Antinuke costs 3000 m, it's a static structure with a single role and a big explosion on death. Reef costs 3500 m and is a kick-ass mobile unit with a long range missile launcher and helicopter swarms that also docks allied bombers. I think that reef should not be antinuke at all and the antinuke structure should be buildable underwater. Opinions?
+0 / -0
|
Companion drone module is 250 for every 2. The reef has about 10 drones, that's 1250 metal. The reef is also a dominator, it is also about 3 air repair pads, coming in at about 200 each, that's 1850. what to do with the remaining 1650 metal? Remove it from carrier cost and then nerf carrier HP?
+0 / -0
|
Sea is OP, everything is better for cost. I think that is by design.
+0 / -0
|
100% agree. One of the best AA, warlord,reef is very cheap too. Most of maps has small sea coverage so It is good I think. By the way reef as repairpad a bit sux because it mostly is in aa coverage as chainsaw, and I hate when planes land on reef and then dont fly off no matter what and die. Also tactical nuke sub has anti too so ;)
+0 / -0
|
Since the nuke sub has anti too, the Reef should have this removed. One antinuke unit for 1 factory is enough.
+0 / -0
|
is it just me or has a lot of threads been started about nurffing things? Does the reef have sub defense? If it does it should be removed, it is OP as is. If it does not it should I just spent all this metal on t so I was not able to make units to defend it. .... Can you detect my sarcasm?
+0 / -0
|
Reef also covers only 56% the area of Antinuke.
+0 / -0
|
Yeah nuke is porc weapon it should be countered easily (sun) I think puppy should act as antinuke too such heroic unit dies to protect others.
+0 / -0
|
Nukes still do full damage iirc when intercepted, it's just too high up to damage stuff. You can see this if you finish an anti-nuke a bit late... So if it makes you happy you can imagine that Puppies intersect nukes as the effect would be the same either way.
+0 / -0
|
Yeah nukes do damage even when intercepted. I have seen intercepted nuke destroy about 5 solars which where directly below the center of explosion. But other stuff a little further that would normally die for sure was untouched so anti is worth it ;)
+0 / -0
|
Make all units Anti Nuke? Would be cool just for the effect of everyone trying to shoot it down before it completely obliberates your base.
+0 / -0
|
You got me wrong. When puppy detects nuke it transforms into normal anti missile and fly high in the sky and boom :)
+0 / -0
|
That would be funny too :P. Maybe make discorave party anti-nuke and when it does make it explode into a rainbow. On a more on topic note, I don't really feel that the Anti-Nuke is too much for the Reef, it's more costy then an anti-nuke and with less range, it just adds a bit more fun to using a nuke then just clicking a location, in my opinion it should be mandatory to do a cool stealth infiltration scouting move before you can fire a nuke. Maybe it would even be fun to only allow nukes to shoot within your line of sight so you'd either have to get like a scythe behind enemy base, or a ton of dirt boxes.
+0 / -0
|
I suggested to make all structure-based missiles weapon UNITS. Just like those from missile solo and Nuke. So all AA can interrupt them. But those missiles would have very high velocity, at least 2400. This make AA more useful. No-anti-nuke -> Simplify the game.
+0 / -0
|
You have highlighted 3 different counters:
-
AA -> Air
-
Shields/Cloaker -> Tacnuke (to some extent)
-
Nuke -> Antinuke
I think it is a very bad idea to merge all these distinct counters into one unit, you would just spam AA to protect against a large range of lategame stuff.
+0 / -0
|
I would rather spam AA than make anti...
+0 / -0
|
That is well spotted. I think static antinuke should perhaps be a bit cheaper rather than removing carrier antinuke. Some form of sea-based mobile antinuke is necessary to make serious fleet play viable, and the carrier seems the most logical unit that would possess it. Besides, it puffs up the cost of the carrier with useful features, which is better than having lean, efficiently massable aircraft carriers. Making antinuke structure buildable underwater is an EXCELLENT idea, however it is still static. Some form of mobile sea antinuke should exist. With much less area of effect, it would serve to cover your fleet when you move out from your antinuke umbrella. On a marginally related note, I do think that there should be a tactical missile defense system that affects tacnukes as the antinuke system does. Currently, the counter to such missiles is to build shields, which lumps them together with small arms and artillery. This also adds an extra dimension of defense needed to "full porc" an area which is a good thing. If this were implemented perhaps the Reef could be downgraded to having tactical missile defense only.
+0 / -0
|
Antinuke costs 3000, a single nuke costs 3240 to produce. They're designed to act as a single point of failure for a base lategame as it can be infeasible to destroy a base with purely surgical strikes. Tacnukes on the other hand are suppose to be somewhat integrated earlier in the game. I think the shield interaction works well and we don't need a specific anti tacnuke defence.
+0 / -0
|
Most game I saw, the side produce the first Nuke lose.
+0 / -0
|
FIRST Nuke = 10250 metal Second Nuke -> don't worth it's cost because of anti / you need to reclaim it. To counter it: just spend 3k into an anti
+0 / -0
|
