Submarines: Limited Ammunition

It's really not. You select your unit/s and say attack. The same is true of a TML.

How is this any different to the current TML once you've clicked autobuild? I wrote a mod that clicked autobuild for you the moment a TML was finished. So yes I agree they should autobuild, but the economic cost was part of their balance.

I think the ideal would be an autobuild switch, the ability to set a default state for new TMLs (which should stick between games), and the ability to flip the autobuild switch off that default while it's still in construction. Minimises required interaction while still giving you the tools to change things if circumstances require.

It isn't. So remove the button and balance them via a persistant economic drain regardless of their activity.

No more buttons!

But that changes their behaviour significantly, constant drain means you want them firing constantly, if you ever fill the launcher you're wasting resources. It's particularly bad once your opponent has TMD - with a normal build process you can stop building and try to knock out their TMD with an air strike or land units or something, then volley as much as possible before they get it back online. Constant drain means wasted resources while you try to kill the TMD.

The other thing to keep in mind, these same mechanics normally apply to nukes as well. Surely you don't think nukes should drain constantly? And if not, isn't it simpler, cleaner, and faster to code to have both launchers work the same way?

Buttons where ever they make sense!

Yes please!

So, sorta like the cruiser missiles and TMLs both being blocked by TMD then?

Yeah. Personally I would like to see tracking cruiser missiles and tactical missile rockets. Planes could be fitted with flares and antimissile defences.
IRL cruise missiles are more like planes with wings l and are pretty slow compared to missiles with rocket propulsion. Also an interesting distinction.

Okay. Scratch the constant drain. The rest stands.

I'm happy for them to be an exception based on the fact they have infinite range and are a very high cost late-game play.
No such thing as a 'Nuke snipe'.

why?

What else is left?! You're suggesting that they should autobuild with no way of controlling it? Without the ability to turn off building when you don't want to spend the resources TMLs are waaaay less viable

But why? Nuke mechanics being the same as TMLs means you have a single class of build-ammo structures, having different rules for nukes and TMLs seems like complexity for no good reason.

Less micro is less micro.
Basically I'd like to see them behave more like artillery from a UI stand-point, precise long-range artillery, that (having conceded that point) remain in the 'Hold' state a require manual intervention to fire.

If they don't drain resources until you fire off a missile, forcing them to 'reload' (i.e. build a replacement missile), then all you need to do is stop firing if your economy is suffering.

Edit: The extra development effort argument is irrelevant to discussing this as concept.
If it's a good concept, but too much effort to implement (doubtful), so be it.
I think we can leave that decision up to those who know best and would have to do the work.

ICBM's and tactical missile launchers are not even remotely comparable. Nukes level entire bases anywhere on the map, TML's have finite, if extensive, range, and only damage a single target. The TML's closest cousin is actually the static artillery, and a distinction between shells and missiles is simple and interesting to create.

And now you can't save up missiles to fire a volley.

Seriously, you're talking about removing a single two-state toggle here, which would be used fairly infrequently but has significant implications when it is. The change also adds complexity as you now have three different classes of fixed weapons instead of two. This is the wrong place to focus to try and remove micro. If you want less micro, look for places which are currently micro intensive. Things like smarter unit AI for unarmed combat support units so your scouts and mobile shield/stealth gens don't immediately go hump the leg of the nearest enemy if you don't constantly babysit them.

It's relevant because of the opportunity cost - something that's a minor improvement for basically no work is clearly worth doing, something that's a minor improvement for a lot of work isn't. Changing nukes and TMLs the same way would be basically no work (assuming both are going to be implemented in PA), so if it made things even a tiny bit better, why not? Changing them to each work differently is some work. Probably not a lot, but some, so the benefit has to be larger.

Both the Nuke and any unit like the TML should have auto-build functionality, though it should be possible to stop them. I think that using the normal unit build menu with the ability to set to an unlimited number or simply repeat a build queue ad infinitum. The option to pause building without clearing it would make stopping the missile launcher from building quite convenient.

Also they should both be able to be set to fire at will. If you have control of a planet, you surely would want your nuke silos to fire on incoming asteroids as soon as possible not just when you selected them and manually told them to fire.

Edit: Do you guys want me to retitle the tread and put up a new poll given how this has very little to do with subs and ammo anymore?

No, its the nature of threads to derail, and the poll results are fairly emphatically against ammunition. Lets see where this goes.

Yeap. That's why I'd like to see the latter perform more like arty from a UI standpoint.

They're totally comparable. One launches a missile with a larger range, damage, cost and aoe. But that's it.

Sure, if you pick all the characteristics which are different and ignore the ways they are alike they sound pretty dissimilar. They are both missile based system which build their ammo and store it in an internal stockpile. They can both volley fire from that stockpile before falling back to a much lower RoF. They are both pinpoint accurate and unable to predict target movement. They are both vulnerable to interception. Mechanically they are very similar, the difference is one of scale, not type.

All the arguments are valid but the OP did not do the poll justice and only presented half of the important information (ok, he linked the thread but who really goes to look at it)?

What the OP forgot to mention was that the idea was to make submarines considerably more powerful (taking 1-3 torps to kill a target instead of 50), expensive, glass cannons (more like real life). The other thread (and my idea) was an attempt to find a way around the feared sub spam issue.

I had envisioned it that subs would build their torps in a similar fashion to nuke launchers or tac launchers in supcom.

Sorry, but, no. Just no. Two quick points.

Nanobots. Yes, that green stuff. We have matter fabrication technology here folks. Forget about it. Our units make their own ammo.

'Nuff said.