Mode select: Air nukes and space nukes

I did a bit of searching and couldn't find anything similar.

What if you could fire a nuke into orbit that then descends down onto a target. A nuke in this configuration would be vulnerable to anti-orbital weapons and essentially untouchable by anti-air defense.

The same nuke could be fired in the manner that nukes in the game currently work, flying around the surface relatively close to the ground. They wouldn't be vulnerable to anti-orbital weapons but could be shot at by anti-air units.

The key difference to how nukes currently work is that they could be shot at by things other than anti-nukes. Certainly I'm not suggesting that they are going to hit (their projectiles might be too slow to catch it, the unit can't aim fast enough), but given the right situation they might. Doing so might detonate it (think about a swarm of fighters stumbling onto a nuke just launched from the enemy's base, wouldn't you want to see that?)

The problem this suggestion is trying to address is nukes only being countered by anti-nukes, being untouchable despite being in the same layer as aircraft.

Interesting concept and perhaps worth looking into, but there are so many different ways to deliver a nuke, the list is almost unending. The current model is the most classic and easily identifiable, it's somewhere between an ICBM and a cruise missile. I like it because it gives you that "oh ****, here it comes" feeling as it flies towards its target. The two different models you suggest may come into play when nuking a nearby planet/moon/asteroid.

Yes, I suspect having ICBM and IPBM (inter-planetary) as separate buildable things might work.

Planes shooting down nukes??? Makes nukes pointless, when it can be easily defeated by air spam instead of wisely building anti in different locations, and providing a stable eco to achieve anti missiles.

I agree, as much as planes shooting down nukes is realistic and possible, I agree that it doesn't fit into this game.

Yep realistic but takes to much from the game....

On another unrelated note thought I was going to finally go against you last week pants!!! After all this discussion the two of us had on here I was ready to test your mettle.... sadly the server crashed i believe

I wouldn't mind them trying to remove the antinuke and making anti air a natural anti nuke.

If this were to happen, nukes would have to have some kind of way in. Either highish health or only shootable torwards the end of the trip.

Sort of like the idea where you can choose for it to be orbital or air. Make two separate nukes, a high atmosphere one and a low atmosphere one. Then technically, a good air defense coupled with umbrellas would work. Could you also add a ground nuke to that, I mean think of a nuclear truck that otherwise defenseless it attempts to simply drive to the destination and detonate?

Even if nukes and antinukes were left the same, ever consider making antinukes work like the "turret that can shoot down nukes"? Where antinukes are placed on edges of territory and shoot the nuke if it comes in range while in flight.

Generally, they aren't that bad now, but this brings debate on better ways to do it. I wouldn't even mind dedicated anti-missile units. Units that are specially held on standby to shoot down a nuke.

some ways to kill a nuke w/out Anti-Nuke(THX SupCom Dev Team):
watch?v=5tuLUyKMWik
watch?v=6mX2jGRsj6Q&list=PLWe0mYs3ObwLKxDD7-K1jdj8Rl-bM30AQ&index=15
well of course...

The crash probably saved me , I've been getting my arse handed to me lately. I feel that the online community's skill level went from playing dodgeball against a 3-year-old to chuck norris with a pair of spurred cowboy boots preparing a round house kick whilst I lay down my first metal extractors. Needless to say, it's been painful.

The problem is how powerful Nucks are leading to a very binary relationship with it's 'counter'. If their overall power level was lower one could do things like allowing air units to shoot down nucks but as they are now the difference in power level is just too big.

Mike

Sorry, but where are exactly the defences against planet-smashing?

Jon has said that the point of that scene in the visualization was to point out that preventing all damage from a KEW isn't really possible, sure shattering an asteroid might result in the planet not being destroyed anymore but you still have all the shattered asteroid bits going all 'meteor shower' style on your planet. At least that's my hope.

Mike

I was wondering how they would address that, or if there were "anti-KEW" measures they had in mind, but have yet to be implemented.

so we need a tactical missile launcher like in Ta. One of my favorite weapons.... great experimental defense. Granted in escalation you needed several to kill the revised super units....

Boo I'm against removing the nukes current state, doing so essentially makes them no longer a viable threat, and makes orbital the ultimate answer by far.I like being able to punish those who rush orbital with my nuke ...

It's always been binary though, has it not? It is the nature of the nuke, it goes off or it doesn't. If you take away its power, then it's just not a nuke anymore. I don't know what you're looking for as an answer, uranium enrichment as a pre-req for a nuke?

So we should stick with something with no depth just because of tradition? can you imagine if the rest of the game was that shallow? RPS to the Max.

Nucks can still be powerful single weapons, but right now they're just too powerful compared to anything else for anything but binary counters.

You know my thoughts on Orbital already, obviously for Me Orbital needs some very heavy nerfs to pull it from the current state of "T3/T4" that it currently occupies.

Mike

I'm going with tradition on this one...... sorry guys but I like it how it is. I'mg all for interplanetary nukes that's cool, but I'm against changing the binary relationship. It takes one piece of equipment to defeat them currently and if you don't think to throw that piece on your battlefield then well the problem lies with you and not the person who managed their time and eco better, therefore their reward is blowing you away. We already have long range missile launchers " catapults".......

It would fit it if only anti air could take it out, but it would have be t2 fighters, or maybe orbital fighters, or if nukes were easy to make.

I like the concepts in this thread, and felt inspired to borrow heavily and add a little flavor of my own.

Existing nuke launcher, but the nuke itself supports multiple types of uses, including:
1. Atmospheric. High-altitude route to target (current behavior).
2. Ballistic. Orbital route to on-planet target.
3. Inter-Planetary. Into orbit, then break orbit for other parts of the solar system.


Atmospheric (1) is how I interpret the current system from watching various casts. The nuke appears to lift significantly, but I'm not sure it goes as high as the orbital layer (I could be wrong) and it appears to go just high enough to always guarantee missing mountains. This would continue as default UI behavior for a hastily-clicked launch order.
I support the concept that air defenses and air intercept units along the nuke flight path and within range, could damage and possibly destroy the threat before impact. Anti-nuke building would remain as the ultimate peace-of-mind defense though for high value assets.
Air vulnerability would allow the hope of countering a tactical nuke launch (aimed at a mass of units), by including sufficient anti-air in any of its various forms. Nuke launches would no longer be a basically-guaranteed hit in tactical launch situations and the value of situational awareness before launching that precious nuke is emphasized. Air superiority coverage for your nuke strike becomes possibly relevant, but might tip off your opponent too. Overall, it adds quite a few tactical and strategic considerations, IMO.

But, lets say you're weak on air and/or scouting, should there be other avenues to pursue? That nuke was a significant investment after all, so I say: Yes!

Ballistic (2) could be a new option, sending the nuke up into the orbital layer (safe enough if you control the orbital layer over your launchpad), across the orbital layer to your target (vulnerable to enemy orbital weaponry), and then nearly-straight back down through the air layer (very briefly vulnerable to concentrated anti-air). For this type of launch, the UI would highlight the nuke flight path across the orbital layer, differentiating it from the standard strike as well as subtly encouraging the user to check for relevant enemy orbital asset threats prior to confirming the launch order.
Anti-nuke facility still provides its high-confidence coverage as always. But I like the possible addition of orbital layer strategic control (or zones of control, if orbital becomes more dynamic) adding considerations relative to nuke strike launches. It feels appropriate.

Inter-Planetary (3) is basically a further continuation; extrapolate from (2). I would suggest that an IPBM be forced to loop-around-the-entire-planet once prior to escaping its home orbital layer so that planets with contested orbital zone control would not be guaranteed to successfully spin a nuke toward off-planet targets.

The theme here (to echo the OP) is to allow nukes be more useful in more possible situations, to avoid near-redundant other types of weaponry/mechanisms, but also to in each case provide effective countermeasures to each of those possible uses, hopefully in ways that complement the existing and planned gameplay and zones, rather than the single purpose only approach of the fixed site anti-nuke facility.