The great commander death nuke controversy
As some of you may remember, the commander death nuke used to do the full 70,000 nuclear explosion damage in beta and early retail versions. It was quickly reduced to a mere 4,000 damage (while keeping the now-ridiculously large explosion intact) to balance the game. The old 70,000 damage made it much too easy for a losing player to draw a game by allowing him to take down even a full health, fully shielded commander simply by getting his own commander somewhere in the general vicinity and either exploding it or letting it die. Tech 2 transports, and especially tech 1 transports back when they were allowed to carry ACUs, were frequently used in com-bombing, where the player who was behind in the game forced a draw by exploding his commander over the enemy base, thus taking out the enemy commander.
But many of the top players are against even the current meager 4,000 death nuke damage, and now want it reduced to zero (whether the explosion animation would remain is academic). There have been several threads in the official GPG forum discussing this proposal, including a truly monstrous thread “Death nuke damage needs to be 0” by Unconquerable that was eventually locked after a staggering 569 replies (if only that many people commented on this blog :-P). Yes, that thread included the requisite flaming and arguing that seem to come whenever Unconquerable says anything even mildly controversial, but there was also a lot of good discussion in it.
Unconquerable’s argument is that death nuke damage should be reduced to zero because the death nuke allows way too many draws to be forced on small maps. He offers up a replay of a battle on Theta Passage (v3255) as evidence to support his thesis. In the replay, two players are battling it out, with one player quickly gaining the upper hand (like within four minutes) thanks to a very successful early ghetto gunship attack while his opponent is trying to go for an early tech 2 upgrade. This player keeps the upper hand for the rest of the game, controlling significantly more mass deposits across the map. But he ends up losing because he uses his commander too offensively, pushing it deep into enemy territory with his tech 2 tanks, and his opponent is able to force a draw by chasing down commander with commander.
But when I watch this replay, I don’t think that the death nuke damage should be reduced. I think it’s fine just the way it is. The player with the upper hand deserved to get the draw because he played very offensively with his commander, and he should’ve known the risks. The death nuke explosion is basically a game mechanic counter against using commanders offensively. If your opponent is attacking you very aggressively and you have little chance of winning, you can at least play to the draw by only having to deal 6,000 damage to the enemy ACU and getting your commander within range rather than trying to deal 10,000 damage to the enemy ACU without the aid of your commander. Everyone knows this, and it should keep players wary of using their commanders too offensively. If you end up getting a draw because you pushed too hard with your commander, well, you deserved it.
A better strategy for the winning player in this replay would have been to leave his commander in his base. He had more tech 2 units, far better map control, and a better resource base. Winning was basically inevitable. But he sent his commander in along with his assault and quickly learned that the risks of doing so are more than theoretical. The commander death nuke should remain the way it is. Unlike the old 70,000 death nuke, it doesn’t allow either player to arbitrarily force a draw at any time; you still have to deal 6,000 points of damage to the enemy commander first, making it not unbalancing. And it is a definite deterrent against overly offensive commander use, a tactic that many players have trouble coming to terms with.
Just remember, your commander is your king. He is much safer on your side of the board where he is protected by his rooks, knights, bishops, and pawns than on the opponent’s side of the board.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I’d like to argue, that your commander is not your king. He is your Queen. He is much safer on your side of the board, and also very powerful, once you lose him, you are screwed.
now, moving on from chess… I agree with everything you said about why the 4,000 damage needs to stay. If it was 0, that would be ridiculous. Pointless. There would be terrible comm rushing early every game.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
i agree it should say at 4K without this you might as well change all the games to Annihilation
July 18th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I like it the way it is.
And for that matter, to counter the large amount of fighting about this, games should have sliders to say when the meltdown activates, from start to 30 minutes. That way, if death nukes sound horrible to you, you can just slide it
July 18th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I love it the way it is. It’s not as severe as Total Annihilation where you could draw very easily. But you still have that risk element that keeps things interesting.
Just thank your lucky stars that you don’t play TA Spring (as I’ve recently started doing again). Practically nobody in that game is prepared to take care of their commanders so Commander Continues (or Annihilation in SupCom) is the standard. It sucks.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
The death nuke is a VERY sensible mechanic from a game design point of view. Without it, the player with the upper hand should most certainly win - which would be very boring shortly after the player actually gains the upper hand - who could be bothered playing out a foredrawn conclusion, especially if you are loosing ! Instead - the underdog player may employ their commander, a very powerful unit, noting that at wost they will loose, someting that is already likely. The upper hand player however, may only employ the commander at the risk of falling into a draw, or possibly even snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, when he would otherwise be in a position to most likely win. Thus - even when you have the upper hand, the game is designed such that the match may still not turn out the way you expect. Excellent design. 0 Com damage is a poor design solution.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
how about two explosions when the commander goes. One explosion is 4000 damage. the other explosion is 30,000 damage but will not affect ACU’s or SCU’s.
that way the comm death is nearly as effective at wiping out bases as it was in the MP beta, but you still have to play smart to force a draw with him.
I recall Unconquerable tends to make comments like, “that should have been a victory,” when he gets comm-bombed into a draw, and that is all well and good as his opinion. But i think a win within the rules of the game is a win. the rules of the game include commander meltdowns..
July 18th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Yea, I don’t think nukes are big enough here, what the heck are they thinking nerfing it to ZERO. Geez, I think a comm nuke (next to another comm) should take 50-75% of their health, and then do its regular huge nuke damage radius (back to 70,000 or whatever) to everything else! I want to see BIG KABOOMS.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
i totaly agree a 0 dammage one would be totaly un-supcom/TA and if they realy consedered this I would be so discusted i would vomit
July 19th, 2007 at 2:54 am
think the 70,000 damage worked well…
nerfing it to 4k means u could use ur com offesnively and then stick around for the big bang….
70k means u NEEDED to get the HELL out of there!!!
July 19th, 2007 at 3:57 am
The issue may not be with the death nuke but rather with some maps.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:37 am
SemperFido, I agree.
WinterDuel comes to mind.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:43 am
I don’t see why there should be a reason for small maps not to work, though.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Why don’t relate death damage to upgrades ?
Stock com : 4000 damage
Fully equiped com : 70000 damage
July 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
E coli: That would make sense. Make the explosion get larger with every successive upgrade on the commander. I’m not sure if it’d be good for gameplay balance, but it’d make sense. Imagine in a 2v2 ranked game, if you will. One partner upgrades his commander, donates all of his units to his partner, and then com-bombs one of the opponent’s bases into oblivion. That should deliver a sizable advantage.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I think the death nuke should be 10k hit points (which if I remember correctly is the hit point total of an unshielded commander). This way the death nuke can very easily be fatal to an early game commander, but a shielded one/one upgraded for offense would be able to survive the explosion.
Death nuke needs to exist, killing a commander should be hazardous. Avoiding a suicide bombing commander isn’t difficult if one has a radar station up. You can see their commander coming and prepare by building point defenses that will kill them.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:19 am
4K is perfectly sufficient, IMO.
I know that whenever i play a LAN friendly 2v2 or 3v3, i get PO’ed about the units i lsot killing the first player’s ACU…
It’s most likely my playing style (i like to harass all opponents in the game, adn then mobilize a main strike force to take them out all in a row), but i can not possibly use my ACU offensively without doing a “pitstop” with him in between opponents…
seeing as Assassination is really the only way to play SupCom, i don’t quite see why it should be enlarged…
A larger explosion just means more people getting out of defeat in a cheap way.
Less means no way to get your way out of defeat, even with a bit of skill…
4000 is a balance of the two, IMO… the amjority of the damage to the opposing ACU still needs to be done “manually”
August 14th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Gameplay > Big Pretty Explosions
The problem is, unlike TA, the commander in SupCom is a very powerful offensive unit without putting a huge drain on your econ (like the D-Gun did). As a result, its practically a necessity to Comm Rush on small maps, because if you don’t, you WILL lose map control and thereby the game to your Comm Rushing opponent. T1 armies can’t take an opposing T1 army that is backed by its commander.