothing

Due to the scale of the game – turtling doesn't work.

Turtling opponents simply means an easy win. It's not really forcing a certain play style. The turtling strategy simply does not work in Planetary Annihilation.

The entire game is built to be large scale massive combat. Turtling has no part in that.

Disagree on the scouting part and still good.

Even if scouted you very well may have no way to stop them from nuking you. Also constant scouting requires your attention, with your attention distracted things may not be happening that you need to have happen. With starts now on other planets it's very easy to be in a game with half dozen moons and players on each. That sets up a situation that is Very hard to constantly scout and getting a nuke to the face out of the blue is very likely to happen.

As to the still good. Clearly they are not, or we wouldn't have 95% of games being ended by nuke spam. That tells you they are to good. Simply knowing your opponent is building a nuke doesn't mean you can stop them or counter them. In the current state of the game most bases are 1 nuke from game breaking. It is near impossible to come back from getting the majority of your base nuked.

If we get proper anti-nuke and economy re balances then perhaps these current nukes are ok. Variety of nukes may help this as well, I could easily see the current nuke being a more expensive nuke thus making it harder to use.


T3 tech I am glad uber isn't going down that road. We have enough problems between T1 and T2 interactions and Orbital.


Edit:

I find it interesting and funny that people say Turtling doesn't work in PA. Yet I see many matches were it's basically the only thing you can do to survive. Turtle under your AA and Anti-Nuke.

How many times have we heard the best way to counter Air craft is to use your Flak guns. That's Turtling if you have to use Flak AAs to counter Aircraft. Don't want to get nuked? Turtle under your Anti-Nuke (for awhile).

Just seems funny.... This can't isn't for turtles... yet It one of the only ways to counter the current meta IS to turtle. *Shrug*

If you're unable to take your view away from your base for a second to scout your enemies, then your macro needs a LOT of work.
EDIT: Oh hey, I'm past 500 posts. Cool.

*shrug* I am always finding something to be working on even with macroing stuff. Maybe it's others that need to work on theirs. You can't be scouting constantly for dangers like everyone seems to keep implying.

PS - By what people say in these forums I would be considered a "bad player" anyways *shrug*.

Nope.

You're scouting wrong then. If you send a group of fighters over the enemy base, it's rather easy. You don't have to watch them fly over to see what they found. There's also Advanced Radar Satellites. You really need to improve your game if you think scouting is too attention grabbing.

Scouting is one of the MOST IMPORTANT actions done in PA. If you think other things require more of your attention, you're playing wrong.

And playing wrong. If players know what they're doing, matches don't end in nuke spam. Just look at the PACE tournament matches. Games are far from 95% ending by nukes.

Check your play style before you critique a mechanic.

You have to be constantly scouting. It's one of the most important actions you could be doing.

I guess I'm not getting my point across very well when I'm talking about attention grabbing And I am misunderstanding how you all scout. "Fly bys" are a lot different then "scouting" to me ( I realize everyone here uses the terms differently now ). I agree Fly bys are SUPER important so you know whats going on.

Sorry for my confusion.

I still point back to my early post... multi planets = VERY hard to "scout". Very easy to get a nuke out of the blue.

That said I still "personally" don't see many matches not ending in nuke spam. If the high end tournaments are not ending that way I am ecstatic. That's the way it should be.

If you can nuke someone easily on multiplanet starts, then, at least in my opinion, it isn't a good system.

Multiplanet starts should not allow spawning on moons, again, in my opinion.

Agree, it's not a ideal setup for starting planets but it happens and will happen. So simply stating " if you didn't scout you are playing wrong " doesn't fit every game setup. This will get even worse once we have nukes that no longer are limited to home planets and moon range.