Introversion

ok, i've read the debate on nukes having to curve up through territories above you. Some people hate it, some people like the added challenge. But it makes no sense. Nukes go straight up into orbit, then fall straight down. Need to make it so that only the country you are shooting at can try and shoot down the nukes. Makes much more sense.

I do like having my allies help shoot down nukes, but would prefer the more realistic approach.

That wouldn't help Nukes from Africa sailing across the entire continent of Asia before reaching its target in China.

xyzyxx wrote:That wouldn't help Nukes from Africa sailing across the entire continent of Asia before reaching its target in China.

What would the problem be? Is there some unfair advantage for asia when africa shoots at them? Would solve the problem of both europe and the ussr shooting them all down first.

gazz07 wrote:ok, i've read the debate on nukes having to curve up through territories above you. Some people hate it, some people like the added challenge. But it makes no sense. Nukes go straight up into orbit, then fall straight down. Need to make it so that only the country you are shooting at can try and shoot down the nukes. Makes much more sense.

I do like having my allies help shoot down nukes, but would prefer the more realistic approach.

There are already several threads that discuss this. Was it really necessary to start another? Also, please remember that Defcon is a game, not a simulation.

xander

xander wrote:

gazz07 wrote:ok, i've read the debate on nukes having to curve up through territories above you. Some people hate it, some people like the added challenge. But it makes no sense. Nukes go straight up into orbit, then fall straight down. Need to make it so that only the country you are shooting at can try and shoot down the nukes. Makes much more sense.

I do like having my allies help shoot down nukes, but would prefer the more realistic approach.

There are already several threads that discuss this. Was it really necessary to start another? Also, please remember that Defcon is a game, not a simulation.

xander

Sorry, didn't see any threads just for this. Only saw mention of it in threads started about other things.

Simulation vs Game is not the issue. As this is a game that simulates something, as most games are. But, its just CHEESEY!! Missiles don't go up into the air, they skim along the ground taking a round about way of getting where they are going. By limiting who can shoot at the nukes, they would then be actually flying in the air, and thus, it wouldn't be so corn ball!!!

gazz07 wrote:[Sorry, didn't see any threads just for this. Only saw mention of it in threads started about other things.

Simulation vs Game is not the issue. As this is a game that simulates something, as most games are. But, its just CHEESEY!! Missiles don't go up into the air, they skim along the ground taking a round about way of getting where they are going. By limiting who can shoot at the nukes, they would then be actually flying in the air, and thus, it wouldn't be so corn ball!!!

You complained that the nukes shouldn't go up like they do, then stated that you would like something more realistic. This was the salient point of your first post. To that, my reply is "Defcon is a game, not simulation." If, on the other hand, you had said from the beginning that you though it was cheesy, my response is that you need to watch Wargames again. As good a movie as it is, the cheese level is fairly high. Defcon is inspired by Wargames -- there should be some cheese.

xander

Play it like you play chess

xander wrote:

gazz07 wrote:[Sorry, didn't see any threads just for this. Only saw mention of it in threads started about other things.

Simulation vs Game is not the issue. As this is a game that simulates something, as most games are. But, its just CHEESEY!! Missiles don't go up into the air, they skim along the ground taking a round about way of getting where they are going. By limiting who can shoot at the nukes, they would then be actually flying in the air, and thus, it wouldn't be so corn ball!!!

You complained that the nukes shouldn't go up like they do, then stated that you would like something more realistic. This was the salient point of your first post. To that, my reply is "Defcon is a game, not simulation." If, on the other hand, you had said from the beginning that you though it was cheesy, my response is that you need to watch Wargames again. As good a movie as it is, the cheese level is fairly high. Defcon is inspired by Wargames -- there should be some cheese.

xander

Your obviously not understanding. The Arc represents going up then down. Its cool. But in the game, nukes don't go up and down, they stay over the ground and travel to their target via a non direct route. The graphic for going up and down is there, but because its based on screen position who can shoot at them, they act like they are just above the ground.

The arc is some cool shit. Thats not the problem.

But seriously. Read more carefully before responding. I never said they shouldn't arc like they do. I said that in order for the game to played like they are actually going up and down, they need to be only targetable by the country your firing at.

Cheesy is not the arc. The arc is some cool shit.
Cheesy is firing nukes from africa to south america and having them shot down by silos in europe. That shouldn't happen. They should still arc, but pass through europe without europe getting to shoot them down.

When I said "Missiles don't go up into the air, they skim along the ground taking a round about way of getting where they are going." I was talking about what the missiles are doing in this game right now. Because europe can shoot at the missiles launched from africa to south america, it would have to be actaully travelling over europe. Which, obviously the missile is not suppose to be doing. Its a bizar game mechanic that makes no sense. Game vs simulation is a weak defense for keeping the nukes the way they are.

gazz07 wrote:Your obviously not understanding. The Arc represents going up then down. Its cool. But in the game, nukes don't go up and down, they stay over the ground and travel to their target via a non direct route. The graphic for going up and down is there, but because its based on screen position who can shoot at them, they act like they are just above the ground.

No, you are obviously not understanding. The arcs do not represent great circles, and they do not represent the missles going up, then coming down. The arcs were an aesthetic choice, and have implications for gameplay. They do exactly what they are meant to do, and effect gameplay in the desired manner. Much as I hate to repeat myself, Defcon is a game, not a simulation. Complaining that North America can target South American nukes is like complaining that queens can travel through ranks, files, and on the diagonal in Chess.

xander

Seriously guys, cool down. "Your not getting it, NO YOUR NOT GETTING IT" It's getting a little heated.

Yes it was an aesthetic (graphical, makes the game look good) choice that may have had intended or unintended effects on gameplay. I will agree that there are some places where it has a negativce impact on gameplay and that graphics shouldn't take precedence over gameplay. Perhaps some alternative, completely server optional solution is needed such as ICBM's being untargetable by enemy AA until they reach the peak of their arc, or not allowing anyone to destroy them save for the targeted country and that country's allies.

To the original poster, real ICBM's do not skim the ground, they go almost into orbit and then come down, making them very impossible if not impossible to stop. However, you are correct about the ones in the game skimming the ground on a very indirect route, going hundreds of miles or thousands out of the way before curving back across to their target.

If we were going for reality, a great circle calculation for ICBM's or even a straight line.

The arc was chosen because it looked good and any gameplay issues or benefits thereafter are a result of that.

And the issues are rather different than the moves on a chess board. Those moves are fully intended, but you only have two sides battling it out in chess with any destruction or blocking of pieces being fully intended by the targeted enemy. When you get more than 2 players in Defcon, the analogy ceases to match anything except that both are thinking games. If you want a chess analogy, It would be more like putting a third group of chess pieces in the middle that weren't destroyed but destroyed other pieces as they tried to cross the board.


Edit: Perhaps a solution could simply be to let the player choose their arc direction when launching and use shallower arcs. They would still look good but be less obstructed by parties not directly involved in the current conflict between the two nations.

so we should not have AA to defend against the missles eigther. And we shouldn't have a navy that can go aroundthe globe in ~8 hours. And we shouldn't have cities that haven't been evaced...

if we follow all the "should not have..." advice it would simply be "click on a city to vaporize it!" A complex looking fly swatting game with flies that don't move.

what fun is that (people still play Red Alert even though units & buildings survive a nuke strike in that game. People still play Half Life 2 even though empty 55 gallon drums explode. People still say they can coach a football team better then the coach even thought they can't figure out what a football is made of)

My tuppence? The arcs also add an element of misdirection - it's intuitively harder to see where precisely a given nuke is targetted. True, after a few weeks of play I'll be more familiar with the tragectories the games uses, but I personally like the look/challenge of oddball routes.
For my money, each difficulty to overcome only adds to potential enjoyment. Within reason, of course, which I believe this one is.

So there.

Well this is a new take on an old argument. This is the first time I've seen someone want to change it for this kind of reason. Cheesy? Maybe (i'm not sure how, exactly... but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt). But who cares? I would rather have a fun, strategic, CHEESY game with good game balance than one without balance. Make no mistake about it, the missiles arcing over hostile territory and getting shot down on their way to the target play importantly into diplomacy and game balance.

These are the things I care most about, and I don't think i'm in the minority here.

Heh, funny thing. I still think its cheesy, but its grown on me. Played a bunch of games and grew to like the current method. Chessy or not its damn fun. Damn fun game. I havn't played a non-mmorpg game this fun in like 6 years. Where's the tournaments! Where's the leagues! The clans!

I used to really want the arcs to be only targetable upon a certain distance of their target, but the more I think about it, the more I'm unsure.

And the more I'm believing that it was a planned choice, knowing the strategic and diplomatic and gameplay elements it would bring in.