SAM Launchers: How Many to Buy and When the Cost Pays Off

Field 4 SAM launchers (10.5M) to survive a hydrogen, 5 (13.5M) so the launchers themselves survive the blast, and around 25 (73.5M) to survive a single MIRV. Every launcher after the first costs 3M and every level costs 3M, so the decision is not “is a SAM good” but “how many, at what level, and placed so no hydrogen lands in a clean spot.” Buy them in response to a real nuke threat, not in advance.

The cost curve that sets every decision

Every number in this guide starts from one formula, verified in the v0.34.0 source and the v34 structures manifest. A SAM launcher’s cost is min(3,000,000, (n+1) × 1,500,000), where n is the number of launchers you already own. The first launcher costs 1.5M; every launcher after that, and every level upgrade on any launcher, costs a flat 3M. That single rule is why the community’s “10.5M to counter a hydrogen” keeps coming up: it is 1.5 + 3 + 3 + 3, four launchers. There is no discount for buying in bulk, so a defensive ring is an accumulating line item, not a one-time tax, and the longer the match runs the heavier that line item becomes against your income. A hydrogen bomb costs 5M to the attacker and a MIRV carrier 25M, so the defender is always paying more per intercepted warhead than the attacker pays to launch it. That asymmetry is intentional: defence is priced higher than offence so the match cannot become a permanent stalemate, and the designer expects the defence to be a real economic commitment, not free. The practical consequence is that you should never buy launchers “just in case.” You buy a launcher because a specific enemy can field a specific nuke within a specific range, and the 3M you spend is only recovered if it actually stops that nuke. The timing matters as much as the total: a mid-game 1v1 that has earned roughly 20M by the fifteen-minute mark can spare 10.5M without starving the front line, but a match still fighting over its first cities cannot, and forcing the ring early is how players lose the match they were defending. Below is the full cost ladder so you can read the whole defensive line at a glance before deciding how far to extend it.

Launchers	Cumulative cost	What it absorbs
1	1.5M	Atom-only threats, single direction
2	4.5M	Atom-heavy opponent, two directions
4	10.5M	One hydrogen bomb, defended direction
5	13.5M	Hydrogen, launchers survive the blast
9	25.5M	Atom spam plus one hydrogen, full ring
25	73.5M	One MIRV, defended core

The ladder has three natural breakpoints. Between one and two launchers you are still in atom-only territory and the spend is cheap. Between two and four you are buying hydrogen resistance, and the price jumps because every extra launcher is the full 3M. Between four and twenty-five you are buying MIRV resistance, and the price is so high that it should only be committed in a long match where the core you are defending is worth 73.5M or more. Reading your position against those breakpoints is faster than trying to compute the optimal ring from scratch, and it is the decision framework the rest of the guide builds on.

Why range, not count, is the real constraint

A launcher only counts once the incoming warhead is inside its (dynamic) radius. The range grows with level via samRange(level) = 150 - 480 / (level + 5), so level 1 is 70 tiles, level 3 is 90, level 5 is roughly 102, level 10 is about 118, and it caps at 150. A nuke launched from just outside that radius detonates before it ever enters the intercept window, and a single hydrogen then removes the whole cluster it was supposed to protect. This is the exact complaint that drives the “Sams need a rework” threads: the attacker lobs a hydrogen just beyond the outer ring and the defender’s entire 10.5M investment detonates on their own structures. The fix is not more launchers at the same range but coverage with spacing. Place each launcher roughly three-quarters of a hydrogen’s range from the next, so that whatever spot the hydrogen lands in is still inside at least one launcher’s radius. A single launcher at 70 range guards a small disc; a second launcher at the edge of the first’s radius extends the guarded area outward, and a third and fourth fill in the seams. Range also explains why a higher level can beat a larger count at the same money: upgrading one launcher from level 1 to level 5 extends its radius from 70 to about 102 for 12M, which can be more defensive value than two fresh level-1 launchers for 6M that each only reach 70, because the wider radius reaches the launch point before the warhead becomes uninterceptable. The hydrogen’s own blast radius of 100 is the second number that matters: a launcher at level 4 or below with a radius under 100 can be destroyed by the very blast it is answering, so the ring edge has to reach level 5 to be self-sustaining, and that is why “four launchers” is the minimum and “five launchers” is the comfortable number, because the fifth one is the one that survives.

Launcher level	Radius (tiles)	vs hydrogen blast (100)
1	70	Inside the blast — destroyed
3	90	Still inside — destroyed
5	102	Just outside — survives
10	118	Comfortably outside — survives
cap	150	Max coverage, late-game

The table makes the level 5 threshold concrete: a launcher is destroyed by the hydrogen it is answering unless its radius reaches 102, and 102 is exactly the level 5 range. That is the entire reason the community treats level 5 as the self-sufficient line and why “four launchers at level 1” is not the same defence as “four launchers at level 5”: the first can be erased by the very blast it is defending against, and the second can answer a MIRV warhead from outside the blast and still be standing. The range gap between level 3 and level 5 is 12 tiles, which is the difference between a launcher that dies and one that lives, and it is bought for 6M on a single launcher, a cheaper per-tile price than adding an entire fifth launcher.

Level, missile slots, and the 9-second reload

Every level adds one missile slot and also extends the range, and a launcher fires one warhead per slot with a 90-tick (about 9 second) cooldown. A level 1 launcher has a single slot and can answer one warhead; a level 5 launcher has five slots and can answer five warheads that arrive within the same reloading window. The ready-fire count is the number of slots minus the slots still cooling down, so a launcher that has just fired sits at zero ready shots until the next slot reloads. This is the mechanic behind the community finding that a launcher must reach about level 5 to be self-sufficient: at level 5 its range is roughly 102, which just clears the hydrogen blast radius of 100, so the launcher placed at the edge of its own ring survives the blast it is defending against, and it carries enough slots to answer a MIRV’s split warheads in one pass. The reload also sets the attacker’s cheapest counter. An atom bomb costs 750K, so an attacker can trade 750K against your 3M per launcher only if they can land more warheads than your ready slots can answer inside a single 9-second window. Worked out: a single level 3 launcher has three ready slots and reloads a slot every nine seconds, so an atom-only opponent must land four atoms in roughly nine seconds to break it, and they will rarely manage that with the 750K cost and their own build delays. Defending is therefore a race between your total ready-slot pool and the attacker’s warhead arrival rate, which is why a low count of high levels often beats a high count of low levels against atom spam, because the high-level launchers contribute both more range and more slots in the same window. A level 3 and a level 2 launcher together have five slots; five separate level 1 launchers also have five slots but cost 1.5 plus 3 times 4, or 13.5M, instead of the 1.5 plus 3 plus 3 plus 3 plus 3 for the level build, so the level build is cheaper and has better range. The 9-second reload also has a defensive use most players do not exploit: because a slot reloads every 9 seconds, a level 5 launcher that is never firing still accumulates ready shots over time, so a launcher built before the threat arrives is worth more than one built after it arrives. That is the entire reason the build order in the scenarios below starts the core launchers early and extends the count later: a launcher that has been cooling for a minute arrives with full ready slots, and that is a real, measurable advantage in the 9-second race that decides whether the ring holds.

The intercept window most new players miss

A nuke is only shootable during a specific phase of its flight: after it leaves the silo and before it detonates, while it still renders as a solid object. Outside that window it renders opaque and no SAM in the world can touch it. This is the number-one reason new players report “my SAMs are not working”: they are watching a warhead fly and expecting an interception, but the warhead is in its vulnerable-free window, or it is simply outside the launcher’s radius, or the launcher is still reloading its slot. Read the three conditions as a gate, not a list. The warhead must be inside the launcher’s range, the warhead must be in the interceptable flight window, and a slot must be ready to fire. If any one condition fails the SAM does nothing, and there is no partial credit. The practical move is to watch your own launchers during a real nuke test or a spectated match and confirm which condition you are losing. In the “Why don’t my SAM launchers work” thread the top answer is exactly this: the opaque look means invulnerable, and a SAM counters one missile at a time within a distance of the target. Treat the opaque render as a timer, not a bug. When you see it, the answer is already in motion and the only thing that matters is whether it was inside your radius before it left the window. Most “my SAMs do nothing” cases resolve to one of three specific placements: the launcher is built too close to the core so its 70 range never reaches the launch point, the launcher is built after the nuke is already in the opaque window, or the launcher is a level 1 with a single slot that has already fired and is cooling. Each of those is fixable by moving the launcher, building earlier, or upgrading the level, and none of them is a launcher-count problem, which is why adding a fifth launcher does not fix a placement that is wrong. The single most useful diagnostic is to run one hydrogen test against your own ring and watch which of the three gates fails, because the test takes thirty seconds and tells you exactly what to fix. If the warhead is outside the radius when it detonates, the fix is spacing and levels. If the warhead is inside the radius but the launcher does not fire, the fix is the interceptable window, meaning you built too late. If the launcher fires and the warhead still lands, the fix is the ready-slot pool, meaning you need more levels. Running that test before a real match, rather than after losing, is the difference between fixing one launcher and rebuilding a whole ring.

Scenario 1: mid-game hydrogen, four launchers

Assume a ranked or public 1v1 around the 15-to-25 minute mark. One opponent has a hydrogen bomb in range and can afford one launch; the other side has the income to answer it but has not yet committed to a defensive line. The decision is whether to spend 10.5M now. Four launchers at 1.5 plus 3 plus 3 plus 3 total 10.5M and each is placed roughly three-quarters of a hydrogen range from the next, around the core you actually care about. A hydrogen then has to land in a spot that is outside every launcher’s radius, and with four launchers spaced that way the clean spots are mostly outside your territory. The break-even is low: a single hydrogen the launchers stop saves you the 5M it would have cost the attacker to build plus whatever city and port it would have destroyed, so the ring pays for itself by stopping about two to three hydrogens over the rest of the match. If the opponent is atom-only, the same 10.5M is overkill and one or two launchers is enough; the four-launcher ring is specifically the answer to a hydrogen-capable enemy. If you cannot afford 10.5M yet, do not buy four level-1 launchers at 70 range that an opponent can blast from outside; instead buy two launchers and upgrade them toward level 3 or 4 so the radius reaches the hydrogen’s launch distance before the money is fully spent. The failure case to avoid is the all-in ring: spending 10.5M on launchers leaves nothing for the counter-attack, so the correct move is to keep the ring at four while still funding a modest offensive, because the ring only pays off if you also survive long enough to win. The four-launcher ring is the floor for a hydrogen threat, not the ceiling; once the ring is built and the hydrogen is answered, the saved income goes back to the front line. Reading the opponent’s economy is what tells you whether the ring is worth the full 10.5M right now: a player with a silo in range and a visible hydrogen in flight is a confirmed threat that justifies the spend, while a player still building cities near the border is a potential threat that does not yet, and overbuilding against a potential threat is how you lose the front line you were supposed to be defending. The practical test is to count how many hydrogens the opponent has actually launched this match; one or two launches justify the full ring, while zero launches with no visible silo usually means you should hold the money and fund the offensive that decides the game.

Scenario 2: late-game MIRV, the 25-launcher ring

In a long public or team match the credible late-game threat is a 25M MIRV carrier that splits into several warheads, each of which needs its own interception. The controlled community test “Can 1250 SAMS Stop a MIRV” ran exactly this question and found the first reliable size to be about 25 launchers: 5 launchers failed, 9 launchers (about 25.5M, the cost of one carrier) failed, and 25 launchers finally held a small defended area. That is the number to plan around. Twenty-five launchers cost 1.5 plus 24 times 3, or 73.5M, which is almost three MIRV carriers. The ring is not worth it to stop one carrier by money alone; it is worth it because a MIRV that gets through destroys the core you built the economy around, so each carrier it stops saves far more than 25M in infrastructure. The build order matters: get to level 3 or 4 on the core launchers first so their radius reaches the carrier’s launch distance, then extend the count outward so the split warheads each land inside a radius with a ready slot. A low count of maxed launchers loses to a MIRV the same way five launchers did in the test, because the ready-slot pool is too small to answer the warhead arrival rate. If the carrier is the only credible threat and you have no hydrogen worry, a tighter ring of higher-level launchers can replace part of the count, but the 25-launcher figure is the safe floor. The timing is as important as the size: building 73.5M of launchers takes several minutes of income, and a MIRV can be launched while the ring is still incomplete, so the correct sequence is to build the core launchers to level 3 first, then extend the count, then finish the outer ring, because the core is the part that, if it falls, ends the match. A partially built ring is still worth more than no ring, and each launcher added before the carrier launches removes one more warhead from the pool that gets through. The cost discipline is what separates a winning endgame from a losing one: commit the 73.5M only when the carrier is the live threat, not in advance against a hydrogen-only opponent, and read the opponent’s stockpile to decide whether the MIRV is real or a bluff before the money is locked in. The build order is the part most players get wrong: starting the outer ring before the core is level 3 means the ring holds the warheads but the core still falls to a hydrogen that the ring was not sized to stop, so the correct sequence is core levels first, then count, then outer ring.

Scenario 3: atom-only pressure, the minimum viable ring

Not every match has a nuke threat, and overbuilding launchers against an atom-only opponent is the most common defensive waste. An atom bomb costs the attacker 750K, so the cheapest possible answer is a single level-1 launcher at 1.5M covering the one direction the atoms come from, or two launchers at 4.5M covering two. Because a level 1 launcher has one slot and a 9-second cooldown, an atom-only opponent must land two atoms inside the same nine seconds to trade away your launcher, and they will not do that if the cost math is visible. The minimum viable ring is therefore two launchers facing the real threat, not four facing a hypothetical. The upgrade path is different from the hydrogen case: you add levels to the two launchers you have rather than adding launchers, because extending range from 70 toward 90 and 102 lets the same two launchers cover more territory for 3M each. If the opponent is spamming atoms from several directions at once, the answer is still levels before count, because a higher-level launcher’s wider radius reaches more of the incoming atoms and its extra slots answer more of them in the same window. Only when the atoms come from every direction and the opponent can field a hydrogen should you extend the count toward the four- or five-launcher hydrogen ring. The income math is what makes this the cheapest scenario: two launchers plus two upgrades to level 3 is 1.5 plus 3 plus 3 plus 3, or 10.5M, the same total as the four-launcher hydrogen ring, but it gives the same atom coverage with better range and slots, so against atom-only pressure you spend the same money and defend better. The failure case is building four level-1 launchers to “be safe” against an atom-only opponent, which wastes 6M of range and slots that do nothing, and then having no money left when the opponent finally switches to a hydrogen. The break-even in this scenario is the cheapest of the three because the atoms are cheap to launch: stopping a single 750K atom saves the structure it would have destroyed, and the ring pays for itself over a handful of atoms, so the question is not whether the two-launcher ring pays off but whether it pays off faster than the alternative use of the same 4.5M, which is usually the front line, and the answer depends on how close the atom pressure is to the core you care about.

How the attacker beats a SAM line, and how to respond

The attacker has three clean counters to a defensive line, and each one maps to a specific defensive fix. The first is a hydrogen just outside the ring, which detonates on the outer launchers and the structures behind them in one blast; the answer is spacing at three-quarters of a hydrogen range so the blast spot is always inside a deeper launcher’s radius, and levels toward 5 so the outer launcher survives its own blast. The second is atom spam, where the attacker throws 750K atoms faster than your 9-second reload can answer; the answer is total ready-slot pool, which means levels that add slots on your core launchers so the pool outpaces the arrival rate. The third is a MIRV, which defeats a low count by splitting into more warheads than you have ready slots; the answer is the 25-launcher ring or higher. The deeper principle is that you cannot match the attacker’s money, so you match their intent. A hydrogen outside the ring is a range problem, so solve it with spacing and levels. Atom spam is a slot problem, so solve it with level. A MIRV is a count problem, so solve it with the full ring. In a team game the ally’s coverage changes the math: if the ally already holds one flank you can spend less on that flank and concentrate on the open side. Reading the attacker’s intent from their economy is the skill that ties the three counters together: a player saving toward a silo is building a nuke threat, a player spamming cities near the border is prepping atom pressure, and a player stockpiling 25M is building a MIRV. Each tells you which of the three counters is live, and therefore which defensive fix to prioritize before the money is committed. The discipline that ties all three together is to treat the ring as a response, not a position: you build the fix for the counter you actually see, you do not pre-build all three at once, and you re-evaluate the threat every time the opponent’s economy shifts. A player who abandons the silo and pushes cities has dropped the nuke threat, so the hydrogen counter becomes wasted money that should be redirected to the front line, and a player who abandons the cities and stockpiles the silo has raised the nuke threat, so the atom-only counter becomes under-built. Reading the shift is the skill, and the three counters are just the three answers the shift selects between.

Mode and map adjustments

When both sides already have Silos, pair this defensive page with the nuclear stalemate breaker to decide whether the ready-slot gap is better attacked through a raid, a funding blockade, or a timed land push.

The same ring behaves differently by mode and by map. In a 1v1 the enemy’s economy is predictable, so a single strong ring around your core is usually the correct answer and you can afford to push levels high, because there is exactly one enemy to watch and their nuke intent is visible. In a 2v2 the ally’s SAMs and nukes cover part of the field, so the correct answer is fewer launchers on your side and more trust in the ally’s coverage, which means you can hold the count lower and spend the saved money on the front line, and the ally’s ring is the part that handles the MIRV while you handle the atom pressure. In FFA the threat comes from every direction and the economy is uncertain, so the correct answer is a modest ring that you extend only as a specific player shows a nuke capability, rather than a full 25-launcher ring built in advance, because in FFA you cannot watch every player’s silo at once and committing 73.5M to a ring that one of four players may never threaten is a bad trade. Map shape changes the geometry: on compact or island maps a small ring reaches the whole territory, so levels matter more than count; on the open World map a long border needs more launchers to cover the same threat, so count matters more than levels. In every mode the rule is the same: match the ring to the actual nuke threat and the actual coverage gap, upgrade levels to close range, and only extend the count when a higher-tier nuke is the live danger. The mode also changes the acceptable risk: a 1v1 has the most to lose from a single hydrogen, so it is the mode where the full hydrogen ring is most worth the cost, while FFA has the least to lose from one hydrogen because the other three players can still win, so it is the mode where the ring should stay small and responsive. The map shape compounds the mode effect: on a compact map the 1v1 ring is cheap because a small radius covers the whole territory, while on the open World map the same 1v1 ring costs more because the territory it needs to cover is wider, and the FFA ring costs even more because the threats come from every direction at once. Reading the mode and the map together is what sets the ring size before the first launcher is bought, and it is the part of the decision that is most often skipped, with players defaulting to a four-launcher ring in a mode and map where two or six would be the correct number. The two guides that frame what this ring is defending against are MIRVs and threat assessment; the former is the late-game reason the 25-launcher ring exists, the latter is how you decide whether the live threat is the atom, the hydrogen, or the MIRV before committing the 73.5M.