NUKES!! WAY TOO O.P.

I just don't want nukes to stay as they are.

And I might have to end up modding them to show what I mean.

Well I guess I can only say "okay" to that. I'll be curious to see what you do.

I don't really want to dive into this argument on one side or the other, but I just want to say that I never build anti nukes. Ever. Very very rarely in the very late game when a double nuke strike is probable I build ONE to sit my comm under. That's it.
I get nuked and I take it. I space my advanced power so no more than 2 can be hit by a single nuke. I space my factories. I use my opponents confidence in the nukes ability to cripple me against them. If they fortify the nuke so much I can't reach it, I hit their power or production.

Also, I think it's very VERY rare to see a nuke so well dug in that 20,000 metal worth of units (tanks, bombers, whatever) can't reach it. If you do, then they've probably spent another 20,000 metal on those defences. Until that nuke is launched, you have 50,000 metal advantage. You should be able to win with that kind of advantage if you hit other parts of their base.

I also think area commands have made nukes far more effective against the majority of players as buildings tend to be more densely packed. I still build everything in long, spaced out lines which helps.

I don't want to keep regurgitating the same advice, but scout, keep your bases spacey and hit those nuke launchers.

EDIT: reading back, that was a pretty unsuccessful job of not diving in

so let me conclude a bit here (not limited to this thread)
So as far as i get it
Some people want nukeplay to be more like tacmissilewarfare in supcom
Others seem to want it to be more aeon mercy like or tick/firebeetle like
And i guess most rather want it to stay as is but be balanced statswise
Does that fit?

Seems about right. A simple solution would give units an energy cost or to have assisting fabbers use the same metal to energy ratio as factories.

I think that the plethora of views on how nukes should be tuned is indicative of a different problem than many people in this thread have identified. Many complain about Nukes being far too overpowered. This is manifestly untrue, as if they were, they would be the pivotal moment of every game. If you go out and watch the available replays, you will find nukes playing a pivotal role in a few games, but certainly not the majority, and definitely not all of them. This is not to say that they are perfectly balanced, and it's pretty obvious that there will be further balance done on pretty much every aspect of the game in the future.

The issue I think that people are trying to get at is that the power of the nukes is incommensurate with the depth of the nuclear game. Unfortunately, nukes have to be pretty powerful. Overwhelming power is endemic to the symbolism nuclear weapons. We expect nuclear weapons to be powerful in the same way we expect boats to float and planes to fly. If we didn't want them to be powerful, they would have to be replaced with non-nuclear missiles, which would then raise the question of why these futuristic space robots don't have access to a technology which we puny humans developed nearly 70 years ago. Obviously one could come up with a lore explanation, but it would be a bit of a stretch, and it wouldn't be satisfying.

We are stuck with nukes, and it only makes sense that they are towards the more powerful end of the power/cost spectrum. Obviously there is still room for a bit of balancing, but tweaks to the stats is not going to fix them. They will end up being boring and lacking dynamic counter-play no-matter how well they are fine tuned. The only way this can be remedied is to expand that portion of the game with more types of missiles, and more types of defences, both static and mobile. I don't know if Uber has the time to do this, but until someone does this (either Uber themselves, or a modder), then this part of the game will never reach it's full potential.

I think it can fix them, just as ledarsi said: Just make them a bit smaller. Personally I think they are not far away from the sweet spot they should be in. Maybe try 20% less area of effect on nukes and 20% more range on antinukes or so. Or 40% +/- but with a price reduction. That way nukes will still blow a hole into bases/armies, but they wont be horribly overpowered and play will evolve around growing and spreading yourself so much that the nuke-hits wont destroy you. To me it sounds like a lot of fun to let the game generally evolve (with nukes, asteroids and ofc mostly all the current raiding mechanics) around a concept where players have to deal with taking damages to their infrastructure all the time by growing faster than they take damage. Fits well with a game whose name is based on "Annihilation".

Basically don't make it seem like the nukes are not small scale, but make it seem that armies and bases or super big. They fill planets after all. On a planetary scale nukes are actually not that big. Sure bigger than anything else, but if I have a base that fills a whole continent a single nuke won't be able too much of a problem. To clear a whole continent you'll need an asteroid.

^ @cola_colin ... iiiiiii yeahh i gave my thoughts to ledarsi on that aswell and im not realy sure if that makes missileplay overall more intresting .... like is it realy a differnce weither i launch 1 heavy hitting nuke or 100 more pinpoint like missiles when both have their own appropriete defenses and cost and so on
the question is if and how you can make this mechanik intresting

General speaking what should be looked upon is the way of how the varius long range weapons and defenses synergyse in themeselfes aswell as with the rest of the rooster i realy think the best way to go is to add in unit that close the powergap the that nukes may seem to have brought in
But i agree with madscy that it doesnt make realy sense to change nukes around to much without horribly breaking it or make it redundant

That still doesn't solve the issue with nukes though. Think about the decisions that need to be made during the course of nuclear offence and defence. I can count the following:

1. Do I make use of nukes?
2. Where do I build my silo(s)?
3. How much of my economic capacity do I devote to missile production?
4. Where do I launch my nuke(s)?
5. Do I build antinuke?
7. Where do I build my antinuke(s)?
8. How much of my economic capacity do I devote to anti-nuke production?

For a section of the game that can be so pivotal that it can win or loose the entire game if used correctly, that just isn't enough decisions. Think about the number of decisions a player makes when plotting a land offensive, or managing their economic expansion. Good balancing makes the optimum decision more difficult to discern, and more situational, but it doesn't generate new decisions. Decisions such as "which missile do I choose to build?", "which defence is best for this situation?" or "How do I need to follow up this missile strike?".

Balance is all well and good, and we will see at least a couple of balance passes at some point in the future. But it isn't the main issue and it will not fix nukes by itself.

I am saying nukes should not be that pivotal to the game. Basically they should make a few little holes into bases and armies here and there but that should not completely decide the game in itself.

Adding in multiple types of missiles and anti nukes sounds pretty horrible to me. That really would result in the game revolving around nukes, imho.

But weither nukes make big holes or not almost depends on how your enemy has spread out his base doesnt it?
If players clump up their bases sc or cnc style dont they rather make a strategical mistake? In that chase wouldnt you eventualy make missiles useless for players that want to bomard a broader area but can only do so by raysing the ammount of missiles used?

That is something I disagree with. Saying that multiple missile types would make the game revolve around nukes is as incorrect as saying that multiple vehicle types would make the game revolve around tanks, thus bots, boats, planes and missiles would all be irrelevant. In a good game, all should provide just as much engagement and offer just as much opportunity for players to get ahead by being more cunning than their foe. You are starting from the premise that nukes are boring, so they should be discouraged with a nerf. To me this is entirely illogical. What is the point of having a boring part of the game that you try and make players not play because you know it is boring? It makes no sense. Instead one should try to make that segment of the game interesting!

Any segment of the game can be pivotal if used correctly. Whether it is 34,200m worth of tanks, or 34,200m worth of missiles, both should be deadly if used correctly, and pointless if carelessly wasted. I want to play a game where someone playing a heavily tank-centric game can go up against someone playing a heavily missile-centric game, and both are equally likely to win dependant only upon their skill, cunning, and ability to make good strategic choices.

No, if the area of effect of a nuke is smaller it won't make big holes

@YourLocalMadSci:
I guess my imagination about "different missiletypes" is different from yours, thus the disagreement.

I agree with about the "pivotal if used correctly" part though.

I like the idea of having diminishing returns on the number of assisting engineer on nukes instead of outright removing the capability. It's a happy medium. That with a few balance tweaks as colin stated, smaller aoe with a slightly longer range on the anti and we have something nice.

However I am also in the camp that has been saying to spread your base out. If you build your base over a very large area there's no reason a nuke should be a game ender. 8 nukes maybe but if they're building 8 nukes assisted with fabbers why don't you have 20 t2 bombers ready to take them out? You have been scouting haven't you? All in all it comes down to the fact that PA, and warfare in general is very nuanced and if you know what you are doing, whatever you do will be perceived as OP.

This game is slightly unforgiving on the newbies too because there are certain ways to play the game with optimal efficiency, such as your starting build, that are developed through experience and learning by watching replays. If you find yourself constantly getting reamed by the same tactic over and over try something different! Don't go in to every game with the intention of winning, go in to every game with the intention of learning something new about the mechanics, or about the strategy.

I am constantly changing things up to keep my eco as balanced as possible through early to mid game; Do I build a storage before the 2nd or the 3rd mex? Do I build 2 or 3 energy plants before my first factory? Just keep learning and you'll find yourself getting better and better with every game.

That's true. But as you moved through the game's ages, different resources became more relevant. For a late game army you needed lots of metal and oil. So the resource aspect of it evolved as the game continued.You still needed your basic resources, but they were less necessary as the game progressed.

Hard coded diminishing returns are terrible. That level of math is far above and beyond what any player should be expected to do in this type of game. If your rules can't handle simple linear solutions, then they are bad rules.

Extra resource types for a singular unit are stupid. They are a sign that the unit is a problem, not the resource system.

The simplest rule to deal with nukes is to not allow nuke assistance. There is no reason to expect a standard lathe to have any ability at handling the high energy payload of a nuke. Nanites are good, but they're not that good. The difficulty of constructing a nuke is why a dedicated nuke facility exists in the first place!

These decisions are not unique to nukes. ANY unit has to be justified, placed and paid for. The only somewhat unique considerations are:
1) How do I find a nuke launcher before I lose?
2) How do I defend a nuke launch before I lose?

The ability to assist nuke production changes the time table of these two questions in major ways. Whereas with fixed production you know that nukes can't be possible before a certain time, assisted production can be 10 times faster or slower depending on how suicidal the opponent is. This flexible time table is one reason why nukes have to cost so damn much. That extreme cost pushes the time table back, working under the assumption that anyone in their right mind would be pumping out nukes as quickly as possible.

Fixed time nukes can be much cheaper, because players now have a known amount of time before they have to fear one. It is time enough to respond in some meaningful way, such as killing the launcher.

I agree wholeheartedly. With the current game, turtle + nukes is unstoppable. Nukes should be used as well as other forms of attacking, perhaps by making them much more expensive nuke spam won't be a viable tactic any more.