T2 Nuke Jammer Bot idea

The reason for the jammer bot not shooting down the nuke is so that the static anti-nuke launcher is not invalidated by the jammer bot but the army formations that you send the jammer bot with are still protected from nukes

To answer your question about the reload the jammer bot would only have 1 ammo charge and a long reload time before it could stop another nuke

As for the optional additions to the unit the original concept has hp like the vanguard but no aa or land attack the bots only job is to protect your army from nukes nothing more, so that the unit fits in with the specialisation theme that the developers wanted for T2

making anti nukes t 1 ??????????? what ????????? ... ... what for? why would you want to bring a counter into an ealy tier to a weapon that is in a later tier ... that makes no sense ...
hey you don´t like nukes? build antinukes like basicly from the START! ... r u cereal ???

because you may have trouble to build the static version on a planet you want to invade that happened to be well defended for various situational reasons?

of course it is ... but how would that impact the gameplay? who´s to say that aa f.e. being able to hit nukes may not make them redundant to build ... because hey now half the units can shoot down nukes as well! ... health? why should nukes requiere health? so basicly you take away relyability on weither a nuke can be shoot down or not before its impact?

nukes are a powerfull weapon why should they be any less powerfull? why should they be any less of a threat ??
nukes are used for breaking heavy defenses ... so do you want turtles to be more doninant again because you give them even more choice to defend themselves?

options for dealing with nukes? your whole antiground weapons against the nukelauncher!

sry for double

i disagree, i wouldn´t ever want to have something that gives me an insecurance weither i defended succesfully against a nuke ... it is too impactfull of a weapon to bring such an aspect into it .... doesn´t sound like fun at all but an annoyance ....

I was mainly saying that because if I didn't the guy would just keep moaning about it invalidating the anti-nuke..

How about this for a soft counter: You can set your units to move in a formation that has large spacing so that nuking that formation wouldn't be effective since you would just kill 5% of the overall force. Boom no need for a "hard to balance/make nukes useless" unit.

What if they send multiple nukes? No defense?

1. I suppose a nuke landing in a jamming zone will get destroyed
2. those bots can be placed in your base too to replace antinuke, shorter range is compensated by moveability fo bots themself
3. even at sleightly higher cost, the "free" reload is nice, even if it's 10 minutes.
4. my proposal was just for extra flavour, because if it costs 50 times more than other t2 units, why don't add a small gun for nice effects

Sorry I try to push the extremes, but that's what players do. Every exploit should be considered. I'm really in favor of antinuke units though.

Invasion is a difficult thing to figure out because EVERY kind of weapon can be trained against the attacking force. It's not a problem unique to nukes.

There are an incredible amount of layers involved with the concept of attacking a fortified world, and I could go in more detail if really convinced. But this time I'll keep it on topic. If you don't want an enemy dropping his nuke on your army, the most direct solution is as simple as deploying your army in a location he doesn't want to nuke. Such as in the middle of his base. If he wipes his own base off the map in order to defeat your army, he's begging to lose. There are other ways to enable nuke counters such as through air or space superiority, but that's the simplest answer I have.

Did I say that? Let's play pretend stupid and say that I did. Would you rather win with nukes, or with armies? Nukes are cool and they'll definitely find a use, but I want a game that can be won with armies almost regardless of the game state. It's really that simple.

Are there ways to allow armies effective and dangerous ways to attack an enemy stronghold? Absolutely. They've been discussed dozens of times on these forums and I'm pretty sure you were there for most of it. I have personally explained quite a few, how they would be implemented and why they would allow bots to win games instead of nukes. If they find a way into the game, great. If they don't get implemented, it's no hair off my head. I did what I could.

Nukes are expensive. If they fail to deal substantial damage, that counts as a victory against the nuke.

Erm... If you deny anti-nukes to mobile forces than that gives the turtler the upper hand against your units because it can nuke them as much as it pleases. If you want to win the game with armies you may need a way to defend against something that wipes out a sizable force in one shot.

If you spend 2 - 4 nukes to destroy a standard attacking force then you are wasting resources and I am okay with that.

It doesn't have to be standard, it could be a fairly large force! Do you not realize how large the radius of the nuke's blast is? A nuke taking out 5% of your force? Hardly!

Then you are underestimating my intended spread. Right now the units have what, 2 meters from each other when they are in formation? Imagine if that was 100 meters. Or even a kilometer. Not useful when attacking but very useful when travelling.

But your units being spread out so far makes them insanely vulnerable to just about everything else. (I suppose you could call this "strategic depth" but it just feels unfair at that point because, no matter what... you lose.)

Like I said, when travelling. Obviously when they meet enemy forces you'd want them to get closer to each other. If they are nuked at that point then the enemy will likely be caught in the explosion as well.

If an opponent's army is super spread out, just roll up with a tighter death ball and kill it. This isn't a game of tower nuke defense. Loose formations get killed by tight formations. It's been true for thousands of years.

There are also other forces at work. If nukes did terrain damage, that would alter the dynamic quite a bit. For example every time your opponent nukes an army off his planet, he is also losing a piece of that planet at the same time. That is obviously a very extreme example because nukes are currently stupid expensive. It'd take forever to do considerable damage to a planet because nukes care about how much they can kill, rather than how well they can transform worlds.

If you would rather discuss the invasion process that is better suited for another thread, as it goes far beyond nukes. It is also important to know who is invading, where they are invading from, how big the army is, how it is going to reach the surface, and where it can reach the surface. Each topic creates its own problems and demands its own solutions.

Well Nukes won't do terrain damage as far as I know, I made the suggestion but the devs told me that if that were the case than everything the nuke hit HAD to be a one hit kill, and so- it won't be like that. But i'm not actually talking about invading a seperate planet, I'm talking about just attacking an enemy's base in general. Your units have no protection from a nuclear strike, none. So for a game about having as many units as possible it'd really suck to have your armies all drop like flies to tons of nukes because it's impossible to defend against them. The unit can be very expensive and need to build an anti-nuke, I'm fine with that. T3 expenses? Fine, makes sense! But I still want to be able to protect my armies; not only against nukes but from EMPs and many other various types of ICBMs

obviously not, that however doesn´t mean they couldn´t be eventualy part of the problem and make the situation more complicated ... as said varius situational reasons

it isn´t a matter of what you WANT to win with but what you DO win with in the end and that can be various things even aa or anti orbital ... what you want to win with may aswell be the reason you lost ...
and i have seen various matches being finished in different ways be it nukes, be it armies or a specific unittype or the right mix of all toghether at the right time ... as powerfull as nukes are they are clearly not the only piece to solve the puzzle ...

there are always ways to change things but can you realy tell of how what does affect the gameplay as a whole?
the change you had in mind may make the units you favor more effective but also may change overall gameplay to a point you didnt actualy wanted it to be

i like to push the implementation of orbital multiunitlandingtransports and aircraftcarriers for fluidity reasons f.e. but also am worried for it to not shift overall gameplay too much torwards orbital ... i don´t realy know
i still want surfacebattles to matter the most so yes i care about armies and not just nukes ..

however time will tell as we are still at the beginning of ballancing

Multiple nukes is a defence. That is costing the enemy 35k to kill 5% a force, 20 times. If you expect a player not to win with 350k worth of missiles, your asking for a miracle not a game mechanic.

Wrong. Cannae, Battle of. Tight roman formation loses to smaller looser formation; This has also been true for thousands of years, (Warranted in game terms your statement is probably always true except where flanking is simulated which isn't the case here, but what this has to do with mobile anti-nukes or invasions is beyond me), and is as similarly contrary to the topic as the quoted post, reading your posts it is quite difficult to tell whether or not you are for/against/or on the fence. Arguments for/against mobile anti-nukes please, here goes -- I think providing they function differently to the static defense this sort of unit would be viable and welcome addition to the game. I like the idea of jamming but not the idea of it being a free get out of jail stop the nuke exploding unit, it should redirect the missile a certain distance and it should still explode that way we won't be filling up our base with a hundred of this particular unit but they will be a valuable asset to groups of units.

Where are you getting these numbers from? 5%? The nukes radius really isn't that small. If you're talking about when you spread out your forces well- spreading out your forces to try to counter a nuke is still pretty much a guaranteed loss, because now that your units are so spread they're pretty vulnerable to just about any other attack now.