Planet to sun as a form of destruction

As Kind of a last ditch effort to wipe your opponent(s) out I think it would be pretty cool to be able to send the planet into the star. Kind of a MAD solution. Thoughts?

I'd rather make the planet implode.

It's funny the sheer number of times this has been suggested.

Please do a search before posting. This gets posted every few weeks.

Some people like it, some are indifferent, some are opposed.

Me, I don't every see a situation where this would be actually ever used. Why smash it into the sun when you can smash another planet?

Welcome to the forums, and PA.

As many have said I suggest you do a search on the topic, this particular one is very debated on, so I apologize if you don't exactly get the best resception.

In fact here's the old one just to help:

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/suicide-a-planet-into-the-sun.55611/

Sorry, my bad.

Don't worry about it! Everyone has to do it once after all.

Welcome to the forums!
Nope. This never gets old.

everyone but me

Situation:

Dual planet system. Both players have bases on both planets, and the coms are on the opposite ones. Anti nukes and land armies make nuking non-viable. Since both players have bases on both planets, if one can get up halleys on the planet that the others' com is on, then what? If this isn't an option its pointless, but if it is then you've got a way to kill your opponent... if you can defend the halleys! Very interesting gameplay created.

+1.

Well, technically, planets that smash into other planets are sent into the sun for a day off, so we already kinda sorta have it.

And what exactly is the problem with having a variety of options?
Why have anything really when the game could play just fine with only one unit?
Since this one unit can destroy other units why have more than one option?

Your logic is flawed in this case.
My personal opinion is that without variety or options a game ceases to be fun and interesting.
I also don't see how giving the player more choices to pick form could harm the game in any way.

(There was also a quote by a dev relating to comments similar to your one, but I can't remember where to find it)

That's the quote!
I would have just copy pasted it before, but had no idea where to find it again.

That's a different thing thought.

The argument here is that the number of times when smashing something into the sun is actually Viable is basically non-existent when you consider it against eh actual circumstances you are weighing them against. Uber has commented that moving "planets" around isn't likely to happen, so suddenly we can only move small Moons/Asteroids and they are such that you can't "Hide" or "Surprise" an enemy and try to build halleys on his Moon/Asteroid and smash it into the sun.

I have not seen a realistic* example of when this would be viable in PA yet despite all the threads on the subject.

*In terms of the gameplay of course, not actual realism.

Mike

How is my example something that isn't very well possible and within the realm of realistically likely?

You can't move Planets.

Mike

Define planet.

The definition I was using is: "A celestial body that you can build buildings on".

I was assuming that both planets were of low enough mass to allow for halleying if that's what Uber wants. I assume, however, that they intend to roll with the current system, where the number of halleys are set by the system creator.

Not flawed, you're just missing my point.

Honestly then I'd see that as a flaw with the game itself. Having options for generating planets and what not is fine, but at some point if you leave everything open-ended it results in needless complications that are very, very difficult to design around.

I don't think it's a good foundation to base design stuff on.

Imagine your scenario with a pair of tiny asteroids, how viable is it then?

Mike