Tactics and balance are tightly webbed together. Smart play makes efficient use of available units. Adapt your base building to the anti nuke capabilities. You can't expect to shield your whole base and proxies from nukes with just a couple of silos. With it's longer range, if you make the anti nuke any cheaper there's just no point in either nuke or anti anymore.
I have never realized why the two launchers need to be separate. The biggest problem I have with the antinuke is that I could use most of those resources to build a Nuke, which is a much more useful investment. If the two launchers were united into a single launcher structure, you would have to make strategic decisions on where to place the launcher and how would you use the limited storage on the launcher.
An anti nuke has the advantage of protecting you against several teams' potential nuke, when with a launcher you're only a threat to one of them at a time. Also the anti is less than half the price of a nuke. It has a limited range, but you need to adapt to that.
Well you see, I always spread out my bases. That means I can't possibly nuke block all my critical strucures and on the flip side, they can't all be destroyed by a single nuke. That's why I rarely use antinukes and instead always go for the nuke. They are also very useful for taking out enemy nuke silos before they turn out to be a problem. If the enemy is using excessive amounts of nukes then sure, I adapt and rebuild under the cover of antinukes.
Both plays are valid, Works for the turtler and for the offensive player. If you like to spread, then you have to accept that you can't have nuclear umbrella over everything you build. Thus adapt and make sure your opponent doesn't nuke you, take down his silos before they're loaded. If you can't keep up, then as you say, start building anti, they're half the price so you can catch up. I really don't see where all the fuss is about, it seems balanced to me. Anyway shouldn't this discussion be taken elsewhere?
Or just accept that some stuff will be nuked. If you are spread enough you can survive it But yeah I would agree on a slight anti nuke price reducation. Maybe 2 or 3k.
I like the new update to the anti nukes... Mostly because I use nukes as a last resort... Not because I don't like them but because I love to build large armies and walk through people. Personally I wish all of the nuke and anti nuke were harder to get to... I've seen several people over abuse the nukes...... And trust me I'm not saying that it might not be a good strategy... But when I start a game and the I realize that I'm playing against a nuke freak.... . It can ruin a game It just that this game seems to be made for large armies and mass destruction... . Not just another RTS game...
That would be an actual argument then. That is exactly my question, pardon me if it sounded sarcastic. So that would be the reason to probably lower it's build time, which can only be done by cost. I am sure they will balance that a bit anyway, as the antinuke is limited in use so it shouldn't be direct cost of a nuke. I was just saying the patch wasn't about buff or nerf, it was adding a new feature entirely. In my opinion, that would be worthy argument though. What is the fabrication power of the antinuke? Does it use commander-efficient energy and metal-speed? Or is it more efficient or less efficient? I would like to know how nerfed this nerfs it, the exact power-consumption and metal-output of the antinuke's own fabricator. Just a question. I actually build antinukes and have had one successfully work. Has anyone else here actually done that? I think mine was just because an enemy was lax and fired at "juicy radar blips" instead of scouting first. Sure must've been hilarious when he realized that was a waste.
info pulled from pa-db so it might be outdated. Metal cost is the same as a silo + missile used to be
It would be more acceptable if the build time was the same as just the building before, but the cost was for both missile and silo...
Build time remains roughly the same as 1 silo + missile, since metal cost is the same and you'd never have the silo work on its own. Energy cost is higher though.
I think that the area commands are really helpful. But I'd rather build power plants in lines than squares. Maybe an option to switch between the two modes would be nice. Also while we're at it: An option to switch between different modes when you click & drag your mouse to select units would also be really helpful. Like if one mode would only select fabbers, the other one only factories and so on.
Anti-nukes need to be far cheaper because: * 1 nuke silo requires multiple anti-nukes to counter. No base is so tiny that 1 anti-nuke can cover it. * 1 anti-nuke silo is easily destroyed by a T2 bomber run, so you should really have multiple anti-nukes even to cover 1 specific area. So, effectively, anti-nukes cost more than nukes right now. That is, if you have 1 nuke, I will end up spending 4x as much as you in the effort to counter it. Plus the scouting is harder for the guy who needs to counter the nuke. The nuker only needs to scout 1 spot: his intended target. The anti-nuker needs to scout literally the entire planet and all associated moons because the nuke can hit him from any of those places.
If you want to be building anti nukes, build you key structure under its protection. It can cover loads of stuff. If your opponent then wants to waste a nuke shooting a couple of proxy advanced factories its his loss. People shouldn't expect to shield an entire base from nukes at the equivalent cost of 1 nuclear missile. Now THAT is what's stupid.
TL, DR - Game needs more balance. We know. First things first. We're still trying to finish game features. That said, we are going to be doing more balance from here on out, but it is still premature. We are trying to make small fixes when we can, but balance is a holistic process. It's never "one thing is totally out of whack" 99% of the time. Very much that case with nukes / anti-nukes. The current cost of the Anti-nuke is exactly old launcher cost + one anti-nuke. It just was consolidated so you don't make a launcher and then make it useless by forgetting to build a missile. The actual overall costing balance hasn't changed, at all.
Garat, actually for an equivalent 8:00 build time it's now costing probably almost twice the power. But personaly I don't care. Nobody in it's right mind would have let the anti nuke build itself in the silo.
You brought out a good point!!! For just about any case the nuke has the advantage over the anti nuke. But... there is a hidden point in your post... The nuke itself can be an "anti nuke"... You just said that the nuke has advantage the in term of what you need to see...
Please help, I launch the game, create a game vs AI and the planet is not loading, the energy and metal bars load after a while, but besides that, I only see green dots around the planet. There is no sun or anything else... the game seems to work... but I can't see the units or anything. In the previous build, the game was running just fine. windows 7 - 64 bit 8gb ram Core i7 2.3 ghz NVidia GEFroce gt 650 M 2GB
Why didnt you implement a consistent area/line building system for all buildings? In other games like spring it works perfectly fine and there were very good examples of it here on the forums. You should be able to manually increase or decrease the space between buildings and it should be possible to build every building in lines or area squares. Why limit the player here? Why manually hardcode it?
First make sure that you have most recent video drivers from Nvidia website. Also check this topic: http://steamcommunity.com/app/233250/discussions/2/810938810899540110/ Most likely you just need to wait before planet generation turns green and only then start game.
