At this moment nukes and catapult projectiles collide with mountains and higher rocks. It can be a good strategy to build a base between mountains so your base is more protected against nukes and catapult projectiles. It's just not really realistic rockets don't get higher than mountains and stuff like ice rocks. What do you guys think? should this be fixed or do you like to use it as a strategy?
I wonder would it be a cool idea to set the height of the rockets before launching with a certain factor where if the number is high, theres a chance the projectile will be lost in space and if its low, it will hit mountains. It would add a fair amount of excitement since you would never know if it would hit properly or would a too high number get you killed.
I agree If the missile goes high, it could becomes less acurate, take more time between launch and landing, and anti-nuke systems would have more time to shoot it down. Seems like a fair trade off to me, as building your base between mountains would still be beneficial, just not as beneficial as a complete blockage of nukes
It should be like it was in supcom. Nukes should always hit (because of a near orbital trajectory) but tactical missiles should collide based on their trajectory.
Agreed. Though I suppose technically wind resistance could play a part and slow the nuke down meaning it wouldn't follow the predicted trajectory, but that wouldn't make sense if the planet had no atmosphere, plus I'd imagine that given that it's a freaking nuke then it'd be pretty heavy, meaning wind resistance would be basically negligible.
I think this is kindof a moot point, given that nukes are WIDE radius. Simply having the damage not be blocked by terrain makes mountains less of a thing (is it currently this way????). Sure they become somewhat of a buffer, but it still means preventing building anywhere directly around said mountains. Basically mountains+nukes=map control?
I think it would be a lot more interesting if nukes and tactical missiles could hit OTHER nukes and tactical missiles, even yours. Same with other projectiles. If it's all simulated, then why not? Serves you right for trying to hit one tank with fifty tactical missiles.
Neutrino said he would like to see height be something to take into consideration when building a base. And the environment would be destructible, so nukes could blow away a mountain shielding a base from enemy fire. That'd be great!
Nukes won't hit mountains because they are sub-orbital ballistic missiles. Tactical missiles won't hit mountains because they are cruise missiles with terrain following radar and can maneuver around obstacles. MAYBE impose a range penalty for tactical missiles that have to go over hills (gaining altitude takes fuel) but otherwise, terrain is very rarely an obstacle to modern weapons in real life. It should be even less so in the future.
Well I think this is more a confusion issue. I'm assuming the nuke missile graphic is temporary right now, but it is kind of weird seeing it fly STRAIGHT at a target rather than on a sub-orbital trajectory.
