How awesome will the nukes be in this game?

I suggest making them exactly the same as they were in Supcom FA. This is one area where PA with its many planets will actually be more awesome than Supcom FA, unless of course they are changed beyond recognition. Here is a game that should be a good guide of how to do it properly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLjWP_xG1wk

... why do we even need nukes when your able to trow astroids at planets?

A heck of a lot cheaper. Far less obvious to build a silo than to strap engines to an asteroid.

Why have both tanks and gunships when we could just fight with our commander? And why have tech levels when we could all just use tech one? And why have different maps when we could just have one?

Allright.

Its hardly the same argument.

Both a nuke and a astroid projectile is a weapon of mass destruction, they both fill the same role.

However as elexis has posted it could just be a weapon of mass destruction on a different scale and cost then said astroid projectile (Cheaper).

Thermo is a horrible map. Nuke spam is a horrible gameplay idea.

I don't see how that makes a good guide on nukes.

Nukes would be brilliant for anti-base weapons, as opposed to the anti-planetary weapons KEWs would be. They could also double up as quick interplanetary warheads, and as anti-KEW defence systems.

I would personally like to the the implementation of MIRV Nukes as an alternative to conventional mono-warhead nukes for the use of planetary assault.

Nukes have always been an effective anti-army weapon (Although the dramatic slow traveling nukes of SC:FA was kind of a let down one it finally struck), but the power of this weapon has never been fully portrayed in a RTS.

Id like to see that change and once again make it a feared weapon of war in respect to its reputation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe-2slh4 ... re=related

Maybe that was the wrong video to choose how awesome nukes were in supcom FA. Here is a better example with standard rules and a standard map. You can skip to the last 3 minutes if you are not interested in a great game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frb2qEup3KQ

If you want a nuke fest, i suggest you start playing Defcon.

I like the way SupCom did it: Expensive and, if scouted early, easy to protect from. Lots of WMDs in late game makes it boring and stale. Bigger does not always makes gameplay better.

Another bad example. the nuke would have done minimal damage if the other commanders had actually bothered to move out of the way.

If you call blowing a massive hole in the frontline defenses holding down the last choke point leading into the bases, clearing the path for the two spider bots, minimal damage, then yes.

KEWs can destroy a planet outright, where I'd like to see nukes as being more of an etch-a-sketch for the surface, and possibly as the defense against KEWs.

One question I am also wondering: will nukes be confined to one planet and its upper atmosphere or should they be able to travel between planetoids/moons/asteroids?

I don´t think so. Astroids annihilate whole planets [at least i hope they do], while nukes probably wont.
You won´t use an astroid to crush a hostile army in front of your base, but a nuke would be an option.
However it was little disappointing, that nukes in supcom usually were only used to insta-kill the enemy commander, instead of gaining an strategical advantage by, for example nuking a hole in the defense lines

edit:little to late ...

If im not mistaken, they have stated that different size astroids will do different damage, not all astroids are planet killers. So you would use a astroid to crush a hostile army.

They fill the same role as nukes.

Im sure they can implement nukes, but the more i think about it the less i think its realy needed in PA.

Found the quote im looking for (proof for the "Different astroids will do different damage" part): http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/08/15/plane ... terview/2/

Asteroids, even if they don't all destroy the whole planet, will still cause massive devastation on a large scale.
There should be nukes in this game (because, seriously, a TA-like without nukes?), but they can be used as tactical warheads : instead of destroying an entire region of the planet, they raze a base, or put a hole in the bigger ones.
The other particularity of the nuke is that you simply build and launch it. For an asteroid, you have to go to the asteroid, build engines on it and then use the engines to move it. And if there's no asteroid in this system, you simply can't use them. They are a hard-to-get, finite, map-dependent resource.

With metal planets, do you want your only option to deal with an existing force be to destroy the planet outright?

With nukes being the equivalent of shaking an etch-a-sketch with your hands, and a KEW being shaking an etch-a-sketch with a hammer, in the short term the results may be identical, but in the long-term the hammer is going to break the etch-a-sketch.

Depending on the size of a TA planet, destroying a continent may be on the scale of the SupCom Nuke.

But sure, as long as they dont fill the exact same role as astroids projectiles (only cheaper), im all for nukes (I dont want nukes to be as awsome as small astoids, what then would be the point of the astroids?).

On the topic "How awesome will nukes be in this game?":
If they add nukes and make them able to travel between nearby worlds (from orbit down onto a planets surface), then you could make a moon ship (A moon with engines, they are confirmed in the article i linked before) outfit it with several nuke lunchers and unit cannons, move it into orbit around a planet and nuke the defenses then lunch a attack wave with the unit cannons...

I think i just died alittle from awsomeness...

Also, it's gonna be a lot harder and take longer to land on an asteroid , so they'd still fulfill separate roles.