AA - Core Tactical Nuke

[CautionToTheWind]

In AA, Core has a Tactical Nuke launcher that i think is extremelly unbalanced. I've been using it to great effect for some time, but now is the time to be a man and bring it to your attention, because i want the game to improve more than i want to win easy games.

So here's the deal - there is no defense against tac nukes. They have more range than everything except LRPC and the bigger nukes.

Just yesterday i was playing castles against a much better player. While i only held my castle, my much better opponent had a multi-layered defense of llts, hlts, etc. He had lots on the entrance to his castle, and he had also taken some of the rich metal spot between castles and had lots of defense there too. But i had a single Core Tac Nuke launcher, and it had loaded up 6 tac nukes. I also had an army of mixed lvl1 and lvl2 kbots. So i just sent my army straight to him (i right click the middle of his castle) and i shoot the 6 tac nukes to clear a pathway to his base. It works like a charm, all other defense structures rendered obsolete to the tacnuke. I won, not because i was a better player, not because i held the map, but because i just raced to the powerful weapon. So please fix AA so that this method of play doesn't win.

Also, Arm's "equivalent" is an EMP missile that, well... tickles? while the core tacnuke _destroys_. That's just not fair. I realize the "stun" duration will increase when spring allows it (or maybe it did already) but stun just cant compare to destroy.

Finally i realise that not all maps and situations are prone to a good use of tacnukes, but in those that are, core shouldn't have such an overwhelming advantage. For those who scorn at castles, try tacnukes on the land portion of deltasiege. It's brilliant and a great surprise to all those guardian-builders. You can just teach a lesson by shooting a couple, or you can store half a dozen and combine with a ground army to just win.

[.MJJNL.]

Umm next time post it in the AA (version) thread

[Machiosabre]

so what was the better player doing while you were making tacnukes?

[KDR_11k]

Tacnukes have very short range so on most maps you'd need to build an outpost to have them reach your opponent. If in doubt an antinuke will stop the missile IIRC. Other than that the only real defense is to prevent the enemy from firing any of those near your base (attack the outpost before the nukes are ready). Same goes for LRPCs and nukes, of course.

I don't think there'd have been much of an effective difference between stunning his defense and destroying it if you're marching through that spot with an army anyway.

[Pxtl]

Tacnukes have very short range so on most maps you'd need to build an outpost to have them reach your opponent. If in doubt an antinuke will stop the missile IIRC. Other than that the only real defense is to prevent the enemy from firing any of those near your base (attack the outpost before the nukes are ready). Same goes for LRPCs and nukes, of course.

I don't think there'd have been much of an effective difference between stunning his defense and destroying it if you're marching through that spot with an army anyway.

antinukes don't stop tacnukes. Also, the range is rarely a problem - in almost every game, the territories are as close to each other as weapon ranges allow, but no closer. Bases are HLT-range apart until the guardians push it back to guardian-range.

Also, notice that I've never seen anyone use Arm's EMP missile launcher.

[Egarwaen]

1) Post in the damn AA thread.

2) Pop-up weapons.

3) Pop-up weapons.

4) Pop-up weapons.

5) Don't play on stupid-ass porcfests like Castles.

6) Air.

Was that concise enough for you?

[Pxtl]

1) Post in the damn AA thread.

2) Pop-up weapons.

3) Pop-up weapons.

4) Pop-up weapons.

5) Don't play on stupid-ass porcfests like Castles.

6) Air.

Was that concise enough for you?

I have never played a game on Castles where the winner only built in/behind the castle. The castle keeps weak players in, not good players out. The map would only be a porcfest if there weren't oodles of resources on the sand.

If you play porcfest on Castles, you lose.

[CautionToTheWind]

Pxtl said it.

Machiosabre, the better player built a very good defense, a much better economy, he raided all my less protected stuff (like mexes outside castle walls at the map edge). The problem is that i, with a much smaller investment, simply erased all his defense in an easy path for an army to pass.

KDR_11k, the difference between stunning and killing, besides the fact that living stuff will shoot back at you after a while, is that when my army arrived, there was no blockage at all by any structure, unit or metal wreck. The enemy commander was the only target for my units to shoot at during their calm invasion. Since i was facing no defenses and was in no rush because of some "stun timer", i let my units just march in, and they formed a long line to the enemy castle. So when the enemy commander exploded it didnt even kill much of my army. Antinukes dont take out tacnukes. Saying the enemy had to rush my castle, against my defense and take out the tacnuke before it fired is asking too much. The tacnuke isnt even that expensive. Making it more expensive is also not the solution.

I think anti-nukes should "catch" tacnukes. Then in a closer siege, tacnukes can also be used to waste antinuke defenses, saving up the big boys. Also Arm should get a tacnuke that actually destroys, or gets much more stun range and duration.

[ZellSF]

CORE tactical nukes are pretty powerful, yes. But not building your base very concentrated where possible will make a large difference.

also, as mentioned earlier, if you're building a tactical nuke, your opponent should be building something at least as powerful as it.

I think missile defences should work against them though.

[CautionToTheWind]

also, as mentioned earlier, if you're building a tactical nuke, your opponent should be building something at least as powerful as it.

I think missile defences should work against them though.

yeah, the problem is that my opponent playing ARM has nothing "at least as powerful as it" on the same price range. They can only get the big nukes.

Yeah, lets hope missile defenses are made to work against them.

[Egarwaen]

Saying the enemy had to rush my castle, against my defense and take out the tacnuke before it fired is asking too much. The tacnuke isnt even that expensive. Making it more expensive is also not the solution.

1) You're playing a Porc map. Expect this kind of play or play a more sensible map. Don't butcher a working mod to make it fit maps built to encourage broken play-styles.

2) Ever hear the phrase "air raid"? And "scouting"? Sounds like your opponent was porcing heavily.

3) Pop-up weapons.

4) Post in the AA thread.

5) Arm EMP missiles are fine. You don't need to "rush" anything. You just waltz through, blowing up paralyzed defences as you go. They just need to be a little cheaper - right now, they're more expensive than the Core missiles.

[Pxtl]

also, as mentioned earlier, if you're building a tactical nuke, your opponent should be building something at least as powerful as it.

I think missile defences should work against them though.

yeah, the problem is that my opponent playing ARM has nothing "at least as powerful as it" on the same price range. They can only get the big nukes.

Yeah, lets hope missile defenses are made to work against them.

Ick, no. If missile defenses could take out tacnukes, then tacnukes could be used as anti-missile-defense units. Just spam out tacnukes to burn the ammo out of his missile defense. The nuke-balance is good now, doing that would screw it up.

[smoth]

there is an AA thread... USE IT!

[Kixxe]

How about the sheild blocks tac nukes? Every one's comparing them to the superior version of the BB so... >.>

[NOiZE]

Post in the AA thread.

Locked