Naval Anti-Nuke

[Deribus]

This idea has been discussed before, but I thought of a good way to implement it.

I saw someone earlier suggest putting them on aircraft carriers, but this seems quite overpowered, and high risk as aircraft carriers are quite easy to snipe in the late game. However, as far as I remember nukes have have 5 (?) hp, so it is an option to give aircraft carriers lower-cost and slow firing anti-nukes which do 1-2 hp of damage, so that you need multiple aircraft carriers in one place to deny a nuke, and the loss of a single aircraft carrier does not spell doom for your entire navy.

Thoughts!

P.S.: For UEF put the anti-nuke on the Battlecruiser, but double the cost and damage per missile to reflect the mass cost difference between Battlecruisers and aircraft carriers (7000 mass vs 3600 - 4400 mass)

[moonbearonmeth]

And how do you intend to then destroy your opponent's anti nukes?
Air vs an aircraft carrier? Seems a bit silly.
Through naval power? Then why am I trying to nuke his navy in the first place?

Nuking a navy is already a risky strategy with the fact that a navy can move and that nuking it minimises reclaim which is critical to naval fights.

[Franck83]

This idea has been discussed before, but I thought of a good way to implement it.

I saw someone earlier suggest putting them on aircraft carriers, but this seems quite overpowered, and high risk as aircraft carriers are quite easy to snipe in the late game. However, as far as I remember nukes have have 5 (?) hp, so it is an option to give aircraft carriers lower-cost and slow firing anti-nukes which do 1-2 hp of damage, so that you need multiple aircraft carriers in one place to deny a nuke, and the loss of a single aircraft carrier does not spell doom for your entire navy.

Thoughts!

P.S.: For UEF put the anti-nuke on the Battlecruiser, but double the cost and damage per missile to reflect the mass cost difference between Battlecruisers and aircraft carriers (7000 mass vs 3600 - 4400 mass)

Such balance changes are so sensitive that they should be intented as a mod (just like equilibrium). If everybodies use these new balance changes, then you can think merge them in main game.

[uzurpator]

And how do you intend to then destroy your opponent's anti nukes?

Random thought - by proper balance.

Let's assume that the hypothetical naval anti nuke anti-nuke is launched off battleships and the the following is true:

- a vessel can hold only one missle at a time.
- three missles are required to shoot down a single nuke.
- cost of a single naval anti-nuke is 1/2nd of a single land one.

then three battleships, 9k-ish mass a pop are required to shoot down a nuke. On top of that double nukes are not defendable. Lastly, one nuke defended against means you throw half a battleship at it.

Seems like a sensible late-game deterrent for nuking the navy, but not a floating replacement and the nukee needs to consider if spending 4.5k mass and 1.6m-ish energy is worth it.

EDIT: Reworded, because word salad.

[PhilipJFry]

I don't see the point in adding naval anti nukes.

If you want your navy to not die to a nuke you can use the move command.

[Deribus]

I don't see the point in adding naval anti nukes.

If you want your navy to not die to a nuke you can use the move command.

This only works with the faster naval units, and only at long distances. If an enemy sub or other launcher near your navy launches a nuke all of your battleships are as good as dead.

[Yudi]

I don't see the point in adding naval anti nukes.

If you want your navy to not die to a nuke you can use the move command.

This only works with the faster naval units, and only at long distances. If an enemy sub or other launcher near your navy launches a nuke all of your battleships are as good as dead.

Well if all ur battleships are clumped up then it's just bad gameplay in general.

[JoonasTo]

Nuke subs don't kill battleships, they only have 20k damage.

Aside from that, yes, close range nukes are really good against navy but then again, they are really good against anything, land, navy or air. So are you really just looking for a naval anti-nuke(as in an anti-nuke that could be built on water but not move) or are you looking for a mobile anti-nuke(with the ability to move on water/land?)

[Apofenas]

This was discussed many times already. Aircraft carrier has its own build rate of 180. Anti nuke has 1080. This creates 2 problems:
a) Change nothing in AC and anti values and get 20 min build time on anti
b) Adapt anti-nuke to aircrafts' 180 build rate, so it's super easy to assist with external build power(F.e. add 5 t3 engineers already double the build rate of Anti)
c) Increace aircrafts' build power to 1080 so they build planes like crazy.

None of this is an option.

I don't even mention difference in price between AC and anti-nuke;
I don't even mention difference in HP between AC and anti-nuke;
I don't even mention that ACs are mobile and already play role of AA and air factory;
I don't even mention UEF has no t3 AC;

ect

[Deribus]

Aside from that, yes, close range nukes are really good against navy but then again, they are really good against anything, land, navy or air. So are you really just looking for a naval anti-nuke(as in an anti-nuke that could be built on water but not move) or are you looking for a mobile anti-nuke(with the ability to move on water/land?)

I was looking for a water-limited mobile anti-nuke, but now that I think about it land is vulnerable as well, although I don't see nukes killing land units as often as I see them killing navy.

Perhaps an anti-nuke that can be built on water is a better option? But then that creates the issue that Cybran has no naval shielding capability. Maybe give Cybran anti-nukes personal stealth so they're not as easily spotted? I honestly have no idea

This was discussed many times already. Aircraft carrier has its own build rate of 180. Anti nuke has 1080. This creates 2 problems:
a) Change nothing in AC and anti values and get 20 min build time on anti
b) Adapt anti-nuke to aircrafts' 180 build rate, so it's super easy to assist with external build power(F.e. add 5 t3 engineers already double the build rate of Anti)
c) Increace aircrafts' build power to 1080 so they build planes like crazy.

None of this is an option.

I don't even mention difference in price between AC and anti-nuke;
I don't even mention difference in HP between AC and anti-nuke;
I don't even mention that ACs are mobile and already play role of AA and air factory;
I don't even mention UEF has no t3 AC;

I addressed most of these issues in my original post.

Build power problems:
If there are say 5 naval anti-nukes needed to counter a single nuke, the build power becomes a non issue. If you have 5 Aircraft Carriers building anti concurrently, that's the equivalent of 900 buildpower, which is quite close to 1080, and means that naval anti-nukes have just slightly slower build time than land-based ones.

Other issues:
1. 5 Aircraft Carriers is (at least) 18,000 mass. One anti-nuke is 7,500 mass. This seems an acceptable price to pay for a mobile anti-nuke.
2. Cybran Aircraft Carrier is 20,000 HP. Cybran anti-nuke with only one ED5 around it is 18,800 HP. And no, you do not need to burn through 5 Aircraft Carrier's worth of health because you need all 5 to counter 1 nuke.
3. That's why they cost significantly more.
4. As I said before, give UEF anti-nuke to Battlecruisers, albeit with significant changes to make it more balanced with the other factions.

Such balance changes are so sensitive that they should be intented as a mod (just like equilibrium). If everybodies use these new balance changes, then you can think merge them in main game.

Yeah I agree, it would first be best to test this in a mod.