Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
Moderator: Content Developer
- Aether_0001
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 03:41
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
I used 7-zip to look at the unit defs. I hope that suffices.
So "nuclear explosion" isn't an "atomic blast"? I hope you do delineate the difference.
And I do hope you agree that tacnukes ARE completely worthless compared to EMP missiles and liches. Either EMP and liches are insanely OP, or tacnukes are completely useless so far.
So "nuclear explosion" isn't an "atomic blast"? I hope you do delineate the difference.
And I do hope you agree that tacnukes ARE completely worthless compared to EMP missiles and liches. Either EMP and liches are insanely OP, or tacnukes are completely useless so far.
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
Look at the damages, it has a selfd damage of 9500 and an explosion damage of 2400. For comparison, the core nuke has damage of 11500 and i think arm nuke has damage of 9500.
No, I do not agree. EMP has one use: taking out antis for long enough so nuke can fire. You need a nuke for it, you need to have an enemy with a very small amount of antis and you need to have them all scouted.
Liches? You mean the ones that get eaten by fighters? I've seen a lot of liche rushing nowdays, but as far as i could see it worked mainly when enemies had no aa and an uncloaked / unjammed com standing somewhere. By that measure thud is super op if enemy has no units and com just stands in one place.
No, I do not agree. EMP has one use: taking out antis for long enough so nuke can fire. You need a nuke for it, you need to have an enemy with a very small amount of antis and you need to have them all scouted.
Liches? You mean the ones that get eaten by fighters? I've seen a lot of liche rushing nowdays, but as far as i could see it worked mainly when enemies had no aa and an uncloaked / unjammed com standing somewhere. By that measure thud is super op if enemy has no units and com just stands in one place.
Last edited by BaNa on 20 Jan 2011, 05:06, edited 1 time in total.
- Aether_0001
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 03:41
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
And how much damage do you think an exploding building should deal to make a painful crippled hole on your frontline?
EDIT:
Your drawing also is not from the firing position I meant. From the outer ring, attacking to an adjacent base, you need a missile at your midpoint. If you were on that upper platform, everything is closer. Heck if you were on that upper platform you could make a guardian and hurt the guy under you. (granted, not as much range but you could get the geo)
It's death explosion is as powerful as its actual weapon. Given that there isn't much room between your defense and where you would place your launcher, its death means your towers (squished around your launcher) will get heavily damaged. Which is a perfect opportunity once your enemy has bombed/destroyed your launcher, which would definitely hurt surrounding structures - that AND the explosion, and the ensuing rush of enemy tanks knowing your missile went off would do your defense line in.
EDIT:
Your drawing also is not from the firing position I meant. From the outer ring, attacking to an adjacent base, you need a missile at your midpoint. If you were on that upper platform, everything is closer. Heck if you were on that upper platform you could make a guardian and hurt the guy under you. (granted, not as much range but you could get the geo)
It's death explosion is as powerful as its actual weapon. Given that there isn't much room between your defense and where you would place your launcher, its death means your towers (squished around your launcher) will get heavily damaged. Which is a perfect opportunity once your enemy has bombed/destroyed your launcher, which would definitely hurt surrounding structures - that AND the explosion, and the ensuing rush of enemy tanks knowing your missile went off would do your defense line in.
That is an exaggeration, it needs 2 shots to kill an HLT, or a kbot lab, or a moho MM.On first strike that is 15000 damage to a given building, more than enough to take out an adv. fusion.
Last edited by Aether_0001 on 20 Jan 2011, 05:14, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
look, something aint right about your logic. You decry the 2500 damage the tacnuke missile does as not even being enough to kill an HLT, yet consider the 2400 damage it does on explosion to be super op frontline crippling.Aether_0001 wrote:And how much damage do you think an exploding building should deal to make a painful crippled hole on your frontline?
For the record, I didnt say you should make them on your frontlines, I'm just using your own arguments here.
- Aether_0001
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 03:41
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
Sorry, I made an edit to my post before you replied.
EDIT: Basically I meant that your towers are close to your launcher if you were to make it on frontline, which means they'd be close to the explosion. They'd be weakened by that AND by whatever enemy used to kill your launcher, which means your frontline would be WAY weaker at that point.
EDIT: Basically I meant that your towers are close to your launcher if you were to make it on frontline, which means they'd be close to the explosion. They'd be weakened by that AND by whatever enemy used to kill your launcher, which means your frontline would be WAY weaker at that point.
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
It supposedly (unless ba armorclasses muck about) does 2500 damage. 2500*6=15000.Aether_0001 wrote: That is an exaggeration, it needs 2 shots to kill an HLT, or a kbot lab, or a moho MM.
- Aether_0001
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 03:41
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
My bad, I thought you meant you were going to use one tactical nuke.
Why build 6 tactical nukes when you can build 1 EMP nuke for the same cost and make 1-3 rockets for that, which are cheaper, and then fire a real nuke? Arm nukes are cheaper than those of core anyway. Instead of killing one building (even an adv fusion), wouldn't it be so much better to kill a whole base with the same cost?
You agree that something needs to be done, no?
Why build 6 tactical nukes when you can build 1 EMP nuke for the same cost and make 1-3 rockets for that, which are cheaper, and then fire a real nuke? Arm nukes are cheaper than those of core anyway. Instead of killing one building (even an adv fusion), wouldn't it be so much better to kill a whole base with the same cost?
You agree that something needs to be done, no?
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
edit: sorry im tired, i see you understood this. I would say that if you can take out an afus it ends the whole base anyway and that there is no counter, that is why.BaNa wrote: It costs 1/10th as much as cornuk, its missile costs 1/3rd as much as cornuk missile. For the cost of one nuke silo + missile, you can make 6 tacnukes with each containing one missile (you even have metal spare for one extra missile). On first strike that is 15000 damage to a given building, more than enough to take out an adv. fusion. I stress that they cannot be defended against with antis.
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
I would consider six tacnuke launchers to be similar in value to 1 regular nuke and 1 EMP launcher *if* those tacnuke launchers had similar range to the EMP launcher. Since they don't, I don't.
Either way, I think the tacnuke is fine - it's a niche weapon. I just think the EMP launcher is OP as an antinuke-disabling-system.
Either way, I think the tacnuke is fine - it's a niche weapon. I just think the EMP launcher is OP as an antinuke-disabling-system.
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
Think again. It is just a surprise strategy like combomb, comdrop, liche rush.Pxtl wrote: Either way, I think the tacnuke is fine - it's a niche weapon. I just think the EMP launcher is OP as an antinuke-disabling-system.
There are even plenty of good counters like mobile antinuke, decoy fusion in front of anti, steep hill or vulcan nanoframe.Also antinuke is a lot cheaper than EMP silo so if enemy can afford EMP you can afford a spare anti.
- Aether_0001
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 03:41
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
Yeah, I agree. However, I rarely find a situation in which you would be close enough to an enemy to use tacnuke effectively - the throne scenario you showed is a good example, although usually I've seen those people killed early by the lower platforms who have control of more area. Was just asking for a range boost because I felt it was an expensive, hard to build structure that is easily a prime target and destroyed early.BaNa wrote: I would say that if you can take out an afus it ends the whole base anyway and that there is no counter, that is why.
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
I'm going to say something that will make a lot of people go "wtf," some, "no," and some "YESSSSSSSSSSSSS."
Remove the tacnuke from the CORE t2 buildlist. Remove the hedgehog from the CORE T2 veh fac. Give Scarab (ARM T2 KBOT factory) Anti-tacnuke anti. Place CORE tacnuke in hedgehog, and increase hedgehog cost. Add tacnuke truck back into CORE veh list. It exemplifies CORE's brutish image even more, and gives ARM another likewise image booster with another special "niche unit," and a way to counter the tacnuke. The tacnuke range would have to be decreased if it were a mobile veh, but the mobility would make up for it. Also consider upping the tacnuke AoE, it can hit an entire lab in one circle of effect, but even if it doesn't kill the lab it should blow some nanos nearby IMO.
Remove the tacnuke from the CORE t2 buildlist. Remove the hedgehog from the CORE T2 veh fac. Give Scarab (ARM T2 KBOT factory) Anti-tacnuke anti. Place CORE tacnuke in hedgehog, and increase hedgehog cost. Add tacnuke truck back into CORE veh list. It exemplifies CORE's brutish image even more, and gives ARM another likewise image booster with another special "niche unit," and a way to counter the tacnuke. The tacnuke range would have to be decreased if it were a mobile veh, but the mobility would make up for it. Also consider upping the tacnuke AoE, it can hit an entire lab in one circle of effect, but even if it doesn't kill the lab it should blow some nanos nearby IMO.
- Aether_0001
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 03:41
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
IMO that wouldn't work :/ The reason is it would add another thing for people to have to counter against (imo antis, AA, ground defense, and tacnukes are enough), and core can't even counter tacnukes cause they have no scarab.
But I do support having core tacnuke be a mobile :>
But I do support having core tacnuke be a mobile :>
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
Agreed, it needs a buff. Only time I ever used tactical nuke efficiently was on tabula... I misclicked and built tact. nuke accidentally but then realised that I can kill the top right player with it! Only time I've ever felt like it would be useful.
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: 23 Dec 2008, 20:26
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
ive onced seen them used efficiently on folsom, where some porc/base hybrid right on the bridge was killed with it.
that was one good use in some hundred games ive seen.
i think this unit could use some more range. right now its inefficient in a battle since it takes too long to build and load, and its inefficient as a siege weapon since the range is too small
on the other hand, do we really want a weapon that has no counter to be good? (like that stupid emp missile that is no fun at all and has no counter)
that was one good use in some hundred games ive seen.
i think this unit could use some more range. right now its inefficient in a battle since it takes too long to build and load, and its inefficient as a siege weapon since the range is too small
on the other hand, do we really want a weapon that has no counter to be good? (like that stupid emp missile that is no fun at all and has no counter)
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
I'd actually like to see more costly shit that has no counter to make ghey games end quicker.Hackfresser wrote: on the other hand, do we really want a weapon that has no counter to be good? (like that stupid emp missile that is no fun at all and has no counter)
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
TBH the special damage to coms is ridiculous (as in most cases with BA)
It should 1 hit a com. If your stupid enough to let your com get tact nuked you deserve it.
A unit with a high cost/reload time used primarily to kill stacked nano farms sounds a bit stupid. Might as well make a bertha for the extra cost.
If you have enough cash to stockpile a load of missiles or build multiple tact nukes. Bertha/intim would be way better.
A situational FFA or porc only weapon seems a bit redundant.
It should 1 hit a com. If your stupid enough to let your com get tact nuked you deserve it.
A unit with a high cost/reload time used primarily to kill stacked nano farms sounds a bit stupid. Might as well make a bertha for the extra cost.
If you have enough cash to stockpile a load of missiles or build multiple tact nukes. Bertha/intim would be way better.
A situational FFA or porc only weapon seems a bit redundant.
- forest_devil
- Posts: 140
- Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 17:36
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
didnt read thread
made one a on tabula and the only thing i can complain about is its range.
10 - 20% more range is all it needs at most
made one a on tabula and the only thing i can complain about is its range.
10 - 20% more range is all it needs at most
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
I dont know why this is even an issue, it costs as much as two t2 bombers, each shot costs as much and deals as much damage, and has no counter.
Re: Tactical Nuke (Core) needs a buff...
We could try to lower buildtime a bit and maybe make missiles cost like 400?
That would make it more deployable and the use more sustainable (it isnt worth it after like second shot atm), which was one of the issues brought up in the thread.
That would make it more deployable and the use more sustainable (it isnt worth it after like second shot atm), which was one of the issues brought up in the thread.