What if Nukes Weren't Superweapons?

It occurs to me.. no matter what kind of nuke system we use, what about a UI hint element that when you hover over an area with your nuke selected, it gives you an estimate of the amount of resources you will destroy & damage dealt?

( ) - Nuke Cost: 2400 mass, 15,000 energy
- Damage dealt: 27 mobiles, 10 structures
- Estimated resource damage inflicted: 4200 mass, 10,000 energy (25% uncertainty)

Eh, that feels like something that should just come naturally as you learn how to play, seeing as we're all using the same units you learn the required info for that kind of assessment just by building the things yourself.

Mike

Why?

Why would we assume that it's good gameplay to force the player to memorize unit stats, and then try to make players do math in their head, rather than giving them tools to make informed decisions?

Pawz I think you are exaggerating the difficulty of determining if a target is worth nuking. It isn't rocket science (so to speak). Look at how much the nuke costs. Look at how much stuff the enemy has in that spot. If it looks like a lot of stuff, the nuke will probably pay for itself.

The "all or nothing" nature of nukes has virtually nothing to do with its raw numbers. Rather, it's a problem with nuke design in general. Just look at this thrilling account of nuke based gameplay:

Code:

Nuke launcher- kills players without nuke defense.
Nuke defense- don't lose instantly to a nuke launcher.

It's hard to tell which unit is more one dimensional! Expanding the design of nukes is more important, so that they aren't a mere tech check to kill opponents without nuke defense.

The only way to do this is to improve the design of both units. How much damage can a nuke do? Where are the good counters? Where are the okay'ish counters? How does the defense tool play into all this? What else can the defense do?


Here are some thoughts that I came up with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Nukes are targetable units. Yes, you can finally shoot them down.
2) Nukes are fast and durable units. No, it's not easy to shoot them down, but interceptors and anti air/anti orbital weapons will take their chances.
3) Nukes blow up when destroyed.
What does this do?
- With good terrain control and strong defenses, the defender can eliminate the nuke without a single nuke defense.
- A-blobbing interceptors against nukes is a bad idea. Some losses are expected, but better control means fewer units get caught in the explosion.
- Bases that shoot down overhead nukes still suffer the explosion, albeit with less pain. It's no longer an instant loss of the base.
- It's a good idea to escort your nukes, or take advantage of the distraction.

Okay, now lets make SMD interesting.
4) Strategic missile defense is replaced with an exotic super weapon.
5) The ammo is manufactured, similar to SMD.
6) The weapon deals extreme (totally fatal) damage to a very small area (like a single target). The target vanishes without a trace. (no wreckage, no explosion)
7) These weapons have excellent ability to intercept small, fast units.
What does this do?
- It's a sniping weapon, similar to the Supcom TML but with more range and more fire power.
- Any high value target can be destroyed, making it useful against super units in general.
- Collateral explosive damage doesn't exist.
- When the weapon hits a nuke, the nuke is gone. No explosion, no problem. Perfect nuke defense. And the best part is that it's entirely optional.


Any potential balance problems aren't too difficult to deal with:
- LOS fire allows limited targeting, mostly against air threats, nuke threats, and orbital threats. Kind of lame though, IMO seeking would be best.
- Commanders can avoid a seeking weapon through cloaking (with other options possible). Sniper, no sniping.

Maybe, but at the same time, the stats memorized have much more utility because you'r units(and EVERY enemy you'll face) have the same stats.

It's like how I, as a StarCraft II Terran player, know a marine costs 50 minerals, not because I spent time memorizing it, but because I played with marines and learned it naturally, on the other hand, I have no idea what an Infestor costs because I haven't studied it. the result is still memorization, but HOW I memorized them is different.

Because we're all using the same units learning thing like this will be a lot more natural to players, and using a crutch as you suggest won't make for better players.

Mike

LOL bobucles, haha, seriously?

Forget nuke rush- SMD exotic super weapon rush. Instagib enemy commander using strategic missile defense, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Really, bobucles? Is this not infinitely worse than actual nukes? And antinuke, in order to be useful against actual nukes... has to cost... less...?

And if nukes are shrunk, then they don't end the game if just one goes off. Basic premise of this thread is small, cheap nukes. Planet killer weapons are one-shot-ends-the-game territory.

Furthermore, if nukes can be targeted by anti-air, then you have to make them durable enough that they can get past a normal amount of anti-air or they are completely useless. Which.... produces exactly the same problem as with SMD, but now it's a question of whether you went overboard on anti-air, not whether you have SMD.

Manually attacking incoming missiles? As in, requiring a player to issue an attack order in the next five seconds or they lose the game? Really?

With strong defenses, nukes are completely negated? Really? Aren't nukes one of the tools the non-turtle uses to break a turtle?

Point by point bobucles, your previous post fails to improve the gameplay of nukes and antinukes in TA or SupCom/FA.

I didn't think I'd have to justify bringing more information to the player's fingertips so he can make decisions with better info.

OK, your reasoning is akin to saying that Zero-K should not have an artillery impact circle hint.. since, by your logic, we should all have used artillery and memorized what the radius / inaccuracy of a particular artillery will be. It's not like Supcom failed miserably because it didn't have it.. but ZeroK is still an improvement, and I think we should strive for better, not 'just as good'.


Bobucles, I appreciate off the wall ideas, although I think you gave Ledarsi a heart attack .

The concept of a shootable nuke is a pretty good one, although I would suggest that rather than going with your idea of an high powered laser to burn the nuke, we introduce the idea of anti-ordnance units - structures and units that are specifically designed to intercept and destroy incoming ordnance. If all bigger weapons have a hit point value, and all of them explode when destroyed (possibly with diminished power), then you end up with a dynamic where nukes are no longer an on/off scenario, but a graduated one.

Perhaps the first nuke didn't get through, but it did light damage and distracted defenses enough to get the next one closer, and the third one actually got close enough to blow away part of the defensive line, and the fourth landed on target.

I'm divided on the subject of having these indicators of exactly the damage that will be done.

I think a large part of the game should be your "gut instinct", so to say... And it sounds weird to limit info like that, but... yeah.

Edit:

And it'd defeat a large part of the bluffing in the game. For example, one of the scarier things in any RTS is seeing a massive army, even of low tech weak units. You couldn't try to use this to save your game by tricking a confident careless player, as they wouldn't at all be scared by the massive horde rushing towards them when a little indicator pops up telling them it's harmless.

I don't mind something along the lines of what we had in FA for Nucks, AOE is arguably abstract, we can look at the numbers and know X weapons has 5 AOE, but when you're looking at a map(and from whatever Zoom Level you happen to be at) and trying to figure out just how large an AOE of 5 actually is.......

So basically, if I go to launch a Nuck, I want there to be an indication of where it will do it's damage(as in FA) and by seeing what's in the base and what will be actually damaged I should be able to figure out the worth of the units being damaged/destroyed on my own just by the virtue that I'm already familiar with those units because I have the same ones.

Now, should it not work out like that, then we can look at options, I still am not favorable of yours as you presented it Pawz, in part due to it being a crutch, but also because you included a random element into it, making a crutch that could break as soon as you put weight on it.

Mike

It's not a random element, it's a % indicating how much of your targeted space has been scouted. I admit I didn't explain it though

And frankly, to 'bluff' the other player by counting on the fact that he can't distinguish a large group of enemy units quickly and easily has got a lot more to do with poor unit identification than anything else, which is not something that is desirable anyways.

We should be pushing for ways to bluff and mess with the other player via tactics and gameplay elements, not via poor aesthetics and information-poor UI. A better option, for example, would be a light unit that spams radar signatures...

Wouldn't it be clearer to leave that out and just account for scouted units/structures?

Mike

A big NO against estimated destroyed units. This just invalidates scouting.

MIRV? yes. hell yes. carpet nuking should be a viable tactic. MIRVs should always be air-burst. This means that they have a much bigger but much less intense "center of impact". MIRVS should work against small, low HP units and thin bases.

Big nukes: no. The Tsar Bomba was awesome but hugely impractical. Bigger nukes are less efficient at destruction than several smaller nukes.

In PA, i would opt for smaller nukes with a smaller blast radius than the MIRV. this is a high-intensity ground-detonation nuke (or perhaps even ground penetration nuke?) that does massive damage to a small area.

Nuke defence:

first off: the failing of nuke defence should not be a game-ender. TA-like nuclear explosions (appropriately scaled) should be the norm.

Lasers and missiles:

i would opt for both: a laser is a high-power energy cannon. It has a shorter range than the missile, requires several seconds of focus on a nuke to destroy it. It is most effective against a MIRV.

Missiles are much longer range but require a slight deployment time, and are ammo-based.


Lasers would be built in areas where you expect the enemy to nuke you. Missile defences work best against nuke flight paths. a MIRV would be easily destroyable by a missile if it has not yet deployed. Once deployed, Lasers work better.

Alternative: lasers are much weaker but operate on LOS: if it can see the nuke, it can shoot the nuke. However, it requires a much longer shooting time.


Compromise: anti-missile railgun. A big arty-esque cannon that shoots guided bullets.

Nukes should be a tactical asset that break turtles. I would like to refer to a missile-vs-laser debate on Atomic Rocket (an argument wheter spaceships will use missiles or lasers). The laser-side assumes that lasers will always shoot more lightpulses than the enemy can fire missiles. The missile side argues that any form of point defence can always be saturated by more missiles. this argument has never been resolved.


Any anti-nuke defence will always have the ability to out-defend nukes. Any nuke launcher will wlaways hae the ability to saturate nuke defence. My problem with nukes is the power that 1 nuke broguht to Supcom (especially 2).

Are you blind? I just gave the solution in the same post. Cloak, and let the damn thing fly by. If the Commander has a problem with a weapon, then address it with the Commander. It's not rocket surgery.

Stationary defenses do not prevent nukes from reaching their destination, and they do not prevent the nuclear blast. Only mobile units can stop the nuke mid flight.

The nuke is manually launched, isn't it? Name one game where a strategic launch isn't relevant nor demands an immediate response.

No, it's not the same problem. Air defenses are something you build against many threats in the game. The money is never wasted. Nuke defense is something you build in case of a nuke launcher. No launcher == complete waste.

If you don't want to intercept the missile the hard way, then use the revamped SMD instead. EZPZ.

Basically, you can't see that I did this:

without touching the size of the nuke one bit. It's a funny thing called a "tradeoff". The nuke trades its chance of binary all/nothing success rate, to gain a series of low/mid/high damage partial successes. The nuke's peak damage is no longer a balance problem, because it is easier to prevent the nuke from dealing peak damage.

An anti-ordinance unit might help, but would likely prove insufficient. Interceptors are included because the most damage should be dealt by intercepting the missile in flight. Last second attacks (like inside the base) would not prevent the damage in any way.

What i like is the idea that the nuke can be targeted and shot by other units. What i don't like is that being the only defence

I like bobucles idea. A weapon suited to neutralize a nuke could have many characteristics.
Make the nuke disappear:As bobucles suggested the nuke would disappear and you can prevent the explosion that way.
Disable the nuke:A weapon that disables the nuke with EMP or whatever. Maybe you could even pick it up afterwards and send it back at the enemy.
Hacking the nuke:
A fast long range drone that can hack units could be good against nuke missiles.
Destroying the nuke: Using a weapon with long range like a long range missile, fast airunits or a long range laser could be able to destroy at ranges where the damage to your base isn't critical.

As for time to react. In SupCom the "Strategic Launch Detected" would mean you have plenty of time to select your units and set them to fire at an incoming nuke.
Arguably units that are good at taking out nukes at long ranges would do so automatically and the nuke could even be more "visible" because it is radioactive or something like that.

You're in the middle of an attack on an enemy base. pretty much your entire fast force is there and your land is underway. You only have a couple of turrets back home because you're an aggressive player. the enemy sends a nuke. you can not defend because your fast units are too far and you base is too undefended. Boom, end base.


I think a target-able nuke is fine. I do not believe that anti-nuke weapons have to be specifically anti nuke: anything that can take down a nuclear missile can also take down other missiles. In fact, i'd use the laser-type defense as a kind of "bubble shield" against destructible projectiles

I like the idea of nukes, but gameplay wise they have (since adulthood) bored me.
I don’t want to win with a nuke, its not satisfying and I’d only do it occasionally to see it in effect, and normally v the ai.
I don’t want to loose to a nuke, but I don’t mind loosing - I want to have a hard fought fight that’s fun even when I loose – nuke battles are rarely drawn-out tense battles. My base instantly disappearing in a puff of smoke is simply not fun.

So, I’d keep the anti-nuke, and cheap in comparison to the nuke – I think we are all agreed on that – so cheap that you realistically should always send in bombers to destroy their anti-nuke as you know that they will definitely have at least one anti-nuke. – it takes planning and combined arms to win with a nuke.

An anti nuke that is never used is effectively wasted, so having an anti-nuke that is multipurpose seems obvious – at least it does now that it’s been mentioned by others Perhaps strategic missile launchers should auto target nukes, and manually target ground units. i dont think you need multiple methods to stop nukes.

Also I would expand the nuke itself into something a little different - missiles with multiple types of warhead choices – and all of them have different tactical uses – a standard nuke, a stun effect, or an acid effect, or area denial through napalm, deploys chaff/smoke to affect radar/line of sight, short lived force field that traps (or protects) those in the bubble, earthquake generator, fakes and army on the radar whilst in flight, quick hardening foam – instantaneous weak wall, mine layer, - to me this keeps the potential to have a missile battle, but with greater depth and possibilities – then missiles are weapons to deploy with your army, rather than weapons to build instead of an army.

ultimately Asteroids are the new nukes (there’s a slogan for you), so nukes need a different role.

1) Attention is a limited resource for ANY game. Both players will be stretching each other's limits, no matter what. This is not a problem unique to nukes.

2) I did not neglect SMD. The nuke defense is still there in all its glory, and it still negates all potential damage from the nuke. I merely expanded its role to work against more than a single unit.

The nuke can not be powerful and dependent on a single counter. It's... just bad. Rather than nerf the explosion, I opted to increase the counters. Attacking the nuke directly is a soft counter, as destroying the nuke often involves sacrificing units or taking damage anyway. Launching volleys of nukes is probably a bad idea if the explosion can't be disabled.

It's no longer obvious if a nuke will or won't succeed, and that makes nuke play more interesting. Should you escort the nuke? Destroy perimeter defenses first? Or maybe sacrifice it as a distraction? What if the enemy destroys the nuke as it leaves your launcher? :lol:

Alright that's much more reasonable. I think we agree on a good set of principles/goals for what to do for nuke gameplay, although your SMD idea is a bit strange.

Allow me to take a stab at amending it. Now that I have thought about your offensive SMD idea a bit more, the principle isn't bad- the point I objected to is that the SMD you describe is essentially the ultimate game ending weapon. Cheap, long-range, precise, and incredibly lethal, and I would rather build one of those than an actual nuke every time.

However there are already weapons in the SupCom/FA and even Zero K that are sort of like that. Tactical missile launchers, for example.

So what about having the tactical missile launcher also act as strategic missile defense?

Not super weapons, but otherwise quite similar to the role you suggested for strategic missile defense to double as an independently useful offensive unit. Which in and of itself actually gives players an incentive to pre-emptively construct SMD, which is actually an excellent idea.

I think it is a bad idea to have anti-air simultaneously function as antinuke universally. However you have sold me on the gameplay concept of having nukes with counterplay and counter-counterplay. I'm not sure of the best way to do this, but collapsing two dimensions of gameplay into just "anti-air" destroys a lot of possible variability. For example, a player might be using air units extensively, prompting the enemy to build a lot of anti-air. It would be less useful for this player to build nukes than someone using ground units, against an enemy skimping on anti-air. Keeping antinuke and anti-air separate prevents this kind of convergence-based elimination of game state diversity.

If anti-air and antinuke are synonymous, then any area that is well defended against air units will simultaneously be well defended against nukes. You can't have an antinuke vulnerable to air strikes, or an air defense vulnerable to nukes.

I also disagree that it is necessarily bad to have powerful nukes with an express antinuke counter. Used to excess, this type of relation is indeed bad. But having just one mechanic of this type is perfectly fine, provided the antinuke is more efficient than the nuke.