NUKES!! WAY TOO O.P.

Okay i have a really big concern when it comes to the nukes of planetary annihilation. This concern is the fact that nukes are capable of being assisted by Construction fabbers. This is extremely broken and should not be allowed in planetary annihilation. For the Following reasons. (these views are taken from being a Player of Total Annihilation and the series.)

1. They are too cheap to build.

2. Anti Nuke Silos have a limited range where as Nuke silos have unlimited range.

3. Anti nuke silos take longer to build then nuke silos. (as a result you can get 2 nuke silos up before the other person is done with the anti nuke and have a nuke in each silo before the anti nuke has created a second anti nuke. Resulting in making that anti nuke silo usless againts both nukes regardless of the fact that it starts with one anti nuke)

4. Fabbers being able to assist the nuke silos results in too many nukes being made in a short time span. leaving large parts of your base exposed to the nukes because of the short range of the anti nukes and the fact that it takes too long to get anti nukes up in time to cover your whole base.

Now those are just a few reasons why nukes and anti nukes should not be assisted by fabbers. i have others but i would rather bring them up as we go along. i really hope a dev. for PA reads this and tries to contact me. Or at least put my mind at ease and tell me that they will implement this into the game later on.

I see you're new to the forums, and welcome!

You should do a search before posting in accordance with forum rules. Someone makes a thread on this topic at least once a week.

The general consensus is that nukes are not over powered.

If you play right, they aren't game ending. I've won matches getting nuked 3 and 4 times.

That being said, you should always build nukes, because they are powerful. Just like you should always build advanced factories. Just because you practically have to build advanced, doesn't mean advanced is overpowered.

If Anti-nuke missiles had infinite range, then nukes would be completely invalidated. It makes sense that they would have limited range.

Anti-nuke silos cost more than nuke silos because anti-nuke silos come pre-loaded with a missile. The vanilla unloaded anti-nuke silo costs less than the nuke silo and anti-nuke missiles cost half as much as a nuke.

I appreciate you reading my post and taking time to respond. But the concern is the fact that anti nukes and nukes can be assisted by fabbers. That in itself is what makes nukes OP and makes anti nukes somewhat obsolite againts nukes because of their small range. Due to the fact that they have such a small range you can only cover small portions of your base. Due to that fact rushing that one anti nuke silo doesn't help the rest of your base, the reason being is because since you can assist nukes the and the time it takes to pump out nukes they can just nuke the rest of your base thats important outside of the range of the one anti nuke your trying to rush with all those fabbers making that one anti nuke silo useless. because it can't cover both your economy and factories at the same time. The cost was only there to stand behind my real concern. FABBERS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ASSIST NUKES AND ANTI NUKES.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the nukes or anti nukes themselves. I personally think their fine. i simply believe that nukes and anti nukes should not be allowed to be assisted by fabbers.

Also on kind of a side note. I would like to say that since this game is based of the famed Total Annihilation. the mechanics of nukes and anti nukes in total annihiltion regarding this topic is balanced in that game perfectly. and both silos cannot be assisted by fabbers.

The problem isn't that nukes are overpowered, but rather that their role currently is largely synonymous with planet killers. Huge, expensive, single-shot game-ender.

They aren't overpowered in the sense that they are uncounterable or strictly dominant as a strategy, but they could do with downsizing and becoming less expensive. The resulting nukes might actually be even stronger, but a single nuke would be less decisive on the outcome of the game, and instead you would use several for the same cost that current nukes use.

On that note i was a hardcore TA player. Because of this i understand how the mechanics of this game should be played.

I just think that not allowing assistance in the building of nukes and anti nukes would keep nukes from being the decision of the end game.

Look. Unless the game is already orbital, you really should not worry about building an ANuke if you scout and keep some units capable of sniping a missile launcher. Preferably bombers. Honestly, nukes are a last ditch weapon right now (and an expensive one at that) for single planet gameplay. It really is easy to counter: just spread out your production and power, and you should be safe from 1-2 nukes.

Once each players co reaches the nuke every few seconds point, this whole thing starts being kind of moot because it becomes a nuke war at that point.

But the are other and easier ways to fix this problem without resorting to things like no assisting. Honestly, if this was implemented, i would. build a nuke as soon as my factory was done. Just to try to win that whoever built first wins race.

That's even less interesting than current gameplay. Also, if I couldn't assist my nukes during an orbital war, the game would never end.

In my last FFA game I used my entire strategy to get to the second planet asap and build up 2-3 dozens of nuke silos only to find out I could not fire them interplanetary. Probably because the planet were not in orbit of the starting planet, in any case I would say that they are underpowered for this reason and should be able to be launched from one planet to another planet anywhere in the same solar system. Of course this should take a while before they reach their target and should get a warning from the orbital space radar and maybe even let the space radar calculate their trajectory for where they will hit giving the opposing player time to throw up some anti nukes. They are robots after all, why would they limit themself to building inadequate inerplanetary ballistic missiles??

At the moment I think nukes are fine.
I recently played 2 games in which nukes played a huge role later in the game.

First game I somehow got 16 nukes thrown at me... yes, all at once... none hit... simply because I had my core base well defended with anti-nukes.

Second game I got hit by 2 nukes, destroying 4 nuke Launchers I had just build and about 15 advanced energy plants... that was some serious ouch-time. Yet I won the game in the end simply because loosing those energy plants didn't hit my eco that hard as I had enough reserves and then I was able to get some anti-nukes up to defend the rest of my base while my orbital lasers were shooting down the enemy nuke launchers... so... problem solved.

So... no, I do not think nukes are at this point the ultimate game enders.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

Yet, are they OP because they sometime DO end the game?
No.
If you follow that path Doxes are also game enders... if you build enough of them. SO are orbital lasers. Put a few of those up and send them to the enemy commander and... he's toast.

And yes... they can be assisted by fabbers.. yet so can Anti-nukes silos... and so can Orbital launchers to spam lasers or a bunch of T2 aircraft facilities to pump out T2 bombers and you can send 100 of them straight at the enemy commander a few minutes later...

The thing is: be prepared to counter each of this and MIND your economy. If your economy is bad, you simply cannot do that. so... get a better eco.
And if you do not like these mass productions... simply build a system with limited metal spots. Then it comes down to Doxes to win the match.
Last time I checked the system editor you weren't able to change the slider which determines the metal spots, yet the slider is there and will be enabled in time, so...

Now about the nukes being able to go interplanetary, I am a bit divided on the subject. I do like the fact that now they are able to be shot between planets in each other's orbit, which helps a lot when the game goes interplanetary and the enemy has entrenched himself on one or two smaller moons...
Yet should they be able to travel the entire system to any planet? mmmh, not sure, yet we will only know the full effect and outcome of that when we play a few games like that.
Having the enemy be able to track the missiles is good, provided they have the orbital radar up. Yet, letting them have an accurate and details trajectory so they are able to plot its course to its exact target? mmmh, if the planets are really far off, that would completely nullify their use as I would then just order 40 fabbers to quickly build up 6 Anti-nuke silo's right there and... that would be it... of course that would mean I'd have to watch the system regularly though to even see them on time flying towards me. Yet, who doesn't check space and orbital once every few minutes later in game?

I voted yes but you did remind me that both factories were un assistable in the days of TA. can't believe I forgot actually since I recently played a few matches of TA. Which has just turned sixteen, and the wonderful folks at TAuniverse.com have released a nice slough of updates and mods for.

Anyways retracting my vote and agreeing with OP on this one. No stat changes to the current, just fab assist removed. Perhaps remodel them so missiles are constructed internally ala TA.

I'm siding due to a match I played last night. 4 team ffa. Came down to the last two teams, mine and theirs. We both had relocated, their lack of Intel allowed me to land on the New planet with them and create a new operation. With my brother handling economy on all other celestial bodies, I placed a mass of twenty or so fabs in a squad. Then I microed them up and down my line of seven nukes. Finishing a missile, flinging it, while my fab crew moved to the next launcher polishing off the missile instantly. This repeating pattern quickly led to my opponents demise. While clutching the win is satisfying, getting it 2000 nuclear mega tons of CHEESE!!!!! is not my preferred method. Also doesn't that seem like a singular OP strategy???? One nuke and twenty fabs ........ we didn't really need seven, we didn't need two. Just one and enough fabs to create an unending steam of nuclear destruction.

Oh well you could just support your anti with fabs duh!!! So you want to play the rest of the match trying to fend of an endless stream of nukes??? You're essentially fawked once they break that anti nuke barrier, then you're just scurrying trying to dump all of your economy into anti and trying to out match their super fab nuke squad with x amount of fabs......

So simple easy solution, for so much disdain the nuke game has acquired, just like op suggested make the launchers un assisted.

If anything this prooves that nukes are not over powered. 7 nukes launchers + nukes to win? CAn you imagine all that metal in units?

Nukes are fine in my opinion. Anti nukes and nukes have the same problem so balanced right. Bases are much more spread on pa than Ta. The more spread your base is the worse both are. Simples

perhaps his thread is titled incorrectly. His qualms are with the assisting that's it. I'm taking up the same fight as it makes sense.

Now all that metal into units would take substantially longer, and would die easily to a mass of pelters yes level ONE artillery.......

My point is the framework has been laid for the OP strategy. Defense till t2, then nukes plus a load of fabs no Bueno.......

the op mentions several different qualms so think it is worded fine.

If nukes are unassistable then they would need to built quicker, whether it's less cost or increased build rate or have a much larger aoe. Now I think it would take the guts of 15 minutes to build.

@clopse why would this need to be so???? Ever played TA??? Nukes killed a comm with one shot had a much larger aoe. What kept them in check??? The fact that they were not allowed assists when constructing missiles....

Not that increasing build rate would be bad as long as it wasn't crazy fast. I'm just curious as to your reasoning. Also check ops second post where he clarifies his biggest issue.....

..... ooh look another nukethread .... how many is it now? 15? 20? 40?

indeed..... but a valid point has appeared imo...... something from the grandfather of pa and both supcoms. We must remember our lineage

Nukes only killed A commander if he was hit on the head, and then the commanders height was also an issue. And the commander was cloakable. Area of effect is different in Ta than pa just because of scale and how cheap it is to build factories. Ta had fusions and Moho metal makers.

Attacking a t2 power plant in pa is the equivalent of nuking half a geo in Ta. Can't compare these at all.

I kinda hope some change is inacted with nukes. Its not that they are op, its just that 'mid-late' game they can be spammed out in 30secs flat, and render a whole army useless =/ Perhaps its metal cost issue, but rather than making them anymore expensive, a nice idea might be with going down the supcom route of fabbers helping far far less.

^ exactly!!! Why build an army when crapping out nuclear death as fast as you can micro the attack point is obviously a much more viable solution. So as stated remove fab assist for these two buildings problem solved easy fix . Just remodel for internally built missiles......