🚀 go-pugleaf

how...@sirius.com (Howard Berkey) writes:

[other people's stuff snipped]

>While the nuke isn't as cool as some people make it out to be, it is a LOT
>better than the wimpy ion cannon.  The ion cannon isn't nearly as good as
>an airstrike, much less a nuke, IMHO.

>The nuke is great in the net games when your buddies are massing a large
>infantry or NOD bike assault.   If I ever drop it on a base, i usually go
>for the powerplants, because most other buildings can withstand the nuke.

>It also works well to plop down the nuke just before attacking the enemy
>base with commandos/engineers... Heh heh heh heh.

>The only advantage (at least in the net game) I see for the ion cannon is
>that it recharges faster than the nuke.

Other advantages of the Ion Cannon include

1. Quick firing time.  This is very useful for taking out SAM sites
(which are very vulnerable when popped up).

2. No warning of shot.  On "Nuclear Warhead Approaching" I immeadiately
get my choppers into the air and then start scattering my big combat
teams.  Doesn't always work but often I've been able to get some of my
guys out of there.

3. Effective against armour.  The nuke really sucks against tanks etc.
As GDI I have saved my base more than once by ion cannoning an APC
packed with nasty engineer/commando types in the middle of a huge enemy
assault (when I'd have no chance of stopping it a safe distance from my
base otherwise).

But for all of these advantages (plus the recharge time) I still think that 
the nuke is a better weapon simply for the huge amount of damage it can
do to a large area of a base.

TTFN	Tom.