Idea: Anti missile guns/emplacements

I previously suggested to use umbrelas to shot down missiles, they could drain more power per shot, had larger range and slower RoF, so it would save you from 1 nuke... probably (it would not one-shot the nuke).

A person with nukes and anti nukes, will beat the person with just nukes.
The best solution to a war, is to make peace and cooperate towards a prosperous future together, combining ones resources and efforts towards a mutually beneficial goal. That option is not available I believe in P.A so, not sure how your argument of the best thing to do applies.

In real life, making a unit more specialised is natural, I shall explain. A nuclear missile is a specialised weapon, it has no guns, no armour, usually only enough fuel to get to its target, its one use. The reason being, it would be incredibly expensive to turn a nuclear missile or similar type weapons into a generalised weapons platform. The bigger and more expensive something becomes, the more specialised it becomes. This applies to artillery as well. Basically a giant gun, pulled by a tractor.

Front line soldiers, need armour, survival kits, grenades, machine guns with multiple firing settings and scopes. Body armour, communication equipment. Soldiers that are not expected to encounter the enemy, have practically no body armour, basic equipment except for a really big sniper rifle. speculating lets u trim down and cut costs. In a game it also means u don't end up with a unit that can defeat everything.

You say rush range on a small planet, your making assumptions that the enemy is not going to defend itself and let u destroy its catapult. Risk of getting a catapult up and concentrating your efforts on defending it are worth it in this game. especially if u can target the commander with the catapult.

I didn't think asking other peoples opinions was a problem. I take that into account and maybe I listening to yours joking and a few others on this forum

If you have the choose between a weapon that allows you to shoot, and one that can only stop enemy bullets that have been shot.

You always go for the weapon that allows you to shoot.

M.A.D happens because no one is stupid enough to build anti-nukes, when nuking your enemy before they can fire, if they even can is simply the superior option.

Anti-nukes, and the idea of anti-missile devices only work as a part of some other device, not separately.

Catapults, as they stand, are not uncountable, or unbalanced unless your choose of strategy is to try and ignore them.

NO, this has to stop, if you are being bombarded by artillery, you MUST silence the guns/rocket/whatever, as mitigating the damage, reducing it or redirecting it does not deal with the problem.

Putting off the problem puts you onto the backfoot in a engagement, making you far, far easier to be killed and destroyed by wasting your resources on units that cannot be used to win the game, or even destroy anything at all.

They do not build anything, they do not destroy anything, and so are pointless to include at all.

Walls don't build anything or destroy anything.

They do, however have many uses that are unsuitable for a anti-missile unit.

And as the lowest form of unit, don't need company.

Walls can stop tank shells. Therefore they are almost an anti-missile structure.

Walls stop anything that touches them, all projectiles that attempt to pass through them.

Anti-missile builds do not solve the problems you are attempting to suggest that they do.

I'm just trying to poke holes in your posts more than anything else....

Am I a bad person?

No, I disagree with anti-bullet devices (Not that walls are much better, as being a way of directing enemy units into killing zones) in all their forms as really I do not feel that they are the best way of combating a problem.

So no, you are not a bad person, your ideas are!

My ideas are people? I'm going to have to stop thinking about a lot of things...