Poll: Are Nukes too strong?

It's not that nukes are very powerful, it's that anti-nukes are too weak. They cover only a small area while nukes can hit the whole planet. It makes it almost impossible to protect your entire base.

how big should the range of anti nukes be in your opinion?

Well you could add some downside to nukes. Im just thinking here. But what if when you used a nuke you actually blow a giant hole in the ground. thus ruining all those metal spots. and making it harder to get units across. maybe even impossible depending on the way the whole / crater turns out.

You could have downsides to that, like if you wanna go nuclear war fine, but you are gonna smash the planets to pieces in the process.

Kinda like how the downside and choice to launch an asteroid is, do you wanna give up all that free and easy metal to wipe out enemies.

I quite like deformable terrain, it would certainly get challenging when you start running out of build-able space >

yeah besides actually making players think, instead of just spamming nukes, you would have to eventually move on, because you actually ruin the planet if you want to go into nuclear war.

For me stuff like that is interesting. Because that to be is a fun interesting choice.

The anti-nuke mechanic is dated horribly and hasn't been majorly changed since TA.

Even SupCom2 has better nuke play then PA and FAF! With the introduction of at least a additional counter to the nuke silo unit, the Boomerang, that returns nukes to their senders.


If SC2 has a better anti-nuke mechanic then your RTS, then you have done it wrong.

I'm kind of liking the idea going around to add serious global consequences to nuclear weapon use. Maybe the biome can slowly change or metal extraction can be damaged somehow? If you want to skip realistic and go straight to awesome you can eventually have the planet heat up and ooze out lava until it's just a useless lava ocean.

Now that we have fire, it would be neat to leave the nuke area a blaze for 5-10 gameplay minutes to simulate the effects of radiation. Units passing through would take damage until the fire burns out.

We make more anti-nuke options and make nukes more powerful at the same time.

Because metallic nanite based units are susceptible to radiation.

Yeah, but the elephant's foot was basically molten lava. The entire area the nuke hit could just turn into a big lava puddle.

I made a suggestion for terrain deformation (and what you said would be even more extreme), I suggested it create a crater, but Uber told me that if that were the case then it would imply that every unit hit by a nuke would have to be a 1-hit kill no matter what, (especially for buildings because they'd end up floating) so I'm sorry but suggestions like that probably won't happen because of limitations in the PA engine.

It already oneshots everything except for comms. So couldn't a comm just waltz out of the puddle?

Does that even count as a downside?! If I get nuked, I can always rebuild. If there's now a massive crater, I can't rebuild and a significant part of my economy is permanently removed from play.

Actually the Vanguard can survive a direct nuke as well; making the nuke 1-hit all buildings also holds Uber back on creativity, what if they want a building that can survive a nuke? They already made a unit that can do so.

1) Who cares if something can survive a nuke? That's a balance pivot that matters to practically nothing.
2) It already exists and is called the nuke defense.

What if they want a building that can survive a nuke HIT, a building that, when HIT by a nuke survives because it just has enough health, this was Uber's reasoning and it is valid. Saying everything MUST be killed in one hit by a nuke hurts their creative freedom. (Not to mention the nuke has drop off with its damage so if the crater goes that far everything wouldn't even have been killed so it even works without a building able to withstand a direct nuke)

Edit: I also told him that the vanguard can take a direct nuke hit because he said the nuke one hits everything but the commander, please read completely so that you don't make premature judgments. Thankyou.

Actually, no, the vanguard cannot survive a nuke. the only unit in the game that can is the comm. You're thinking of comsplosions, which vanguards can and will survive.

Are you sure? I would test it myself but I'm in the middle of class atm.

Maybe it is. But using the technology that Uber slaved away to make for PA is more valid.

The simplest solution to "I want X to survive a nuke" is to not make X so damn important in the first place that it HAS to survive a direct fireball. If something can't move and it eats a nuke directly in the face, then it kind of deserves to die.

What if it's near a building that is high priority? "I want to nuke X and this building that can survive a nuke is right next to it, but I don't care I want to nuke X" and so they nuke X, well as it turns out... The building nearby is now floating above the crater because of the engine. This is a limitation with the engine..