About Nuke And AntiNuke

Is it too easy to win the game using the Trinity+Shockley strategy? Even if multiple antinuke units are built, there is still a risk of being hit by a nuclear attack. Could it be appropriately weakened?

Additionally, in the case where the opponent possesses nuclear weapons, our side cannot quickly end the battle. As long as our troops step out of the anti-nuclear attack range, there is a risk of being attacked by nuclear weapons. Constructing an anti-nuclear weapon costs 3500, and it is immobile, unable to move along with the troops. If we want to advance forward, we must construct anti-nuclear weapons.

However, the antinuke is too vulnerable to destruction. Any blue player can come up with over a dozen ways to destroy it. Isn't this too unfair for the early dominant team?

Moreover, since achieving victory in this manner is excessively effortless, it becomes highly tempting for novice players to emulate. Numerous individuals commence the game by constructing nuclear weapons, and until such weapons are completed, their status is indistinguishable from that of an AFK (away from keyboard) player

Here are some personal suggestions:
1. The cost of Trinity is only 8000, which is slightly lower compared to other super weapons. The cost can be appropriately increased, for example, from 8000 to 10000
2. Add mobile deployable anti-nuclear weapons to Strider Hub to facilitate rapid advancement by the dominant side, rather than requiring the construction of an anti-nuclear weapon every time they advance a little
3. Add a stealth function to antinuke, making it difficult to be easily detected by swift. Only the aftermath generated by a sparrow explosion can detect antinuke



Cite the following battle

https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/2419807
https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/2419324

All of this has far more to do with player behavior in large teams than game balance.

Small teams are not plagued by these problems despite the fact each individual player has more income, and therefore easier access to expensive things. Yet somehow, games are not held up for half an hour because a defensive player has access to a trinity.


At this point it's more a question: do players that make 20 cons and reclaim the front while building a trinity in the back make the game fun for the team?

Lawesome9, for that you need 600 metal in built storages, 3k metal stored, and ~7k metal in cons to rush out the the antinuke. If you can afford to have 11k metal just not doing anything whatsoever until the nuke goes off, you're probably easily winning regardless.

Mobile anti-nuke have been removed from the game to make counterplay easier between nuke and anti-nuke.
GoogleFrog explains this in this cold-take:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/4155212770698415116
Reef, the ship carrier, used to have anti-nuke and be cloakable.
So ships went from having the strongest anti-nuke to the weakest where you are forced to terraform and make it very obvious where to find and target the anti-nuke.
This is still kinda fine since ships are so fast they can kinda dodge nukes somewhat anyway.

You also have to factor in the cost of the nuclear missile cost which is 3240 metal.
So it takes 11240 metal to fire that first nuke.
That is about the same cost as getting a Paladin out.

I rarely go for nukes in teamgames as I think it is better to convince someone lowered skilled to use their resources for a nuke as my attention and resources is better used on the frontline.
If I can convince a newbie to make a nuke and then tell them where they can launch their nuke as I stun the enemy anti-nuke with shockleys, that is often a very good way for newbies to spend their metal and be effective in the battle.

I think that having a nuke in teamgames is kinda mandatory on some maps.

Maps where nuke is bad.
On small maps with low eco nukes are just kinda bad as they are easy to scout, easy to rush down with like a Krow or something. It usually enough to get a nuke to cover the base and the frontlines are generally not worth nuking. Think Mercurial or Fields of Isis.
Medium to large maps with wide open fronts with low to medium eco. If bases are spread apart enough, and the front is moving back and forth with small armies, it is generally not worth to make a nuke. Think Isidis Crack and Rainbow Comet.
Medium maps with high eco but a wide open front. Even though Comet Catcher has a lot of mexes, putting 11240 metal into single unit will generally make your team lose the front and shortly after, also the game. It is also fairly easy to make anti-nukes to cover the bases if the game lasts that long.

Maps where nuke is good.
Medium maps with high eco and semi open fronts. On StormSiege, it is a brutal battle for the frontline. Even if the frontline is small, there will typically be concentrated forces near the frontline and it is fairly easy to get a Missile Silo up to stun frontline antis with Shockley. The same mostly applies to Nuclear winter but the gameplay typically ebbs and flows more so there is more opportunity to use defensive nukes if you lose ground to the enemy army.

Maps where I think nuke is mandatory
Big maps with wide open fronts and high eco will always be nukeable due to the ebb and flow of the battle and just the cost of covering the front with anti-nukes.
Think Supreme Strait or Esker Creek.

Ideas to raise the cost and difficulty of stun:
* Decoy/fake anti nuke for ~1000 metal. Maybe ground unit can reveal it as decoy, but swift scout cant
* Anti nuke with way more HP or EMP resistance so that it requires more EMP missiles or widows

Other related ideas:
*A structure or weapon that doesn't stop nuke but deflects it a little in an somewhat unpredictable way. Maybe it could need to be fired at the same time as the nuke.

The difficulty about trinity balance is that go even a little the other way and it becomes useless

mobiles are cloakable. this was the reason for removal in the first place. although nowadays there is the sparrow which negates cloak temporary.

IF this is introduced, it should be hard limited in either fragility, energy grid dependance, slow clumsyness and coverage. i even would go so far, that a direct avoided "hit" should kill everything below, say, 2k HP and also the mobile anti with it, so it is single use somehow. or make it single use as it dies on launching or is the missle itself.

To be fair, I think there's a way to make an anti nuke unit uncloakble.

Just make it so the anti is an active skill, even if it costs only 1 energy, and has a deploy time of like 30 seconds.


That way it can move but not block nukes, or stay put and block nukes without being able to be cloaked. Disabled if submerged or carried.

You could djin it, but it would be pretty hard to hide one in the enemy base and would reveal itself the second it intercepted anything.

Then you build 2 and they leapfrog as the army pushes the front. But on most maps, depending on the cost of said mobile anti, it could end up being just as expensive as buiding static antis anyways...

Is it a problem though?

I like big booms.
It is not a problem.

quote: Is it a problem though? I like big booms. It is not a problem.

That, plus the game has to end somehow. Not scouting a nuke and losing within 15 minutes, or not properly investing in your push and the game being prolonged by 15 minutes is not the result of bad design, it's the result of bad player choices.