Orbital nuke launcher

Orbital nuke launcher
There should be an orbital nuke launcher where it is quite similar to ground orbital. First orbital fabbers will construct an orbital launcher just like the nuke launcher, this should have between 150% and 200% the metal cost of it's stationary equivalent.(This will be able to move around the orbital layer and between celestial bodies even carrying built nukes.)The nuke will then begin building inside it and can be assisted by orbital fabbers. I also propose that these launchers will be able to land on planets and will only be able to launch their nukes when landed.However the nukes can be launched from orbital when the target is directly below. When this is used the nuke will simply be dropped and due to it's heavy mass will quickly reach terminal velocity and this will resist the action of burning up on entry because of special heat-resistant materials on nuke casing[as a result the actual missiles will be slightly more expensive from orbital launchers (5%)] In fact this will also create a heat shield that melts anti-nukes before contact, so dropped nukes are anti-anti-nuke. This may be said to be OP but it is not as Umbrellas can easily counter these.(Remember they can only be dropped directly onto the target)

This idea will be of benefit as nukes will be capable of moving between orbits and end game situations will be resolved easier.

no thx there doesnt need to be a spacenukelauncher ... people whine about IP nukes being binary boring and overpowered already ...

Then let interplanetary nukes fire outside to other planets?

I thought an SXX that drops a nuke below to be ok. You have to build the SXX and then the Nuke. No, it wouldn't be the same as the laser SXX. Also think the regular SXX as slow and expensive as it is needs a 2 shot kill on commanders lol, 3 tops.

Anyway, the concept of this is to make a beachhead. Then again, it is just as important to have some way you can land units and antinuke because turtles pretty much have everything.

i know i sound like a broken record by now but
beachhead? multiunittransports and orbital aircraftcarriers!

i prefer interplanetary nuke, nothing less nor more

I think it would be interesting to require a "targeting satellite" to be overhead before you can fire interplanetary nukes (or maybe even any nuke), similar to how you have to have a Ghost in Starcraft to laser designate nuke targets. This would mean that anti-orbital would also technically be anti-nuke (as it kills the targeting satellite), and you would only need to build an expensive anti-nuke if you lose control of the orbital layer.

Uber actually talked about the possibility of a nuke launcher satellite that would be used to launch interplanetary nukes.

It was just an idea they came up with while on a live broadcast, so who knows if we'll get it or not.

But if this new orbital structure is only used to fire from planet to planet, then that could potentially work.

I just fear that interplanetary nukes might hurt invasions rather then helping them.

Why would a nuke then land, when I can just nuke you twice and win?

An orbital nuke that is dropped wouldn't be OP because Umbrellas stop orbital. That being said it wouldn't really have much utility because of umbrellas being so cheap to build. A few of them would decimate a commander from orbit so it would have to be balanced so they can only be built late game and cannot be abused.

Orbital Nuke launcher- can only fire down as in "Droping the bomb" on a area hows that?

But there is no guarantee that that will extend to nukes, are current nukes fly through the air layer, but are not susceptible to enemy AA.

because nukes are not like units but ammunition
again nukes are not mercies ... and imho shouldn't ever threated as such

If they are like ammunition, then we shouldn't have anti-nukes, because anti-nukes don't counter nuke silos.

they dont counter air nor ground nor orbital ... they are purposefuly made against nukes .. similar to torpedoes and torpedodefenses in supcom just that first is to be manualy launched over the other ... or are you gonna tell me we shouldnt have patriots because rl nukes aren't aircraft but missiles/warheads ... ... yea that makes no sense ... hey guy x just's about to finish his nuke while keeping us at bay what we gonna do? ... nah nothing we just take it ... ???? what ????

Your real life argument hold no sway over a video game, so im going to ignore it because of how bad of a argument you are making.

Anti-nukes counter a projectile, not a unit, and thus are so specialised to the point that they are worthless, utterly worthless against a concious opponent.

Anti-nukes do not counter a unit, and should be removed or drastically changed.

sry but your point is no better .... game or not having a specialised unit/structure/tool is by no means worthless
but simply limits your options solving a problem .. that is the problem you have
what do yo mean with concious opponent though?
that the guy might be aware that i have the option to defend against nukebombardment so he wont attack me? that's rather a success for me because while i might have spend resources i managed to limit his options in effectively hurting my production ...

It is when you are playing with more then a hand full of units.

And the anti-nuke does nothing to counter any unit at all, all it does is counter one type of weapon, and even then it needs to be loaded.

Anti-nukes don't solve nuke silos, they do nothing and are incapable of killing them, so they are worthless.

A opponent that is awake will not nuke your anti-nukes, and thus will not be wasting their resources by having done so.

The player with the nuke silo will nuke another target, and in a game of this scale, if your entire base fits inside of a anti-nukes radius, then you have no chance of wining anyway.

It still hurts your production if he forces you to build anti-nukes, and their missiles.

Not to mention if your enemy chooses to stop building additional nuke silos, you still will require additional anti-nukes to cover all of your buildings, not including your armys, or navys or air force all who cannot defend like the anti-nuke does.

The anti-nuke is a bad mechanic that has always been bad, it was bad in TA, it was bad in supcom, and NOTHING has been changed into PA that suggests that this iteration will actually improve it to make it actually fun in any way.

a antinuke may not solve nuke bombardment but it definitevily helps giving you time
weither i secure areas with those or not is simply a decision i have to consider in what is worth to defend and what can i lose without being hurt too much ...
sure the current nuke antinuke gameplay may not be much fun but it does its job .... what use would nukes be if they could be countered by anithing antiair? would it be realy that more fun to make them cheaper and more accessible just to have to built like 10 or 20 more before you can finaly score even one hit when the other nineteen got shootdown (missilecommand much?) why would you in that case ever want to build those instead of tanks that may have more of a chance to destroy at least something? ...

Guys please. If we get into the argument of why is everything PA may as well become a politics game where the commanders communicate in binary to decide a peace treaty. Uber, make that game.

some people would even like the game having diplomacy ... so your point is?