What If We Remove GROUND Nukes?

Nukes are Superweapons in many games they are the final solution. But Planetary Annihilation is no ordinary game. Because we have orbital, we can go to other planets and we can throw asteroids(KEW).

Currently nukes are still the final solution because they are effective. Sure they are a costly but we that is normal for a nuke.

Possible solutions
Nukes
Currently they are very powerfull and might need to get nerffed. They are a way to cripple so there is no way to recover. I think they are very realistic the way they are now. But they might be to strong and to easy to get. Recource cost is high enough maybe double or triple the build time.

Interplanetary nukes is a nice idea. But it should only be possible to attack adjacent planets. Or else you would have extremely long travel times and it could be used to carpet nuke other planets. This is no fun.

I vote for only ground nukes, orbital nukes would be OP(See why at Orbital). Ground nukes should be able to be launched at planets that are close enough(and orbital).

Anti-Nukes
Auto-build is a must. The range circle should not fly in the air but trace the ground. The anti-nuke in my opinion is underpowered. It has to little range and might be to expensive.

Orbital
Why go orbital if you can go nuclear? Why build that little orbital laser if I have a Nuke that does WAY more damage in a FAR larger area? Either nukes should get nerffed or orbital should get more accesable. If orbital was cheaper and it had a similar weapon, it would promote going orbital.

Orbital weapons
Bombing platform (large AOE)
Laser platform (Giant laser, think C&C generals)
Nuke launcher (Definitly OP, range entire planet, we already have ground nuke.)

KEW (Asteroids)
They are to expensive and overpowered. You need to go orbital to get them. Take to much recources and time to make. The enemy base usually doesn't cover the entire planet so you do a lot of damage in places where it isn't needed. You might even destroy your own base.

Smaller KEWs that that are cheaper and only destory and area the size of a base would be ideal.

I can't tell if you're serious, because I have never seen an anti-nuke hit.

I just thought of a compromise; Make a nuke silo require a Radar Satellite paired to it to increase its range - either the more affordable basic, or the high-cost Advanced. This means that you need Orbital to use nukes, Orbital Fighters (however more fleshed-out they become) can be used to stop them, and their shorter unaided range lets them be used defensively or on small worlds. It's a win/win scenario... maybe.

OP's suggestion is basically turning game into worse.

As for nukes needing nerf - I disagree that they need such combinations.
IMHO solution should be very simple:
1. Add mobile anti-nuke unit (like in TA)
2. Lower the cost of anti-nukes (both: launchers and missiles (say: by 10% for a start, see how it works and if it requires further adjustments), OR if you'd need something really extreme: make anti-nuke missiles act like regular weapons: 10 seconds refire rate, no cost - though I hardly agree that there's a need for such an extreme measures).

And for the end: Realize that if you ""forgot"" to build an anti-nuke measures than it's your own fault. What you do here is kinda like forgetting to build AA guns and than complaining that fighters and bombers are OP.

The only time one of my anti-nukes missed was when I hadn't built a missile for it. I guess I am just lucky.

Nice in theory but not in practice. Once you get hit by a nuke, you're just going to keep getting hit unless you have something prepared that can get in there and destroy it, usually through the guy's entire impressive array of base defenses. No matter how spread out you are, you're losing advanced structures (including, potentially, your own nuke and any orbital launchers you had, not to mention needing to keep your commander moving), and not getting to return the favor.

Plus even if your plan was to spend all that metal on a ground attack, he can just nuke your ground attack. If you split up your ground attack to avoid the nuke, you're going to get pasted by his defenses that you are no longer overwhelming with concentrated force.

In short, nukes right now are really important to winning, largely because anti-nukes are not very good.

Nukes are a fine example of why no one in their right mind uses flat AoE damage. The only lethal part of a nuke is the fireball, which is absurdly small compared to the whole package. Everything else- the flash heat, the shockwave, etc. etc., are only dangerous to PEOPLE. Third degree burns have no relevance to a robot, and a shockwave isn't going to scratch anything that isn't an aircraft or light bot.

Nukes are very much a game ender currently, because of their extreme damage and the terrible ways to defend them. Any failure to defend can lose you the game, and there is no such thing as a partial success against a nuke.

I say they're fine.... just don't forget your anti and learn where to place it

That's the whole problem, one singular building is life and death the way nukes currently work, and it serves no other purpose.

Yes and the problem lies in???? It's a nuke the single most devastating weapon created by our species!!!!! To take it and make it weaker blah blah blah...... would just be silly, just your regular old run of the mill cruise missile at that point...

The problem doesn't really lie in the fact that nukes are powerful. The problem is that the interaction between nukes and anti-nukes is one-dimensional. If you have an anti-nuke, you're safe, if you don't you're dead. All I'm asking for is that the interaction between the two be made more interesting.

The simplest thing that could be done, for example, would be to make anti-nukes 3x cheaper, but give them a 50% chance to fail to stop the nuke. Suddenly there are a lot of interesting choices on both sides.

Do you risk firing a nuke knowing there is an anti-nuke that might stop it, or do you fire somewhere you know it will land but which has less stuff to destroy? How many anti-nukes should the defender build before he is confident his stuff is safe? How many nukes do you need to bypass the opponents anti-nukes?

I'm not advocating that this specific change be made, as chance-based defense is quite frustrating. However, I believe it is more strategically interesting and leads to a more interesting interaction between the two.

Earlier in the thread I suggested that nukes be made actual units, with HP bars and at least one other type of nuke. I believe nukes should be first class citizens just like other units. Lots of ways to use them and lots of ways to kill them. At the end of the day I don't really care how it is accomplished. Nukes are going to play a major role in large multi-planet games, so why shouldn't there be a larger variety of nukes/anti-nukes?

I have discovered that the EASIEST way by far to avoid a nuke decimating you completely is to spread your base out.

I tend to build 3-4 smaller energy fields rather than one massive one at the start of games now, and it pays off late game when the enemy lobs a nuke at what he thinks is my energy supply. This really works when the enemy doesnt defend his antinuke very well and gives me time to build my own.

It surprises me how many players I consider decent forget how important an antinuke is to the survival of their base in a ground war. Forgetfulness - easy target.

As for nerfing nukes? Two ideas:

FIRST: Make AntiNukes more effective/cheaper. This can be done any number of ways, from larger range to cheaper missiles.

Second: Make nukes more expensive (maybe 10k more metal to build a missile) and add an orbital rod launcher that doesn't have the radius a nuke does, but is just as lethal. CoD: Ghosts has these rod sats in the plot somewhere. The Russians had a project of some sort as well back in the Cold War to build these things. These will need to be balanced carefully if we would implement them. The easiest way I see is have ANukes also be able to shoot these rods out of the sky.

What we CANNOT DO:

Change the effectiveness of a nuclear strike.

Absolutely not. There are better ways to balance the game than to just remove nukes as a viable option for killing bases in emergencies, or sniping a turtle.

Random chance isn't a great mechanic, especially given the simulated of the rest of the game. I think this would actually be harmful to the player experience because the is always the chance the Nuck could get through, even if you invest waaaaaay more into into Anti-Nucks than he did into Nucks in the first.

To me a much better way to address the issue of Nucks being boring and one dimensional is to simply start from scratch. Ditch the idea that the Nucks are these huge weapons that make everything else look small, we have a new weapon for that role now, KEWs.

Then you gotta break out the differing types of weapons for this because in most cases a Nuck traditionally tries to mix high damage and large area of effect to make itself stand out form other options but in the end what it's doing is trying to do too much at once. Tactical Nucks can probably fill the role of High Pin-Point damage with other types like 'Iron Man' Jericho style missile taking up the Anti-Army Role. A Napalm Missile might force an enemy's retreating forces to take further damage and losses or go around buying time for your chasing/flanking forces to catch up. You can even do things like having some of them being 'Terrain Following' while other take paths more akin to SupCom Strategic Missiles, potentially reducing thier time 'exposed' to ground based '"counters".

Speaking on "Counters", we need to open those up too, with weapon types playing a big role, a laser might have longer range but take longer to kill a missile, a huge Kinetic Cannon might be able to knock out any missile in a single hit but would not be able to track and kill multiple simultaneous missiles. It sounds weird but all these fancy balance levers we use on units are really just as applicable here. Given how we're on Spherical planets we can apply all the new considerations we have to make with regular defenses with these. There are lots of potential ways to tackle these "counters" and only trying them will reveal a nice selection.

I think there is plenty of depth just waiting to be explored, but we have to be willing to view these weapons in the context of PA.

Mike

I say they're fine still.... never had a nuke issue in any other game..... there's already enough complicated depth and work to put in game, this debate piles on a whole bunch more........

Yes I'm against change

nukes are better on the ground, but orbital nukes should be cool, i hope we get both

OH MY GOD YES

We can't get rid of the nuke. This game is about explosions. . .

What if there was a warning, like C&C Generals had, which signaled when a super weapon was being built and a timer popped up letting you know when it would be finished? For nukes and KEW, especially KEW.


Or have the nuke travel a lot more slowly or have an up-and-out-of-orbit-then-back-into-orbit-where-the-attack-was-designated- flight path?

Something that allowed the player to build an anti nuke system in the time it takes to counter the nuke, the risk still being placement for the anti nuke to keep it interesting.


I think just building an anti nuke and then never having to worry about being nuked is a bad idea. You have to keep that risk always on the table.

You could drop the overall kinetic damage of the nuke, but only if you add an attrition damage to energy for the player whose base was hit, as well as have a blackout on radar and visibility for that area of the map for everyone in the game for a certain period of time. (from EMP)


There were a couple of points made about these units being metal not flesh, so i wonder about flame weapons in general, they seem flawed. And radiation wouldn't seem an issue, but EMP from a Nuke should be something to add here.

Now i wouldn't be opposed to having to have a line of sight presence at the target area, either by a physical unit on the ground, or a radar system in orbit over the area. As i do think a blind fire Nuke is OP.

The Nuke shouldn't be able to wipe T2 buildings and the commander in a single shot, should be a couple at least. And being able to hide your commander or jam radar so we can't just spam the commander with nukes is likely the best counter for this.

JesterMalone, your Post makes me think you're still latched on to the 'classic' Nuck setup, but as I explained, the classic definition doesn't really fit within PA. Think of it this way, PA is a game that is more or less founded upon breaking what is 'standard' and lets just add Nucks to the list shall we?

I don't like idea of forcing any kind of reveal on "super weapons", especially as we want scouting and the intelligence war to actually mean something.

The specific Flight Path doesn't really matter if there is only going to be one.

I don't think 'risk' is really the right term. Right now there is only risk if you DON'T build any Anti-Nuck, otherwise it's a very binary outcome, if you have an Anti-Nuck Missile, you destroy the incoming Nuck and take no damage, if you don't, the Nuck Hits and you suffer massive damage. With my system because you have a lot more control over your Anti-Nuck systems, for example you can be risky if you want to try and focus your Anti-Nuck systems in the direction of your enemy's base and leave the backside of your base exposed. You could technically do something like this with the current system but it's not nearly as effective because the current setup has no orientation elements built in.

Here's the thing about Robots and Fire, it can actually be quite deadly, sure maybe not in the same immediately incapacitating way it affects people, but Robots have a lot of Electronics in them, and high heat applied over time can cause failures just like it does for a person, it's not quite the same things as blowing armor off and such but it's close enough that it can be considered feasible.

Mike

Orbital Anti-Nukes would be interesting. You could relocate them based on scouting informaton or make them follow your army in orbit.

As long as you think of nukes as game enders, they will never be good.

There is one other counter to nukes though: bombers. Unfortunately right now that counter can largely be broken by just parking a bunch of T2 fighters around the nuke site. Incoming fighters won't shoot at landed fighters because they are "ground targets" but the landed fighters will shoot back, effectively making them into an array of amazingly powerful missile turrets.

I'm hoping that's a bug/oversight that will get fixed.

I can bomb nukes pretty reliably, regardless of defenses, unless someone is doing THAT, provided I scout regularly enough to see it in time.