It seem like the nuke rush is way more effective than building anti nukes. In the last game I've played i had 3 nuke defenses with anti nukes but the other player still managed to find a sweet spot so he could take out have my base. I only use nukes if it's the only possible way to win. But other players like to rush to nukes and eventually you cant counter multiple nukes at the same time. Good defense in practice: You need to find a flat peace of map without obstacles, 3 nuke defenses overlapping each other in so there is no sweet spot. Within the center you build your most important buildings not further than total 35% of the anti nuke radius. That is really expensive to build! I think anti nukes should be: cheaper way faster to build especially the anti nuke rockets - or have a lot bigger defensive range I think nukes should be used in combination of good strategic thinking and planning. But not as an easy way to win.
I don't like the idea of making the anti nukes any cheaper, because the anti nuke complacently cancels out the nuke not even prematurely detonating it. Meaning you should be paying a similar cost to stop the nuke, yes it should be cheaper, but not much. So this leaves only one other area to make anti nukes more powerful their range which I recon a 20% increase would do it. I hate the idea of a singular anti nuke emplacement being able to protect even a small base. The other side to countering nukes is scouting, and then placing anti nukes in the flight path of nukes rather than in the center of the base where people will nuke out of range of them effectively. What I would also like to see is a cheaper version of the anti nuke that only prematurely detonates the nuke this option could be cheaper placed on the edge of a base, and then build the current in the middle of a base.
Well, the other defense against nukes is offense. You should be able to seriously punish someone that was doing a "nuke rush" by showing up to his base with a large attack force. If he skimped on defense in order to build that nuke really early, you can kill him. Worst case, he manages to fend you off but can't maintain his focus on building that nuke because he needs to rebuild lost items and prepare for the next attack wave. Plus a really simple thing you can do (on non-tiny maps anyway) is to just avoid his main base but sweep around and wipe out all of his metal extractors. With him being so focused on that nuke, he probably doesn't have the ground force to come out and stop you so you can easily stunt his economy and now that nuke is going to take a long time to build!
What about a nuke "sheild" for lack of a better word. You have to build the shield just like a missle and it prevents any nuke dmg in that area. It only stops nuke dmg so bombers can stil easily take it out.
Lets say a anti-nuke costs 1/3rd of the cost of a Nuke, even if you build 10 anti-nukes, it doesn't completely make the nuke useless. You can still use the nuke anywhere on the planet you want, other than what is protected by the anti-nukes. Also it should be a strategy to "take out" anti-nukes before nuking, with bomber-runs, artillery, long range missiles, or even a land-attack. When you build a nuke, you can attack anywhere on the map, when you build a anti-nuke, you are only protecting a TINY area. They SHOULD NOT even cost close to the same. The nuke is almost all-powerful, and the anti-nuke is very ineffective in comparison.
Agreed. Even if anti-nukes had triple their current range, it's still awfully handy to be able to nuke a large incoming ground force, or large enemy artillery base that doesn't have protection yet, etc. I don't think we have to worry about nukes being rendered useless.
Wait...sounds familiar.... I know! That's how the US finished off Japan! We got the nukes first Its also a good part of the reason the USSR ell (eventually). I agree, aNukes need to be cheaper and better, because all I use it for is to protect my CDR from nuke snipes. Usually I will build a single tactical nuke in my base to help my attacking forces or to scare off a large incursion. The last game I was in, a 4 player FFA, I was the only nuclear and orbital power, everyone else went hardcore units. I think I wiped two players off the map before having a DC >.< So nukes work almost too well. lol
Nukes aren't that bad. I don't lose every game where I get nuked first. You probably just don't know how to deal with someone who has nukes first, or you turtle so hard that a single nuke wipes out almost all of your base.
nuke defense is way to expensive to use as a wall. I thought the main goal was to expand your base well i need like 4-6 nukes defenses around my base to have a solid defense. This brings me to another point if you want to use nuke defense as walls you have to build them effectively on the far edge of your base where they are very vulnerable to attacks. It seems far more logical to build them near the center of your base where the AN is covered by defenses. My strategy is build nukes before others do, more effectively than building 4 anti nukes around the base and thats a shame!
Basically, my opinion is every unit/building in the game should be useful and fulfill it's role well. Currently Anti-Nukes do not fulfill their role, therefor they need to be fixed to be more efficient. I would rather them cost less than have a bigger range, I also wouldn't mind them being smaller and take up less space, but that's just my opinion since you have to build so many of them.
Nuke defence just needs its range doubled and maybe a slight cost decrease as they are still rather expensive
What if the nuke radius was increased by 25-50% and the anti nuke by 200-300% ? I think an increase of 50% in the anti nukes range is required at min though.
I think they should play around with ideas. Nukes should be successful to use, and they are, but they should also be defensible if one knows for a fact that is the enemy's strategy. Them costing a lot in my opinion, the antinukes that is, is what gives them two prongs. It hurts to build if the enemy has no plan on nuking. If the enemy even notices you preemptive built one he should be rewarded by not building nuke and having the economic edge. In my opinion, disarming antinuke with artillery or bombers is a valid strategy too, as is doubling up on antinuke, just as is disarming nukes themselves with snipes is valid. All those points considered, theoretically the antinuke is perfect now. In light of nukes being so successful in games however, paying with mild cost or range adjustment would be nice, or adding something else to antinuke like a mobile unit a player could use on reaction. We have discussed anti missile units elsewhere and some think a neat idea.
I think both range of the anti-nuke could be increased as well as providing one pre-built anti-nuke when the building is finished.
In this particular game, I was the other player who found a sweet spot in your base ballsonfire and might I say that your in-game reaction was far from gracious, it was downright rude, you acted like a child who'd had his candy snatched away from him. I was able to find that sweet spot due to having scouted you persistently and having knowledge of the current range limitations of the anti nuke launcher. Not an easy way to win but to quote you, "a combination of good strategic thinking and planning". So instead of crying foul in the chat with (to paraphrase you) "nukes are a noob tactic" and "jimo can only win by rushing nukes", how about you show some humility and remember that we are all in the same boat, playing to the current state of the game, within the same set of rules and features whether they may be flawed or incomplete. Your claim of a nuke rush on my part is nonsensical, the chronocam replay showed that the first nuke was launched at the 37 minute mark.... hardly a nuke rush, you had plenty of time.
I never said you nuke rushed me. The nuke rush part about players was in general. I've changed my tactic sins that game to almost never building anti nukes and having nukes ready within 20 minutes. I wasn't rude I was just mad the way anti nukes works right now. You're being punished for building nuke defense instead of nukes. I didn't like nuke game enders but it is almost impossible to defend against nukes from players like you who always will find a sweet spot just outside the anti nuke radius. I don't call that tactic, i call that abusing the unbalanced nuke defense. I hope to see some balance soon cause I'm not a big fan of using nukes
