Nuke Sub Rework

One of the strongest aspects of nuke subs is that they are discrete ways to deliver nukes-- they are not static land structures, they are underwater mobile units that don't display whether they are building a nuke or not... it would suck to have to build a land sml to shoot sub nukes

@cyborg16 said in Nuke Sub Rework:

@exselsior said in Nuke Sub Rework:

make strategic subs T4, give them powerful long range torpedos, and leave their tac missiles and strategic missiles as is.

Expecting them to perform in three roles is a bit much. Most T4 (and most units in general) have a single role, and sometimes are half-way capable in a second.

I don't think this is 3 roles anymore than the czar has three roles as good aa, good anti ground, and a factory + air staging. It's at best two roles as a strong torpedo ship + mobile SML, and even then as I said I'd want the torpedos to be the point. The TML has always been mostly pointless and only gets real value when the enemy makes what's arguably a big mistake. It's stupidly easy to counter nuke sub tml.

Another option to nerf the nuke capability might be to require a SML (like T2/T3 factories require an HQ). Then nuke-subs may be a viable path to exhaust SMD missiles.

This drastically weakens the nuke aspect of it when that's already quite niche as FTX pointed out in the main post.

Idea that crosses my mind is missile-bombardment. Imagine UEF T2 cruiser having a child with a T3 static arty. The sub gets a single charge for a 'Strategic Missile Barrage', which when used, fires ~8 tactical missiles that actually have bonkers AOE (like T3 static arty, say 6) and quite solid damage (say 3-4k per missile). All of the missiles are launched at once, and they are spread out semi-randomly within an area about the size a nuke would usually damage. The missiles are tactical, which means TMD works against them, but they have say 2x HP (compared of conventional tacs from MMLs). They would still take a while to recharge, but not 5 or 7 or however many minutes they take atm, but say 2-3. It would also have limited range, but at least twice that of the battleships.

If you did this, you also eliminate some other problems (I didn't read everything people wrote, just the first 15ish posts): you don't have to remove TMD capabilities of battleships, and it's not countered by a single static TMD. If you pair them up with a couple of cruisers, then there's an even higher chance you get them to hit even with multiple TMD. They are also great at clearing out enemy navy, but they are not strong enough to wipe out T3 navy (doesn't feel like shit when on receiving end), and even parts of your t2 could survive - given it'd take 2-3 missiles to kill a destroyer (depending on actual damage decided on and unit vet). If you attack a naval production site with them, and the enemy is semi-defended, they still loose the existing defenses, which allows you to go in to finish them off. But it's not so strong that 1 random salvo will wipe the whole production (since it's presumably not strong enough to kill an HQ in 1 salvo, unless extremely lucky with missile distribution). This means that it's both satisfying from the attacker's perspective (it actually accomplishes something, and unless the enemy is very well prepared, you'll do some damage for sure), opening up avenues to push the balance, but it's also not so devastating that you wipe their whole navy, and the battle is over because of 1 missile.

P.S.: Nuke subs being 'better' at delivering nukes and whatnot is hogwash. On larger maps, they are limited by range, and on smaller ones the intel coverage is usually good enough to find any 'sneaky' sub. Having alternative 'angles' of approach for the nuke is rarely beneficial - occasions where the SMD doesn't cover the parts you would actually want to nuke are rare, and what nuke delivery boils down to in 99.9% of cases is either getting the nuke in fast (which subs are bad for), or sniping the SMD (which subs are as good at as SMLs are). In most games, the only time I don't build SMD as part of getting into T3, is when I'm rushing a SML. So yeah, 'you won't be expecting the nuke' argument is also non-applicable, since, even if one delays his SMD, the sub takes that much longer to make the nuke and position itself, that it's not gonna get there in time. Note that, as it stands, nuke subs on mid-large maps rely on you having won the navy already (assuming you plan to nuke bases). As they are right now, they are only good for thinning out the enemy's navy at great cost and time investment (which is to say, not good at all in total) - and all that assuming you are winning or equal in navy - if you are loosing, they are dead weight.

@fichom said in Nuke Sub Rework:

P.S.: Nuke subs being 'better' at delivering nukes and whatnot is hogwash. On larger maps, they are limited by range, and on smaller ones the intel coverage is usually good enough to find any 'sneaky' sub. Having alternative 'angles' of approach for the nuke is rarely beneficial - occasions where the SMD doesn't cover the parts you would actually want to nuke are rare, and what nuke delivery boils down to in 99.9% of cases is either getting the nuke in fast (which subs are bad for), or sniping the SMD (which subs are as good at as SMLs are). In most games, the only time I don't build SMD as part of getting into T3, is when I'm rushing a SML. So yeah, 'you won't be expecting the nuke' argument is also non-applicable, since, even if one delays his SMD, the sub takes that much longer to make the nuke and position itself, that it's not gonna get there in time. Note that, as it stands, nuke subs on mid-large maps rely on you having won the navy already (assuming you plan to nuke bases). As they are right now, they are only good for thinning out the enemy's navy at great cost and time investment (which is to say, not good at all in total) - and all that assuming you are winning or equal in navy - if you are loosing, they are dead weight.

I suggested to fix the intel problem by making them more difficult to detect, for example via trigger ability that gives them stealth (or even cloak) but prevents them from moving or attacking or even building a nuke while it is on, making them the threat they are supposed to be without the risk of accidentally discovering one by a random scout patrol and without them being an invisible win button either while maintaining the nuke submarine concept of the unit

maybe if range is a problem on even medium maps, increase their range as well

most importantly, if the nuke on submarines costed less (or should I say more proportional to its damage compared with sml) it could be used to wipe out enemy outlying firebases and mex clusters that don't have smd without it being a net loss in mass for the attacker which is the main reason no one uses them for it (need minimum of 15k or whatever damage in mass just to break even), this would be giving different uses to these 2 different levels of nukes, currently the only thing that has a similar purpose to this (mini nuking smaller base) is a billy nuke, and that gets stopped easily by tmd or even shield generators due to it being a tactical missile and extremely low damage and radius respectively (so just adding to/changing billy nukes to nuke submarines isn't a fix either)

total list of possible buffs (so far) that don't redesign them into something completely different:

• increase submarine nuke range
• increase submarine nuke speed (of nuke missile itself)
• increase submarine nuke damage / reduce submarine nuke cost (currently same cost as sml nuke while having less range and <1/3rd damage), I suggest reducing cost instead of increasing damage for reasons I explained above (tldr: mass effective nukes against smaller bases for 2 tiers of nukes with different uses)
• make nuke submarines more difficult to detect underwater at some downside (ex. immobile/completely "stunned" during stealth)

all at once may make them op but these are all options available to balance them with while keeping them "nuke submarines"

if you say they are useless for any "nuke purposes" in most situations, then that is what has to be fixed, their nuking capabilities/efficiencies, not the unit redesigned into something else that primarily exists for non-nuke missile use, at that point you deleted the original unit and put something else in its place, now that is hogwash

so yes I suggested to make them better at being nuke submarines, what you (and many others) are suggesting is to forget the nuke part of them because it currently doesn't work well (and instead of fixing that you choose to double down on it?) and turn them into some kinds of tactical missile ships that I don't agree this unit is about and like someone else mentioned, neither will be the newcomers that already know it as nuke submarine from non-faf versions or many other players that don't pay attention to balance forums

if such a unit is needed then maybe it should be created as a new one instead or added to different useless existing one (aircraft carriers maybe, at least missile barrage from them would make sense especially since they could have unique mercy-like aircraft they could be the only ones to build, aka homing anti ship missile, to barrage enemy fleet with from distance (or even a medium range missile that lands into water and becomes a torpedo, to deal with certain annoying underwater units like HARMS that otherwise need exploits to deal with, the possibilities are endless), instead of being giant defenseless radars they currently are)

and with nuke submarines being "useless unless you already won navy", imo they are not supposed to be something you build to win navy by attacking navy with them directly like just another battleship, just like you don't build strats to take out enemy asf with, you build them to attack ground, which may very well win you air indirectly or the game itself, you do the same with nuke submarines to take out enemy bases, not their navy, because not every unit needs to be a direct combat unit against its own layer, some exist to push the advantage you have, to outside of the layer

@mach said in Nuke Sub Rework:

I suggested to fix the intel problem by making them more difficult to detect, for example via trigger ability that gives them stealth (or even cloak) but prevents them from moving or attacking or even building a nuke while it is on, making them the threat they are supposed to be without the risk of accidentally discovering one by a random scout patrol and without them being an invisible win button either while maintaining the nuke submarine concept of the unit

This might sound good on paper, but I don't think it's realistically viable - even if you had an ability that went full cloak+stealth, this requires you to be actively monitoring your sub 24/7. And even if you did, how could you ever predict a Spy Plane/Torp bomber flying up above? Sounds cool, but it is either too much work, or would be op if somehow automated.

maybe if range is a problem on even medium maps, increase their range as well

The problem is, where do you draw the line? Their current range is quite good, given they are near the enemy coast. But if you make it very large, then on many maps you wouldn't even have to leave your dock, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the unit. And how they are often used - build them, start a nuke, wait for it to be finished, move it in closer for the nuke - because they are so expensive it's not worth risking a random T2 sub or a few torp bombers stumbling upon it. And even if you do argue 'we could make it cheaper' (which you do), it still doesn't change the fact that you are effectively parading your SML around the map without much protection (if they are supposed to be stealthy) - I'm pretty sure in 99% of cases, you wouldn't build an SML in an unprotected position just to get an 'odd angle' on the enemy.

most importantly, if the nuke on submarines costed less (or should I say more proportional to its damage compared with sml) it could be used to wipe out enemy outlying firebases and mex clusters that don't have smd without it being a net loss in mass for the attacker which is the main reason no one uses them for it (need minimum of 15k or whatever damage in mass just to break even), this would be giving different uses to these 2 different levels of nukes, currently the only thing that has a similar purpose to this (mini nuking smaller base) is a billy nuke, and that gets stopped easily by tmd or even shield generators due to it being a tactical missile and extremely low damage and radius respectively (so just adding to/changing billy nukes to nuke submarines isn't a fix either)

total list of possible buffs (so far) that don't redesign them into something completely different:

• increase submarine nuke range
• increase submarine nuke speed (of nuke missile itself)
• increase submarine nuke damage / reduce submarine nuke cost (currently same cost as sml nuke while having less range and <1/3rd damage), I suggest reducing cost instead of increasing damage for reasons I explained above (tldr: mass effective nukes against smaller bases for 2 tiers of nukes with different uses)
• make nuke submarines more difficult to detect underwater at some downside (ex. immobile/completely "stunned" during stealth)

As previously addressed, giving it range will boil down to two problems: not enough range, so you are still forced to park it on the enemy shoreline, or so much you never even have to get close.

Unit speed won't help. And people are maybe forgetting, but I'd just like to remind that only the Cybran Nuke Sub has stealth - others are exposed by sonar, and T3 sonar, which is relatively cheap and I'd argue a must in a naval composition, outranges it (god forbid you move it more central to a water zone).

Buffing the missile speed won't change much, except in the scenario where you are nuking navy - but you are against that, so let's presume that moot.

Changing the price/strength might be a good idea, but keep in mind SML are as efficient as they are because they serve only one role - to nuke. On the other hand, not only do nuke subs have the TML capability, they also come with a handy T3 naval factory that allows you to diverge your initial plans. Given that, I'd argue you should never approach the efficiency of a SML with a nuke sub. Currently, you don't but if you ever do, I could see players building T3 naval yards in random pond near their base to get a cheaper nuke...

if you say they are useless for any "nuke purposes" in most situations, then that is what has to be fixed, their nuking capabilities/efficiencies, not the unit redesigned into something else that primarily exists for non-nuke missile use, at that point you deleted the original unit and put something else in its place, now that is hogwash

so yes I suggested to make them better at being nuke submarines, what you (and many others) are suggesting is to forget the nuke part of them because it currently doesn't work well (and instead of fixing that you choose to double down on it?) and turn them into some kinds of tactical missile ships that I don't agree this unit is about and like someone else mentioned, neither will be the newcomers that already know it as nuke submarine from non-faf versions or many other players that don't pay attention to balance forums

if such a unit is needed then maybe it should be created as a new one instead or added to different useless existing one (aircraft carriers maybe, at least missile barrage from them would make sense especially since they could have unique mercy-like aircraft they could be the only ones to build, aka homing anti ship missile, to barrage enemy fleet with from distance (or even a medium range missile that lands into water and becomes a torpedo, to deal with certain annoying underwater units like HARMS that otherwise need exploits to deal with, the possibilities are endless), instead of being giant defenseless radars they currently are)

The whole problem is the main reason nuke subs are currently pretty obsolete is there already is a better unit filling that niche - the SML. There really is no need to have another unit that does the same thing, but worse. Also, give this a thought: you are giving a game-ending capability to a somewhat cheap T3 unit. All other game-enders are super-high cost static emplacements, or if mobile, are mounted on experimentals. Like the Tempest or Scathis. Tempest is effectively a T3 Static arty on a boat. No other T3 unit (other than the nuke-capable ones) has the game-ender capability. They are either base buildings or experimentals.

The issue of 'what will new players do omg' is a non-issue, given how much is already different compared to the original SupCom and FA.

and with nuke submarines being "useless unless you already won navy", imo they are not supposed to be something you build to win navy by attacking navy with them directly like just another battleship, just like you don't build strats to take out enemy asf with, you build them to attack ground, which may very well win you air indirectly or the game itself, you do the same with nuke submarines to take out enemy bases, not their navy, because not every unit needs to be a direct combat unit against its own layer, some exist to push the advantage you have, to outside of the layer

The problem with this analogy is you are comparing 2 air units that have different targets - air and ground, to 2 naval units that have same targets - ground. Sure, not every unit has to be, that's why we have MMLs, MAA, and so on. But nuke subs are a bad example of this concept, because they are, in fact, designed to strike at (usually) naval targets. Because of their high power (nuke), they have to be slow (time-wise to get a nuke ready). This means that, in any realistic situation, even if you are planning to use a nuke sub to take down a base, that base more than likely already has a SMD. Which means you are in the end forced to use it - against enemy's navy. This is even more evident from the fact that, the moment you launch a nuke from a nuke sub, and the nuke gets detected, players will know there's a nuke sub, and unless they lost navy, your sub is dead - takes like what, 10-12 torps to take it down in one wave, half that if the sub is not surrounded by other naval forces - which you are heavily implying would be the solution for them, to go 'stealthily on their own'.

At the end of the day, what we need is a unit that fills a particular role, and Nuke subs do not do that. And if you make them as good as SMLs, then SMLs become obsolete on naval maps, which is just shifting the problem. What is a better solution IMO, is to have the unit serve a purpose other units don't.

P.S.: there is no "nuke sub" - that's just a nickname people give it because they launch 'nukes'. Their name is 'Strategic missile submarine' - and while again this is usually abbreviated to 'nuke', a strategic missile doesn't need to mean 'nuke' - it can mean it, sure, but it can also mean a missile of strategic scale. I'd take the liberty of generalizing 'tactical' scale as one that focuses on taking out one particular target, while 'strategic' scale is a weapon capable of wiping out an entire area or in general turn the tide on its own. Like in general, I'd categorize weapons in three categories - operational, tactical and strategic. Most units fall under the 'operational' scale, some fall under tactical (say mobile arty, or T3 battleships, and the obvious TMLs, I'd even put Novax under this category). And then some are strategic - most experimentals, T3 Static Arty and Nuke launchers. With the example I gave (and not saying that is THE way to go about it), it still stays a strategic weapon - it just doesn't do a nuke.

What is the typical time from building a sml to launching

V

Typical time building the sub tand launching

Should both be 5 minutes.

@ftxcommando said in Nuke Sub Rework:

Should both be 5 minutes.

Indeed, and it appears battleship takes a bit longer - it has a stronger nuke than the subs, but weaker than the SMLs. It also has same BP/s as the subs (1080), but it appears the nuke it makes take more BP (and does 20% more dmg).

I mean wonder ss a note smd water buildable again. /ponder

@fichom said in Nuke Sub Rework:

Idea that crosses my mind is missile-bombardment.

Interesting idea, but still countered quite well by Aeon TMD. Maybe not too well if spread enough, but in this case the attack seems OP (destroying most non-T3 structures, potentially also those, in an area as large as a nuke).

Another option might simply be manual-build TML missiles (to stockpile) with very rapid launch capabilities (so easy to overload non-Aeon TMD), though arguably worse vs Aeon TMD.

@cyborg16 said in Nuke Sub Rework:

Interesting idea, but still countered quite well by Aeon TMD. Maybe not too well if spread enough, but in this case the attack seems OP (destroying most non-T3 structures, potentially also those, in an area as large as a nuke).

Well I was more imagining missiles being launched one by one within say 1.5-2 seconds. And the area would be quite large, again, about as big as a nuke - imagine drawing 8 arty-explosion-radius circles inside a nuke-radius circle. And yes, each missile is in essence a small-radius tactical nuke, so it does bunch of damage, but in a small radius - again, more akin to static T3 arty.

And this kind of attack wiping out most buildings (if you don't have any defences against) doesn't sound OP to me - keep in mind it currently launches a nuke (a weaker one, but a nuke nonetheless). Also, keep in mind these missiles would be blocked by shields as well. So it's not like you could just chuck it and wipe out a base (we are talking stage of the game where the enemy also has T3).

Also, a lot of structures don't get wiped out by a single missile (though larger ones have a higher chance to get struck by multiple). How many missiles (presuming 4k dmg per missile) to destroy a (cybran) building/unit:

• 1 missile: T2 [Land & Air factory, mex, arty, PG, Rhino, Cruiser]; T3 [SMD, SML, SM Sub]
• 2 missiles: T2 [Land & Air factory HQ, Naval factory, Destroyer]; T3 [Land & Air factory, mex, PG, SAM, Brick]
• 3 missiles: T2 [Naval factory]; T3 [Land & Air factory HQ, Arty, Gate, unupgraded ACU]; T4 [Scathis]
• 4+ missiles: T3 Naval HQ (5 missiles), T3 Carrier (5), T3 Battleship (12), Monkeylord (12), Soul Ripper(23), Megalith (28)

The way I'm imagining it is, a unit getting hit by 3 missiles will be hard (especially if it's not a large unit, say ACU), and 4 will be very hard. 5 should be nigh impossible (which means you, in essence, shouldn't be able to take out an unprotected T3 naval HQ). And these values are for somewhat non-tanky Cybrans. You can imagine adding +1 extra missile needed for many buildings of UEF.

And again, all values I give (dmg, area, amount of missiles, delay between missiles) and don't give (reload time, cost, range) can be adjusted so it feels right. Maybe, because of the relative strength of TMDs vs TMLs, you could make the missile faster than the regular TMDs, or you could make it so it's actually like 40 missiles with smaller area (so it's more akin to a single-charge Scathis attack). You could also introduce some differences between factions - like making seraphim actually use regular shells instead of missiles, since it's coming from a battleship, and maybe make some factions have more or less missiles in a salvo - I'd argue you'd give cybran more missiles (with slightly reduced dmg), since they can't easily choke TMD (while UEF and Aeon can with their T2 cruiser/T3 Missile boat).

Another option might simply be manual-build TML missiles (to stockpile) with very rapid launch capabilities (so easy to overload non-Aeon TMD), though arguably worse vs Aeon TMD.

Maybe, so it would essentially work like a regular T2 TML with very short time between missiles - but I'd guarantee you that then, players would just spam-target the same unit they really want dead (say a T3 Naval HQ or ACU) - and that kinda feels not as appealing.

@fichom said in Nuke Sub Rework:

This might sound good on paper, but I don't think it's realistically viable - even if you had an ability that went full cloak+stealth, this requires you to be actively monitoring your sub 24/7. And even if you did, how could you ever predict a Spy Plane/Torp bomber flying up above? Sounds cool, but it is either too much work, or would be op if somehow automated.

you only need to be actively monitoring it while it is on the move, once it gets to position, you can turn on cloak and it will remain hidden until you disable it, but you won't be able to use the unit until you disable the cloak either (similar to seraphim land scout), here is the sequence of events I have in mind:

• build nuke submarine
• build nuke on nuke submarine
• sneak nuke submarine to position while avoiding enemy intel (this and only this is where you need constant active monitoring)
• turn on cloak
• the submarine is now invisible to enemy even if they fly over it, but also immobile and unable to build or attack (including nuke) until you turn cloak off
• turn cloak off (optional)
• nuke enemy (optional)
• move submarine away before scouts come looking for where the missile came from (optional but it probably dies if you don't)

to further balance this if you think it is op, it could have a "build up" time once stealth is disabled before being allowed to nuke or move but during which enemy can detect it (similarly to how shields take a few seconds to activate once deactivated) to give enemy some window of opportunity to detect it before it nukes, but without letting them do so at any point in time before like they can currently, to keep the nuke submarine that got to position a constant hidden threat it is supposed to be without also making it op

Buffing the missile speed won't change much, except in the scenario where you are nuking navy - but you are against that, so let's presume that moot.

the problem of "launched nuke revealing launcher position" and thus exposing the submarine would be solved with increased missile speed or faster trajectory, so that by the time the enemy sees it coming it is already half way to its target and they only have a vague idea of direction it came from rather than exact location (smoke trail is a dead giveaway atm, so its effects should be reduced from submarines imo, because it points way too accurately to it even if enemy only came scouting like 30 seconds after the launch instead of witnessing it which would be more sensible), by which point the submarine could have moved away

The problem is, where do you draw the line? Their current range is quite good, given they are near the enemy coast. But if you make it very large, then on many maps you wouldn't even have to leave your dock, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the unit. And how they are often used - build them, start a nuke, wait for it to be finished, move it in closer for the nuke - because they are so expensive it's not worth risking a random T2 sub or a few torp bombers stumbling upon it. And even if you do argue 'we could make it cheaper' (which you do), it still doesn't change the fact that you are effectively parading your SML around the map without much protection (if they are supposed to be stealthy) - I'm pretty sure in 99% of cases, you wouldn't build an SML in an unprotected position just to get an 'odd angle' on the enemy.
As previously addressed, giving it range will boil down to two problems: not enough range, so you are still forced to park it on the enemy shoreline, or so much you never even have to get close.

once again, either OP or UP aren't the only 2 possible options, I am not saying give it infinite range, but increase its range so that it can hit further inland for maps you claim have problems with nuke submarines not being able to hit far enough inland, not "make them mavor ranged so they can nuke from shipyards without even moving", it may very well stay the same range it currently is if larger would make it op, I just don't see why it would

also if sml "already fits all nuke use cases better", why isn't it op on any map like you say submarine with merely increased range would be when it itself has infinite range? clearly range alone wouldn't make them op

Unit speed won't help. And people are maybe forgetting, but I'd just like to remind that only the Cybran Nuke Sub has stealth - others are exposed by sonar, and T3 sonar, which is relatively cheap and I'd argue a must in a naval composition, outranges it (god forbid you move it more central to a water zone).

by my suggestion, all factions should have access to same nuke submarine stealth ability (except seraphim because they don't even have one in first place and prefer to hide in plain sight with russian roulette defense of "wanna guess which battleship has a nuke?" instead)

Changing the price/strength might be a good idea, but keep in mind SML are as efficient as they are because they serve only one role - to nuke. On the other hand, not only do nuke subs have the TML capability, they also come with a handy T3 naval factory that allows you to diverge your initial plans. Given that, I'd argue you should never approach the efficiency of a SML with a nuke sub. Currently, you don't but if you ever do, I could see players building T3 naval yards in random pond near their base to get a cheaper nuke...

not mentioning that sml has infinite range and doesn't need to get close to enemy in first place while also being safe in middle of your base unlike easily snipable submarine, nor needs a t3 naval factory to build in first place, nuke submarines don't "come" with t3 factory, you have to build and upgrade those first before you can even get one, and they are the most expensive ones to build of any factory, I doubt anyone would waste all that mass just to get a "cheaper" nuke launcher and possibility of building some other t3 ships unless they already going to anyways

also sml are only efficient to nuke with if what you are nuking has higher cost than the nuke itself, otherwise you are wasting mass

this is why I suggested it as 2 tiers of nukes rather than only 2 options being "nuke" and "everything that is not a nuke", compared to sml nuke, the submarine nuke wouldn't do near the damage against experimentals/navy nor have the range (current balance), but because of cheaper cost (what I suggested) it could be used to nuke things that are otherwise not worth nuking with sml nuke because of its price

added use case:

• to nuke things that cost less than sml nuke but more than a submarine nuke

lets say sml nuke costs 15k mass, and submarine nuke (missile itself) is changed to 9k mass (not final numbers, just example), there is an enemy base worth 12k mass, waste of mass to nuke it with sml (15k for 12k), but nuking it with submarine is not (9k for 12k)

if this makes it op for situations like nuking navy with submarine nukes that you all worry so heavily about (mass cost per damage), then reduce its damage further, imo like I said, they should be able to destroy any building in a massive area (billy is not massive area), as long as their damage is sufficient for that (and it doesn't need to be high for it, shipyards not included nor intended, billy is not high enough damage), they can accomplish that objective

The whole problem is the main reason nuke subs are currently pretty obsolete is there already is a better unit filling that niche - the SML. There really is no need to have another unit that does the same thing, but worse. Also, give this a thought: you are giving a game-ending capability to a somewhat cheap T3 unit. All other game-enders are super-high cost static emplacements, or if mobile, are mounted on experimentals. Like the Tempest or Scathis. Tempest is effectively a T3 Static arty on a boat. No other T3 unit (other than the nuke-capable ones) has the game-ender capability. They are either base buildings or experimentals.

this already cheap t3 unit already exist with a "game ender" weapon, and by your own admission, is rarely used to "end games", clearly nukes are not game enders, they may allow you to win the game (like any other unit), but they do have a huge weakness that completely prevents their usage, nuke defense, if ability to deliver them lies in sniping enemy defense, then it is not really a game ender, because against those, there are no defenses, they are units designed to overwhelm virtually any defense and "end the game" unless enemy ends it faster or snipes them, no amount of shield will hold against a mavor, but even one nuke defense will against a nuke

hence why I suggested making nukes 2 tiers and costs, expensive sml for global coverage and huge damage, and cheaper nuke submarines for large area coverage (but enemy not knowing where that coverage is) and lower damage but faster at landing it

and there is the situation of (static) tml and mml, both have their own uses while using same missiles, why can't sml and nuke submarines as well? since nuke submarine is basically mml equivalent for sml

The issue of 'what will new players do omg' is a non-issue, given how much is already different compared to the original SupCom and FA.

not really a lot different, most are changes in stats, not unit redesigns, 1 unit was added by faf (t3 maa), engymod is probably still what most new players struggle with, the rest they probably don't even notice or do and go "oh, cool", changing a unit completely from what they are used to, they will notice, because you are changing the very concept of the unit itself, not mere balance stats, that even engymod could be explained as

The problem with this analogy is you are comparing 2 air units that have different targets - air and ground, to 2 naval units that have same targets - ground. Sure, not every unit has to be, that's why we have MMLs, MAA, and so on. But nuke subs are a bad example of this concept, because they are, in fact, designed to strike at (usually) naval targets. Because of their high power (nuke), they have to be slow (time-wise to get a nuke ready). This means that, in any realistic situation, even if you are planning to use a nuke sub to take down a base, that base more than likely already has a SMD. Which means you are in the end forced to use it - against enemy's navy. This is even more evident from the fact that, the moment you launch a nuke from a nuke sub, and the nuke gets detected, players will know there's a nuke sub, and unless they lost navy, your sub is dead - takes like what, 10-12 torps to take it down in one wave, half that if the sub is not surrounded by other naval forces - which you are heavily implying would be the solution for them, to go 'stealthily on their own'.

I will need a citation of where nuke submarines were designed to be used primarily against naval targets, because they are clearly designed to be used against bases/land considering lower nuke damage (enough to kill buildings, but not experimentals / t3 navy <- the thing you claim they are designed against) and ability to attack from different angles compared to stationary sml that is stuck wherever it is built, however rarely that happens atm due to having nothing worth nuking because of equal costs

you say you end up using them against navy because you can't anywhere else due to smd:

if nukes were cheaper on submarines then you could be able to use them against more than just the "literal heart of enemy base" mass-efficiently (most don't even consider nuking anything else unless they are desperate against enemy navy), that is the only thing under smd cover most of time, you know why the center of enemy base is the only thing under smd cover? because no one would waste full nuke on anything else to need an smd there, unless like I am asking for, a cheaper but weaker nuke existed, in which case, they just might

and they could "stealthily go on their own" if they had the changes I proposed, that's why I proposed them, to be changed so that they can do so, I'm aware of their current problems in doing so, that's why I suggest what I did, change them so that they can, instead of turning them into basic missile ships or whatever

At the end of the day, what we need is a unit that fills a particular role, and Nuke subs do not do that. And if you make them as good as SMLs, then SMLs become obsolete on naval maps, which is just shifting the problem. What is a better solution IMO, is to have the unit serve a purpose other units don't.

I don't know any other (mobile) unit that can nuke something, this is already their purpose/role which you want them to lose to create some other kind of unit with a different purpose/role in its place, I don't mind a new unit that has some missing purpose that needs filling, but I do when you insist on doing it by deleting an existing unit from its existing purpose/role

what I propose to make them different is cheaper than sml nuke (because it already is weaker) and ability to remain hidden properly

P.S.: there is no "nuke sub" - that's just a nickname people give it because they launch 'nukes'. Their name is 'Strategic missile submarine' - and while again this is usually abbreviated to 'nuke', a strategic missile doesn't need to mean 'nuke' - it can mean it, sure, but it can also mean a missile of strategic scale. I'd take the liberty of generalizing 'tactical' scale as one that focuses on taking out one particular target, while 'strategic' scale is a weapon capable of wiping out an entire area or in general turn the tide on its own. Like in general, I'd categorize weapons in three categories - operational, tactical and strategic. Most units fall under the 'operational' scale, some fall under tactical (say mobile arty, or T3 battleships, and the obvious TMLs, I'd even put Novax under this category). And then some are strategic - most experimentals, T3 Static Arty and Nuke launchers. With the example I gave (and not saying that is THE way to go about it), it still stays a strategic weapon - it just doesn't do a nuke.

arbitrary terms for man-made agreed-upon-only labels, I was mostly using nuke submarine term here because it is easier to type than "strategic missile submarine" and leaves less of a bloat in post, but you are right that I demand that they should keep the nuke part of nuke submarines no matter what anything is technically called or considered and by whom

but even in all 2 occurrences (submarine, launcher) in supcom context, strategic missile means a nuke missile, the missile does the same fx in same damage radius as normal nuke and is countered by same anti-nuke strategic missile defenses and costs the same to build, making it effectively the same thing, just weaker damage for unknown reasons that I think reducing costs of would improve the use of this unit, you could say sml isn't a nuke launcher the same way because it is called "strategic missile launcher" not "nuke launcher"

another reason I don't like your suggestion of nuke submarines being turned into a barrage of normal missiles aside from ruining the concept of unit to some inferior missile ship, is that you say those missiles should be randomly landing in a large area, imo any kind of rng mechanic is a bad thing because it makes the unit inconsistent, for one player it could land all missiles on top of the unit they want, while for the other player it could completely miss most of the targets, and whichever player had randomly better outcome from this "slot machine", wins, scathis is already annoying enough to both aim and get hit by because of this, but at least it spams so many shots that it increases chances of hitting somewhat and its shots don't cost anything to fire in first place

anywho I hope no one minds reading through my essays

@ftxcommando
A personal anecdote, I just won a game of Dual Gap thanks to my nuke subs (and I commonly build them on any map with a lot of water). As to the ideas presented here I actually like all of them, haha!-- Billy nuke and TMD rebalance, or slightly cheaper normal nukes, or even the upgrades idea @veteranashe presented.

Found this thread through search because I was curious what else had been said on the topic.

What if strat subs had some version of the above-mentioned tactical nuke ability, but could also load strategic nukes from SML(!) that were carried to them by transports(!!)?

@slicknixon SMLs use different nukes.

Y'all necromancers.

@melanol

Non factor. It's a transportable luggage unit with a script to add and remove ammo when added to storage. Payload and range can be whatever you want on either launch platform. Could even make the warheads able to self-destruct and transportable by ACU/SACU/engineer for a bit of ground-and-pound.

@Fichom

I felt that an idea to rework nuke subs fit perfectly in in thread titled "Nuke Sub Rework".