Author Topic: Nukes  (Read 645 times)

Online WolfWhiteFire

  • Jr. Member Mark III
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Nukes
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2017, 07:51:09 PM »
Well, then nevermind about that, though people would still be able to station long range ships there to hurt AI waves a lot, and it could be useful for slowing them down to blast them with an interplanetary weapon depending on how long it takes to fire.
That crazy non-hardcore player who decided that when AI War 2 comes out focusing on hunting the Nemesis as much as possible regardless of risk will be a good idea.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,606
Re: Nukes
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2017, 08:49:04 PM »
Except to get the achievement for winning after nuking the entire galaxy.

There is that.  Although doing it is downright impossible without serious, serious cheese.
(You basically have to be about to win, nuke the galaxy, then win)

Online WolfWhiteFire

  • Jr. Member Mark III
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Nukes
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2017, 09:13:51 PM »
I did it, I don't remember what difficulty (probably 7/7 though), and I was playing with handicaps, but about 15 minutes before the huge wave of spire reinforcements arrived in the fallen spire difficulty I decided to nuke the galaxy and see how long I would last. For whatever reason they never really attacked me until the spire reinforcements arrived. I had a few golems (on easy) a botnet (also on easy, I can't help but feel that spending a ton of time and resources to build a powerful weapon was enough of a cost to have it), the exodian blade, some spire ships, and whatever of my ships survived, also a 10/10 dyson golem was fighting them the whole time. I really don't understand why the AI didn't attack me though, they had quite a large force, maybe my golems and exodian blade were considered more powerful than I thought. Anyway, I just waited the whole time until spire arrived then I won, though I was initially expecting to just get wiped out instantly. I guess that might count as about to win, but I don't consider it that, especially considering how harshly the AI responds to the exodian blade in a homeworld.
That crazy non-hardcore player who decided that when AI War 2 comes out focusing on hunting the Nemesis as much as possible regardless of risk will be a good idea.

Offline Steelpoint

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Nukes
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2017, 12:08:47 PM »
What I've noticed with Nukes is that they tend to be more useful for high level players who use them as part of a niche/specific strategy. A good example is extreme AIP hacking, the core strategy is to use defences/ships and other tricks to get a extreme amount of AIP to be shaved off via a hack, far more than what most people would get, and then when the AI waves have reached a extreme point, to deploy a Nuke to destroy 80% of the AI's waves as you also stop you're hack, thus turning those 50k+ AI ships into 5k ships. Even with the AIP increase with the nuke you're still getting 50 to 80 AIP removed.

-----------

My only thought I can table with Nukes is to suggest rebranding the 'lightning' missiles into 'tactical' nuclear missiles. While renaming the standard Nukes into 'strategic/theatre' nuclear missiles. The idea being the tactical missiles are meant to more tactical/precise elimination of enemies whereas the strategic nukes are for when you want to remove the system from the picture, for the most part.

I also assume that the role of Nuclear weapons may change depending on if we go with the traditional planetary system in AI War II or if we get the more unique full Solar System aspect.

Offline carldong

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: Nukes
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2017, 02:35:05 AM »
OK, just finished a 7/7 Fallen Spire campaign, the Imperial ending. Yes, in FS, after clearing every single planet on the path to the core shard, my AIP is ~800, which causes lots of border aggression and threat accumulation one step out. Well, nukes are actually quite useful here -- I just send one outside the wormhole -- except for those Impulse Reaction Emmitters which somehow are immune to nukes.

And just got the "winning after using MkIII nuke", after watching 20 minutes of slideshow of FS imperial fleet wiping the HW.

Yeah, looks like nukes are more like defensive weapons. Maybe if you are doing 1AIP/5min, and taking a super nasty MkIV subcommander world will take 4 hours(unlikely), nukes should probably not be used. Unless it is modified so that it really kills those "that I really want to kill".

Offline MaxAstro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • Love, Peace, and Calvinball
Re: Nukes
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2017, 03:53:03 AM »
Certainly the impression I got from nukes is that every enemy that makes you think "crap, maybe this is worth a nuke" is immune to nukes.  :)

Offline carldong

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: Nukes
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2017, 05:18:39 AM »
Maybe do this.

Allow nukes to destroy everything(maybe aside from homeworld stuff), and give some additional AIP for stuff specifically destroyed by nukes. eg, that train of 100 Dire Guardians and H/K V that is going to streamroll your defense? Throw in a nuke and eat up 5AIP for each of the nasty stuff destroyed, in addition to the original 50AIP. Now you create a supply-less planet, and take +550AIP. You removed yourself from immediate death, but the next wave will definitely kill you unless you manage to win right now. Or you can get another nuke for the next Exo(maybe), and increase AIP by... Say 5000 because the AI is really angry and sends lots of !!fun!! to you. So, this will be a quick spiral to death, starting from using the first one.

But aren't that what nukes are for?

Numbers are just for demonstration purpose, no balance considered.

Offline GiftGruen

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Assassin's greenhouse
Re: Nukes
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2017, 10:44:40 AM »
About the "nukes work differently without atmosphere", a real-life nuke blast outside of Earth's atmosphere would have very different, yet still catastrophic, effects than the usually pictured mushroom cloud of doom. Mainly, it would create an initial EMP blast strong enough to kill unshielded electronics thousands of kilometres away, and even shielded electronics in a radius of several dozen kilometres (early in the space age, tests indicated about an 80 km radius where the blast would destroy satellites). Additionally, a radiation belt around the body it was orbiting would form, and electronics or, god forbid, people, moving through would quickly suffer from radiation damage/poisoning long after the nuke burst.

About the "immune to radiation damage" thing: That's firmly in the fiction part of science fiction. Nukes release a large burst of gamma radiation, which is pure energy. You can have a thick shield of matter in low-energy state ready to soak up most of the energy blast, and the radiation would just tear away the electrons in the shield's atoms, releasing a cloud of them to cause havoc on the other side of the shield no matter how thick it is. The thicker the better, of course, since it does soak up some of the radiation. But this is one of the things you just can't make better and better to the point where it grants perfect protection. You can just chip away at what you want to avoid, a fraction of it at a time.

Sorry for the physics nerdery, I know this was a gameplay discussion for the most part. But maybe it inspires some possible effects or uses nukes could have in AIW2.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,606
Re: Nukes
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2017, 12:05:46 PM »
All I can think of now is the 844 Gigaton nuke.
Quote
well i guess that kills every fleet, still i am not sure if this design is plausible for a nuclear weapon. I would say no. You just enter combat, press the detonation button and the next thing you see after the flash is gone are tumbling away ships , whats left of them in every direction.
Children of a Dead Earth

Offline Atepa

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Nukes
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2017, 01:13:56 PM »
About the "nukes work differently without atmosphere", a real-life nuke blast outside of Earth's atmosphere would have very different, yet still catastrophic, effects than the usually pictured mushroom cloud of doom. Mainly, it would create an initial EMP blast strong enough to kill unshielded electronics thousands of kilometres away, and even shielded electronics in a radius of several dozen kilometres (early in the space age, tests indicated about an 80 km radius where the blast would destroy satellites). Additionally, a radiation belt around the body it was orbiting would form, and electronics or, god forbid, people, moving through would quickly suffer from radiation damage/poisoning long after the nuke burst.

About the "immune to radiation damage" thing: That's firmly in the fiction part of science fiction. Nukes release a large burst of gamma radiation, which is pure energy. You can have a thick shield of matter in low-energy state ready to soak up most of the energy blast, and the radiation would just tear away the electrons in the shield's atoms, releasing a cloud of them to cause havoc on the other side of the shield no matter how thick it is. The thicker the better, of course, since it does soak up some of the radiation. But this is one of the things you just can't make better and better to the point where it grants perfect protection. You can just chip away at what you want to avoid, a fraction of it at a time.

Sorry for the physics nerdery, I know this was a gameplay discussion for the most part. But maybe it inspires some possible effects or uses nukes could have in AIW2.

Physics nerdery I'm sure is right at home here on these board, heh.

As for the actual comments. I agree absolutely the EMP effect from the nuke is still very much in place, as would be the radiation sphere (I say sphere instead of belt, because belt implies little Z axis impact aka "just fly over the radiation" which wouldn't be the case) it would extend out to the radius of whatever distance the initial explosion caused. Although now that I think of it more... without atmosphere and air resistance... what would stop the sphere just growing indefinitely? Little holes popping up here and there as the sphere pushed past another planet bombarding the facing side with radiation in the process.  Are solar winds and actual 'wind' would they possibly provide some resistance / movement to the sphere?

Hrmm... so many sciencey questions...

As for the immunity part, while I agree current technology doesn't allow for perfect protection, we humans are a crafty lot, and I wouldn't put it past us to solve that obstacle at some point as well. Imagine as world where we could use nuclear power for anything because it was so safe that fossil fuel power just didn't make sense anymore.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,606
Re: Nukes
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2017, 05:09:23 PM »
what would stop the sphere just growing indefinitely? Little holes popping up here and there as the sphere pushed past another planet bombarding the facing side with radiation in the process.  Are solar winds and actual 'wind' would they possibly provide some resistance / movement to the sphere?

And the inverse-square law.

Online WolfWhiteFire

  • Jr. Member Mark III
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Nukes
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2017, 05:45:37 PM »
I believe Keith said before he is hoping to change nukes in a way that they wouldn't give AIP but would still be balanced.
That crazy non-hardcore player who decided that when AI War 2 comes out focusing on hunting the Nemesis as much as possible regardless of risk will be a good idea.

Offline NichG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: Nukes
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2017, 05:55:37 AM »
I never read AI War 'nukes' to be actual nuclear weapons, but rather that 'nuke' was used to communicate simply to the player the idea of the weapon.

I think considering them to be purely strategic-scale moves is an interesting direction, but in that case why not change them from being a strictly 'blow stuff up' type of device and instead have them be something like terraforming/Kessler syndrome bombs? For example:

- A device which permanently causes a system to apply attrition to all ships passing through it, at the cost of a chunk of AIP and losing supply on that system.
- A device which permanently alters the speed in the system (aforementioned 'permanent gravity effect' from upthread)
- A device which permanently disables shields or weakens defenses in the system for both sides
- ...

The balance considerations would be to make the device primarily negative for the player if used in a thoughtless way (to prevent just detonating the device on all of their planets from being a good tactic), but situationally advantageous if used in the right way. And then on top of that, some AIP. To distinguish this from, say, constructing a special building, maybe focus on things where the timing of their use is interesting - something that gives you an advantage if you fire it off in connection to an attack or defense, but then which you pay for afterwards.

Offline Kahuna

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,205
  • Kahuna Matata!
Re: Nukes
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2017, 01:02:28 PM »
So apparently 99% of the times in AIWC, you shouldn't even try to build a Nuke.
It's true there are only a couple of instances where using a Mark I Nuke would make any sense. And on a difficulty level below 10/10 there's probably none.

Using a Mark I Nuke on 10/10 is effective, perhaps even "a good idea", if you're dealing with a well protected AI homeworld or a massive CPA (as Toranth said). By a massive CPA I mean at least 40000 ships. A CPA of equivalent strength but with fewer ships might not be worth nuking. That's because nuking gets rid of the Carriers which are the biggest threat. But even then using a nuke shouldn't be the first option. Nuking would be an option if you're short on time, metal or firepower and the AIP increase wont increase the strength of normal waves too much. If you manage to nuke 30000 ships of that 40000 you have probably bought your self at least an hour of in-game time. When CPAs get that big stopping and rebuilding everything can take so long it's almost time for another CPA. But that's only on 10/10 difficulty with 12 or more hours in-game time. And since each nuke increases AIP by 50 you can probably afford to nuke only one or two CPAs. On lower difficulty levels you never have to if you're doing things correctly. On the other hand on lower difficulty level you could probably afford to nuke a bit more willy nilly.

They aren't supposed to be used after all.
I think anything that is in the game is supposed to be used, or at least should be. And if it isn't and it's some kind of an inside joke, outsiders aren't going to get it and it's going to seem like flawed design.

I think there's absolutely no use for Mark III Nuke but there could be for a Mark II. Using a Mark II Nuke_might_be viable but only on 10/10 difficulty level against something like 10RaidEngine/ProbablyXDefensiveAIType // 10RaidEngine/ProbablyYDefensiveAIType when you're about to attack the last AI homeworld. Last AI homeworld since you could afford to use only one and you would have to win the game after that. The Mark II Nuke would be used to get rid of all the Raid Engines an AI core planet next to the AI homeworld and all AI planets around that core planet. Nuking also disabled Fortresses and I think it disabled Force Fields too so it would make things a lot more smooth. Before nuking you would trigger all the possible Raid Engine and detonate the nuke when all the Raid Engine waves have spawned. I'm quite sure that would work but I haven't actually done it in practice even against the Raid Engine AI type because I've managed to win without doing so. On the other hand I haven't played against 10RaidEngine/ProbablyXDefensiveAIType // 10RaidEngine/ProbablyYDefensiveAIType.

What I've noticed with Nukes is that they tend to be more useful for high level players who use them as part of a niche/specific strategy. A good example is extreme AIP hacking, the core strategy is to use defences/ships and other tricks to get a extreme amount of AIP to be shaved off via a hack, far more than what most people would get, and then when the AI waves have reached a extreme point, to deploy a Nuke to destroy 80% of the AI's waves as you also stop you're hack, thus turning those 50k+ AI ships into 5k ships. Even with the AIP increase with the nuke you're still getting 50 to 80 AIP removed.
Exactly. Although 200 hacking points isn't enough to make that more effective than stopping the hack a bit earlier and dealing with the threat without nuking, apparently. Although in my latest AAR when hacking response got pretty big even when I still had 100 hacking points left. So it would have gotten too bit to deal reasonably pretty soon. So doing what you described, nuke hacking, would probably be more effective than stopping the hack early if you had like 300 or 400 hacking points to spend and if needed a lot of AIP reduction. Then nuke hacking would probably be the best option.

Maybe if you are doing 1AIP/5min, and taking a super nasty MkIV subcommander world will take 4 hours(unlikely), nukes should probably not be used. Unless it is modified so that it really kills those "that I really want to kill".
In that situation a more surgical option of using a Mark III EMP and Assault Transports filled with Bombers and other ships will do the trick better.

give some additional AIP for stuff specifically destroyed by nukes. eg, that train of 100 Dire Guardians and H/K V that is going to streamroll your defense? Throw in a nuke and eat up 5AIP for each of the nasty stuff destroyed, in addition to the original 50AIP. Now you create a supply-less planet, and take +550AIP.
+50 is already so high you probably shouldn't use it more than twice. Third nukes could still be viable. Perhaps even fourth but after that you'd probably want to finish the game ASAP. Naturally talking from a 10/10 perspective but the game isn't supposed to be balanced around that difficulty level anyway.



And about stuff being immune to nuke. Yeah it's pity that so many things that would be worth nuking are immune to it. I don't think something like destroying dozens of AI Starships 5 Hunter/Killers (and thousands of fleet ships) with a nuke would make the game too easy or unbalanced. If you can't deal with those dozens of Starships and 5 Hunter/Killers and you nuke them the next time you're going to get dozens and dozens of Starships and 10 Hunter/Killers so it's a downward spiral just like using Warheads. Nukes would be even a bigger downward spiral so going all willy nilly would be like digging your own grave. Imo nukes should at least damage all the things that are currently immune to it.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 01:04:46 PM by Kahuna »
set /A diff=10
if %diff%==max (
   set /A me=:)
) else (
   set /A me=SadPanda
)
echo Check out my AI War strategy guide and find your inner Super Cat!
echo 2592 hours of AI War and counting!
echo Kahuna matata!

Offline Steelpoint

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Nukes
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2017, 01:37:03 PM »
On that note you're AAR kinda showed how even the Nuke Hack strategy is very niche in of itself.

Unless you are aiming for a very large AIP drop then its far more viable to simply stop the hack after a AIP reduction of anywhere from 50 to 70, while the AI is only sending tens of thousands of ships, not hundreds of thousands. You'll get a large AIP drop, and may still have some HAP left.

Whereas using the Nuke can very well eliminate any gains you get for keeping the hack going until you get half a million ships knocking at you're door.

E: Which honestly means using nukes seems only useful for a high diff assault on the final AI Homeworld, and even then in most cases you won't even need it.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 01:39:07 PM by Steelpoint »