Should Strategic Missile Submarine be able to make AntiNukes?
-
So maybe the smd could be aquatic, like sams?
-
Hasn't there been a very long thread years ago about naval antinuke that concluded that this would be a bad idea?
-
Yes, and not only one but few over the years. Still, movable SMD is just OP same as allowing one to build it on water as that gives you way to many opportunities to abuse single SMD to cover more than half of the map.
-
You guys just scared to out of possibilities to nuke enemy base by focusing land smd by 99999 bombers.
-
I am voting for adding this into faf to flip over old suck tactics
-
Amazing reasoning, showcases why these things don't get left to votes.
-
@ftxcommando faf is not about stability anyway. Old balance team did whatever they want
-
What structure of organization is more predisposed to stability in action and thought process:
The singular executive enacting what he deems necessary with either no or little regard for feedbackor
The conglomeration of meritocratically established people that were put in their position due to holding a broadly similar set of axiomatic beliefs that would make them work with the rest of the group?
The "old balance team" was the former btw.
-
Democracys tend to be more stable than dictatorships. And hugely more effective. And as @Eternal well said, stability at the cost of everything else, is not the objective. And of course, meritocratical systems tend to be hugely more effective too.
Concerning antinuke. I agree with words of @archsimkat. But I point out, that not having mobile antinuke, seems to make many massheavy maps totally turtle type (some DualCap, Astro?). Once your army or navy value is bigger then value of nukes neccessaire to destroy that army or navy (so that army/navy cant dodge those nukes). It forces the games to go into "build big gun, everything else does not matter" style. Having mobile antinuke could add lots of possibilitys and gameplay. And reduce turtle-eco-build-big-gun, type of games.
I am not talking antinuke on nukesub, but maybe new unit that could go on land and water. More expensive than static one of course, but maybe reduce the price of static anti nuke a little?
-
The thing about nukes is that they both punish robotic play where opponent keeps scaling without scouting and also forces opponents to take action on some maps because of spread out bases. On many maps 1 nuke can force up to like 4 SMDs. This also forces bp on the SMDs so it slows down scale elsewhere.
With a mobile anti nuke a nuke is no longer a macro tool but rather an air’s win more tool because it’s simply impossible to nuke anything faster than a mobile anti nuke can be loaded into a transport and block the nuke on the passage to a base. It means that a scaling opponent will always counter a nuke as long as his team has air, which they will since he has focused on scaling.
Nuking armies and navies is a major hail mary move because they can both move out of the way and also it destroys all the reclaim which you would likely need in order to come back from the situation.
-
With multiple nukes spread out and narrow terrain, you can not move out of the way, as I already pointed out. And this type of gamers are not looking "to come back from the situation". They are doing it on purpose. 4 nukes at 60k mass (not considering launchers), against 20 experimentals (or something else) at 400-700k mass... People play like that in purpose on some maps. This is the actual balance that makes it like that.
It is possible to have mobile antinuke that is not transportable. So you cant move it fast by air in front of nukes path.
-
People playing like that on purpose doesn't mean anything, people play badly on purpose all the time. They just don't think about it or don't know any better. Regardless of a mobile anti-nuke existing or not, 20 T4 is horrible play and will continue to be horrible play because 9k mass invested into sniping the anti nuke is an immediate game over. You shouldn't be putting half a million mass into anything that isn't also protected by another 100,000 mass in defenses.
New units shouldn't be added into the game to make terrible play just 10% less terrible.
-
Who said there is not 100k mass in defences?
It is the same thing with 10 experimentals. It is about the same thing with 5 experiomentals and support units. It was only an example. Experimentals have more dps masswise than Mavor, it seems to me. And I hope building army's or navy's does not end only because someone is always calling people stupid. Personnally I am not into playing turle and building-big-gun every time.
-
Make 10 T4, for it to be coherent it needs to have taken like 5-7 minutes of mass generation otherwise it's an all in gamble which already denotes this isn't great play. For that to happen, you need like 800 mass income per second across the whole team being invested into T4 at 28,000 mass cost per T4. It takes about 2 minutes to cross the map, in that time the enemy will have built up another 4 or more T4 as they should have the mass lead due to your earlier investment in 10 T4.
This problem continues to scale up, it's why this is a bad move and it's why game enders exists.
In this, I have not taken into account all of the very mass efficient counters to potential attacks like this ie nukes, air, tmls, arty which a 10 T4 attack would need to account for and saddle the mass investment with superfluous costs which the defender does not need to worry about. Accounting for that, a defender could also now have made 6 or 7 T4 by the time this 10 T4 attack actually begins reaching to attack a game-winning target.
-
@FtXCommando Ok, so FAF is all about building game enders. No one should ever build armys. Everybody else are wrong in theyr game style. Thanks for teaching me (and everybody else).
Both sides fight. For mid or for other things. Some fight better, micro better, read their enemy better, crush and reclaim enemy armys. And this could be useful and lead to victory, if, on some maps, it would not be blocked by lack of mobile antinuke.?
P.S. How about you think before writing. And write one time. Rather than always changing your comments over and over. This would be a great time saver for everybody and would make discussion much more meaningful. Cheers
-
Dual Gap and Astro devolving into total turtle gameplay is a map-specific issue. These were specifically designed to make aggressive unit use less viable. Adding new units to faf in general approaches the problem from the wrong side. If you want less turtly gameplay you should either play maps that are more open or create a balance mod for these maps.
A significant portion of the players plays these maps specifically because of the gameplay they provide. If you try to force them into different gameplay, they will just migrate to a new map version that reverses these changes. -
@wikingest said in Should Strategic Missile Submarine be able to make AntiNukes?:
@FtXCommando Ok, so FAF is all about building game enders. No one should ever build armys. Everybody else are wrong in theyr game style. Thanks for teaching me (and everybody else).
If you play maps like that, yeah. Not new information to anyone. Welcome to why no top player is regularly playing dual gap and astro.
Both sides fight. For mid or for other things. Some fight better, micro better, read their enemy better, crush and reclaim enemy armys. And this could be useful and lead to victory, if, on some maps, it would not be blocked by lack of mobile antinuke.?
Nothing in mid is going to win the game and if you invest 10 T4 to win the 12 mexes in mid (dual gap which all you're saying is based on) you are still making terrible plays.
It takes 12 t2 mexes 4.5 minutes to pay off a singular T4 that was made to win control of them. It would take 14 minutes for 12 t3 mexes to pay off 10 T4s. You make these quantities of mass in units, you win the game with it, or you lose. This is beyond the game point where map control is necessary for scale. Winning gigantic mass dumps of reclaim sure, but there is no real reason for your opponent to dump T4 into your T4 but rather wait for you while they got to scale on the 5-7 minutes you were building up your T4 army. In the end the only thing that matters at that game stage is the massive T4 reclaim from a dude misplaying and attacking what he couldn't break.
P.S. How about you think before writing. And write one time. Rather than always changing your comments over and over. This would be a great time saver for everybody and would make discussion much more meaningful. Cheers
Nothing I write changes with edits. I clear up grammar or clarify points where an indirect object exists that could confuse somebody. Find a better coping mechanism.
-
Just make a mod with the thing you are considering adding and play it.
-
@FtXCommando You invest in the fight about as much as your opponent, so he can not use he's mass in other places anyway. And if you win you get the reclaim and mexes. For the sake of example, let's say I win four fights, starting from very small, until big. And doing so I win the mid, kill enemy's army, get mexes and reclaim. By this time I have a big army. Or navy. And more eco than my opponent. I could try to micro my way into base. But I know that some nukes would clean out everything I send. And nukes would be cheaper than my army.
"Nothing I write changes with edits." I really have'nt taken time to read everything, but in the past it has changed the meaning quite a lot.
"Find a better coping mechanism." Can you clarify that?
@BlackYps Good point.
-
@wikingest said in Should Strategic Missile Submarine be able to make AntiNukes?:
"Nothing I write changes with edits." I really have'nt taken time to read everything, but in the past it has changed the meaning quite a lot.
If you are accusing someone of changing the meaning of their posts and not just grammar mistakes, you should have an example to prove it. Otherwise it just comes off as slander and adds nothing to the conversation.
