To: Beijing HQ Re: Disappointing missile performance

[quee0076]

Surely the easy solution is for Introversion to just make the paths a less curvey? Half as curvey would still look good but probably avoid a lot of the problems...

[XF Clohvn]

One solution would be that missiles become unable to be targeted upon a certain distance of leaving the silo, and become targetable again when they reach a certain distance to their target or the target owner's territory.

It would essentially be saying that the missile's altitude is too great to fire at with your anti-air missiles. After all, the arcs are supposed to represent some sort of elevation, right?

This idea sounds pretty good, and easy to implement

[unknown]

One solution would be that missiles become unable to be targeted upon a certain distance of leaving the silo, and become targetable again when they reach a certain distance to their target or the target owner's territory.

It would essentially be saying that the missile's altitude is too great to fire at with your anti-air missiles. After all, the arcs are supposed to represent some sort of elevation, right?

This idea sounds pretty good, and easy to implement

The biggest thing to worry about would be getting the correct distance. You don't want to have your missiles being blown up midflight over Russia, but say your target is on the West Coast of America, you don't want the missiles to be able to fly over the east coast unhindered.

[Lionel Mandrake]

I quite agree, but as I have said elsewhere, I am sure that the programmers who have created this horrific and yet highly entertaining little simulation for us will come up with a solution.

[Timmeh]

What we need are cruise missiles.

[Spitfire]

Surely the easy solution is for Introversion to just make the paths a less curvey? Half as curvey would still look good but probably avoid a lot of the problems...

I think the best idea is just to have the missles curve south below the equator and north when the missiles are above it.

And don't call me Shirley!

[Lionel Mandrake]

I'm not aware anyone called you Shirley, old boy.

[Spitfire]

Have you ever seen AIRPLANE!

btw, nice avatar

[OutOfAmmo]

Yeah, making missles firing from below the equator arc towards the south pole would be better.

[Yonder]

Keep in mind that you get that same protection, People targeting you have to get through Russia. Either ally with the people above you, or kill them yourself.

[Disro]

If nukes in the south arc'ed south, it would be unbalanced. The three southern territories would have very easy access to many population centers. Realistically, yes, southern missiles arc south. But in Defcon, arcing north is easier to code and far more balanced.

[Yonder]

I fail to see how a southward arc would give the southern territories any advantages/disadvantages not already had by the northern territories.

[kneecaps]

I launched a full 60 warhead attack on South America from Africa and one the warheads has passed south of Europes silos, South East of North Americas Silos and towards South Americas silos there were fewer than 10 warheads left

Conventional nuclear tactics are based pretty much on ICBMS being 99.9% invincible until the reach their terminal area (at which point they are generally only slightly vunerable to ABM systems).

Currently i'm having more success employing bombers from Carries and SLBM strikes from the subs as they do not have to traverse a gauntlet of global anti-nuke silos

[alphager]

Ked, well done, antigames.de copied^wtranslated^wmentioned you:
http://www.antigames.de/2006/10/02/the-day-after/

[bjrn]

Personally I'd like to see an option to switch arcs on/off. While I can see where the arcs come from (to represent altitude), that's not what they are doing in game (all missiles fly at the same altitude, all the time).