Is there anyone else think the nuke is too week?

The nuke is fine imho... It's some kind of bet: If you win (and it explodes), you may win the game as said before; If you lose (and it misses/don't kill enough stuff/gets shot down), oh well...

It's part of the strategy, keep one nuke "just in case" and use it as support, attack or defense to shift the game to your side.

You should never keep a nuke in reserve, you should launch it. That's a 36K investment, if you don't use it all you've done is put yourself at a 36K disadvantage.

Now, I'm coming at this from a 1v1 perspective, it's different in a FFA of course.

Thing is, in the old days nukes were very important, even essential as breathing weapons. Even if they didn't make back their cost in damage they'd allow your units to deal far more.

Nowadays, units are basically stronger, with vanguards, T2 missile bots, grenadiers there aren't many defensive lines that you can't break with a lower unit cost than that of a nuke. This means one whole facet of the weapon, that of a breaching missile, is gone.

Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but I haven't used a nuke once this patch. Something should change.

Hrm, nice pickup. Looks like they made a new ammo json file for nukes

PAdb IS wrong however : ingame Unit Database is never wrong since it uses the game files to generate it's sheets. it's always up to date. I heartily recommend it.

you came in here and did what I would have done in my most golden of hours.

well done sir, well done.

I think nukes are currently pretty balanced. They actually fit into the game now as a weapon people only resort to once other, cheaper options have been exhausted. When I first bought this game in beta it was just a case of turtle then build nukes cause nukes were cheap and towers were good.

I think nukes are a bit too expensive right now, before too cheap, now too expensive, same goes for anti-nukes.

It is normally way cheaper and more efficient to just build engines on a moon and smash it. Halleys need to me way more expensive, everything changed except the price for them.

Or you know, we could find a way to balance these elements without just bloody cost.

Frankly the whole nuke mechanic needs to be utter annihilated and rebuilt, because it is just terrible and so god damn boring.

i´ll ask you again ... HOW would you want to make it?
just saying i don´t like it doesn´t solve ANYTHING ...

Well firstly, Id make the nuke a unit, a unit that has counters and then integrate it into the game with other unit based counters, just like everything else.

This is not however a popular idea, but I have suggested this before.

Nukes have so many ammo files I actually have no idea whatsoever which ones are used and which ones aren't. -_-

I know the feel... Anyway, we should really just make multiple nuke types, also rework anti-nukes a lot.

My own opinion on nukes is that they are balanced, but unenjoyable.

I would like to see nukes cheaper, reload faster, and reload using energy only(non-assistable) BUT have a complete overhaul of the anti-nuke system. I think any anti-orbital weapon should be capable of targeting a nuke and that an umbrella should be capable of shooting down a single nuke consistently. Anti-nukes should reload faster, have a much larger firing range, and an explosive radius (allowing them to stop multiple nukes at per shot) and should only fire a missile once the missile enters the atmosphere, giving the anti-orbital weapons the first chance to hit it.

The idea being you can cheaply use a nuke when ever you want, but you can't use them where you lack orbital dominance. It would also mean it would be a lot harder to spam up a few missiles for a quick snipe and skip fighting the enemy.

It would allow our existing units (avengers) to provide mobile anti-nuke coverage (if the missile is faster than the tracking speed of the avenger it makes them less than 100% effective) and would put the focus back into armies to destroy enemy anti-nuke defenses.

i don´t see how you can propperly implement it like that without it becomming a nightmare to balance
also honestly i realy don´t think it´s going to be that more intresting as you may think it would be
i rather would ask to try something with orbital mercytype missiles first before going into unitnukes
the only other way i could see a nukeunit work in a fun way is a nukebot and that would have .... pretty much every counter possible against it ...

missile ammunition has been discussed before ... and i still don´t see any reason to use anything else that isn´t high AOE high damage or low AOE sniping missiles ... high AOE EMP missiles that cannot be targeted by antinukes has been suggested as well which imho is just lame and cheap than intressting ...
i don´t see uber changing much with the nuke/antinukemechanics as while being binary and admitadly rather bland/blunt(?) it simply works ...
the other problem of course is the risk of turning the game into a missileslugfest ... which no one wants either

I'm actually speaking about our Statera mod.

Anyway, what I envision is there's the standard Nuke, Medium AOE Medium damage (Compared to the other nukes) then there'd be the sniping missile, very small AOE compared to others, but very high damage, and lastly the Area missile with lower than average damage but with a very large explosion. (And possibly others, but I'm not sure what those'd be exactly atm. Just brainstorming!

Also about the nuke/anti-nuke, I'd rather nukes have a set health and anti-nukes do steady dps against it, and can miss as it'd be a machine gun or something. This would make it slightly more interesting imo (There could still be the original anti-nuke though it's less cost efficient than the normal one, but it's a guaranteed nuke take down.

nukes getting health is my biggest concern, because again ... balance and nightmare and stuff ...
this is were i think you could make nukes easily over or underpowered because of possible inconsistent damage output against them ... also players might never be sure if they have enough defenses to take them down and that again might lead to other problems including making nukes entirely redundant and players turtling too much...

i don´t realy know ... this to me feels like messing too much with nukes, adding lots of complexity for little gain and making things less transparent to the player ...

Sure, if this was Competitive Market Annihilation. But it isn't.

Your damage output might not equal the cost of the nuke, but who the hell cares when you've blown away the impenetrable wall or massive army that stopped your 500 tanks from steamrolling the enemy base? Or if you've completely crippled their economy so that they can barely build scouts while you can still pump out 30 tanks per second?

If there's a wall you'd build pelters or catapults which are far more effective for cost.

500 tanks cost more than the nuke, the nuke wouldn't stop them, and that army is indicative of you having lost the game some time ago. You'd have been better putting that money into your own tanks and shutting down their economy instead of allowing them to build this apparently massive lead.

Forget the number, it's just a random example.

But you can't ignore the number, because if you lower the number then do you really need the nuke, why not build your own tank army? If you raise the number, then how are you going to be that far behind yet buy yourself enough time to build one?