I haven't actually built one yet, lol. But I'm assuming you're just referring to the limited range of the anti-nuke launcher. I think the idea is that you build your first one to protect your commander. More than that and you're just protecting critical areas (clustered power plants for instance). Can't say how the balance is because I've never built one, but I assume it is a similar cost to build as a nuke launcher. Thus forcing you to choose defence or offence, unless you can afford to build both at the same time.
Nuke launchers cost 5410 metal and 45 metal/second to build the nuke itself while the defense costs 4500 metal and uses 36 metal per second. Nuke build time is longer of course. Additionaly nuke explosion radius is 150 and defense value of the anti-nuke is 200, so you can nuke it very closely. Which basically means that you're better of building nukes and sniping enemy nuke-launchers. Anti-nukes only defend a very narrow area and don't help you kill stuff while a nuke can still hit everywhere else. Personally I'd reduce anti-nuke cost drastically and increase its range by a lot too while lowering its health. It forces the attacker to destroy enemy anti-nukes before nuking which is more fun then just to build nuke, win. So you scout the enemy area, send bombers and strike forces against their anti-nukes and as soon as they're dead you nuke. Rewarding win through outplaying the enemy instead of rushing a nuke and hitting them before they have their own.
So basically, the anti nuke can only defend a rough area of about 50, because the blast radius can overlap with the defense radius.
Only cheaper in terms of construction cost for the actual building, the cost ratio of 2:1 between nukes and antinukes is IMHO fine. Build time for anti nukes requires an increase though, so that nukes and antinukes build at the same speed or at least very close to each other. If you have no antinuke building when your enemy finishes constructing his own: Your problem. You should have scouted. Also remember that the antinuke building can be assisted (and it makes a difference), while the nuke building can not be assisted.
You can assist both of them. It's just buggy right now. You have to move the engineers to within range of the building for the assist command to work.
You guys realize the area between two antinukes overlap in both directions, giving a wider space? By which i mean, you get an area of 50 for one, but it isn't 100 for 2, it is 250. The edges that touch are free in every direction, with 25 applying to the outside. 3 stacks father. Basically, you can edge nuke, but you can also edge defense. Think of anti placement like wall placement, not shield placement. Perimeter stuff, don't bubble coverage it. Also, anyone notice it is a round planet, yet you cannot guide the path of the nuke, so if you build an anti up front then they can't fire one past it? I think it is maybe ok maybe not. Maybe needs patrol be useable on nukes. But function like waypoint.
So basically you want to remove all choice about building anti-nukes? As there is no way to always catch the enemy starting to build nukes one would be forced to always build anti-nukes without choice. And this would be a good game design, how? And even then, an anti-nuke can be destroyed by two t2 bombers for only 2500 metal. A nuke afterwards can destroy a whole base. Which means that to be sure that you're not nuked, you need plenty more then just one anti-nuke. Making the counter even more expensive. Also, both nuke and anti-nuke can be assisted. Additionaly, you never want the counter to such a powerful weapon to be even close to the cost of the offensive weapon itself as this makes building it a nobrainer, removing choice from both the attacker and the defender.
I agree that the anti nuke should be easier to get, than the nuke. Nukes should only really be good if your enemy fails to protect himself with anti nukes or you take the anti nukes out. Nukes are wicked cool, but I personally want the game to still be about big battles not just shooting nukes at each other back and forth from the other side of the planet.
...or if you're able to empty the anti-nuke arsenal with a concentrated attack. I don't know how fast an aNuke can launch but if you fire four nukes at any given point in the defense radius at least one will come through and hit the target.
They should be a little cheaper and have a slightly larger radius. Don't want to make them too powerful or nukes will be useless. I also think there should be a portable anti-nuke unit. This'll make base coverage easier and protecting armies from nukes easier. Sometimes late game attacking your opponent with ground forces is near impossible because your army gets nuked whenever it gets near the opponent. With anti nukes, it's key to scout out your opponent, and put a net of anti nukes between your base and your opponent so the nukes get sniped when they fly past the anti-nuke launchers.
Also, hopefully soon anti-nukes will have a auto-build option so I can build a net of them from a more strategic view and then be safe knowing that they will get to work immediately.
I posted this in another Anti Nuke range Thread, so I'll just post it here. I think that is a little counter intuitive of an anti nuke scheme to where you build the anti nuke launcher towards the opponent that has the nuke. Nukes can be built anywhere and strike at any direction, and the point that Firedrakex is trying to make is that the current range doesn't seem to effectively protect the buildings that surround the anti nuke launcher. So even if the nuke launcher guy hits outside the range of his anti nuke(lets say in front[Front Lines]) he is going to do some credible damage to the buildings that are inside this range. Also, exposing your anti nuke launcher to the front of a battle field is opening up for it to be taken down more conventionally. I've done some testing to figure out how much damage a nuke does to buildings that are in the protected circle of the anti nuke launcher. It seems that there is quite a bit of damage that is close to the anti nuke launcher itself. Adding a rough 50% increase to range shows that it does seem to protect a modest amount more of structures from a nuke strike, and I deem favorable but its just a matter of opinion.
Nice testing, good to see it in images. You should try attacking ground just inside the range of the antinuke, the antinuke projectile isn't quite fast enough to intercept the nuke before it hits. Ghostflux claims you can destroy the antinuke but it sounds like BS to me.
How about making it so that the circled range around the anti-nuke shows only what is truly protected, instead of what the range of targeting nukes is? This would obviously have to take into account overlapping coverage from other anti-nukes as well. However it wouldn't give the player the false sense of security that they get from the range circle that is used now for the anti-nuke launcher. In any case, I also think that the Anti-nukes need either increased range, or decreased cost (or both) to be a truly effective defensive option against nukes. It should probably be something like 1/3 the cost of the nukes, since it effectively takes 3 anti-nuke launchers to protect each vital area against 1 single potential nuke strike. It's currently a hopeless battle to win (both economically and strategically), especially when you have multiple important areas to protect. Limiting the range of the nuke would be another option.
i wouldn't mind the current range if they were cheaper/faster to produce, but as it is, currently most games i've played whoever gets nukes first is likely to win outright soon thereafter.
