Planet Smashing, a fun feature?

Discussion in 'Backers Lounge (Read-only)' started by Arachnis, November 28, 2013.

  1. Quitch

    Quitch Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,885
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    I don't want the game to become an endless series of anti-THING buildings. Oh he has nukes, let me build anti-nukes. Oh she has artillery let me build shields. Oh they have orbital let me build umbrellas. Someone is building something that endangers you? WELL GO BLOW IT UP!

    I don't want an asteroid counter, I want them to encourage scouting and create points of conflict.
    Last edited: November 28, 2013
    hearmyvoice, Stormie, corteks and 2 others like this.
  2. ghost1107

    ghost1107 Active Member

    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    181
    I would like to see real asteroids, not small moons. Also I would like more asteroid sizes, beginning with very small one halley up to about 25 halleys. Bigger size asteroid more damage to the planet.

    Asteroid countering:
    Sure fair enough but it should not be easy and with out loss. Example: An asteroid with 1 halley should cost 2 nukes and an asteroid with 5 halleys should cost 10 nukes. The remains should still do atleast the damage of a nuke but mex spots should survive.

    EDIT: Doubled nukes numbers.
  3. Arachnis

    Arachnis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    442
    I like the idea of nukes being able to mitigate the damage of an incoming planet-smash. It wouldn't negate the purpose of planet smashing and the fight over asteroids, because you could never avoid damage completely. You'd still have to invade the asteroid to do that.

    You could make it dynamic so that the minimum amount of nukes necessary to have any effect is dependant on the size of the asteroid.

    Edit: Seems like the post before me already mentioned this.
    brianpurkiss likes this.
  4. nuendo

    nuendo New Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I second this.
  5. thetrophysystem

    thetrophysystem Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,050
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    This really isn't possible for anyone to weigh right now.

    Planet smashing in its current state is easy to defend but lengthy to set up.

    Planet smashing with more varied forms of interplanetary travel, will be easier to do and easier to defend against. You can shoot several t2 fabbers at a moon and start early. The enemy can shoot an entire invasion force and at least a hefty group of t2 fabbers and start building engines themselves. Their engines cancel out the enemy engines, so the enemy must build more, and then if theirs are destroyed then one side has engines and the other doesn't = instant access to apocolyptic weapon.

    If the game goes on this long without a massive army push over top a base or a snipe occurring, then this sort of game ender is necessary. Alternatively, don't generate moveable planets and you can "remove" the optional feature.

    As it is, it seems like a fairly reasonable feature.
    corteks and drz1 like this.
  6. GreenBag

    GreenBag Active Member

    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    49
    Absolutely correct when the commanders could be hidden underwater I played a game against someone who exploited it, I had to send numerous pretend threats to destroy their base and keep them confined whilst I expanded and built up my moon base to build it into the end of the game that was required
    corteks and drz1 like this.

Share This Page