Elimination Mode?

[BionicSheep]

I was thinking of a new game type for Defcon the other day, and I thought you might like to hear it.

Essentially, we add one extra unit type to the game; Bunker. You only get one bunker, and you can place it wherever you like. It is very strong, and can take, say, ten direct hits without being destroyed. However, the bunker is the very same bunker mentioned in the description of the game; it is where you, the general, are directing the battle from. As such, if the bunker is destroyed, you are dead, and you are eliminated from the game - sent into spectator mode, your country basically flattened.

However, the obvious strategy for that would be to stick every single one of your silos around the bunker. To prevent this, we make it so that the bunker must be placed a certain distance from cities, and force it into default scoring mode; essentially meaning you have to defend your bunker, but you can lose just as easily from having your cities wiped out.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

[Montyphy]

However, the obvious strategy for that would be to stick every single one of your silos around the bunker. To prevent this, we make it so that the bunker must be placed a certain distance from cities

Surely that will mean Europe is pretty much screwed. It would be forced to pretty much place it in Iceland everytime.

[BionicSheep]

They could put it in Norway, I suppose . . . ?

Or possibly reduce the default number of cities a little. I tend to reduce the number of cities to 20 or 15 when I'm hosting anyway, to make things less crowded.

[worksoprob]

It is very strong, and can take, say, ten direct hits without being destroyed. However, the bunker is the very same bunker mentioned in the description of the game; it is where you, the general, are directing the battle from. As such, if the bunker is destroyed, you are dead, and you are eliminated from the game - sent into spectator mode, your country basically flattened.

To my mind, ten is a hell of a lot of nukes to throw at one object; considering many more get shot down along the way also, you'd need to fire probably 20+ nukes (more than likely as a simultaneous attack) to even have a chance of destroying it - far too many.

However, the obvious strategy for that would be to stick every single one of your silos around the bunker. To prevent this, we make it so that the bunker must be placed a certain distance from cities, and force it into default scoring mode; essentially meaning you have to defend your bunker, but you can lose just as easily from having your cities wiped out.

Make sense to me.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

My only suggestion on the theme of a super building is an idea of a base of operations, a HQ, which could work either as a standalone structure (lets called this mode A) or by being placed in one of your superpower cities (lets called this mode B)?

When a building or unit is destroyed, you lose certain capabilities - for example, silos > air defense/ICBMs, or radar > vision. The key to my idea is, when your HQ is destroyed (mode A) or your HQ city is nuked (mode B), you lose information on the game's scores for both yourself and the opposition, and the population data for the opposition's cities. Effectively, their city tooltip information is disabled, the size of the city dots become uniform, and kill information is not displayed. The scores would then only be revealed at the game's conclusion.

From an attacker's POV, destroying a HQ would leave your opponent without intel on who is currently winning, and which cities on the battlefield still have large numbers of people living in them. Thus, it denies the enemy knowledge of who they should be aiming at, and where they should be aiming. For the defense, it gives something else to defend thats as important as some of the larger cities, and for both sides it makes information that you do receive during a game more sacred.

The disadvantages of this that I can think of presently are, firstly the city populations are always fixed relatively, so chances are nuking the bigger cities a number of times, even without population data, is going to be a more sound strategy than aiming for unnuked smaller cities. Second is that in 1v1 games, this mode largely becomes redundant (after all, you should have some idea where you've nuked and where you haven't). Also is the risk that this idea adds unnecessary complexity to the game.

Opinions?

[Weps]

I like the idea, however, instead of having a visible bunker (and 10 hits needed to destroy it), it should just be placed in a city. And only you know which city

Once that city is hit, say two times (*), you loose your bunker. Maybe even add some "failsafe device to it", if the bunker goes, your silo's will launch at presets.

(*) Well two times, depending on the number of cities. Less cities, more hits needed.

[shinygerbil]

I quite like the idea of Elimination mode - but instead of having bunkers, why not just set a time (say x hours after Defcon 1, and then every hour after that) at which the person with the lowest score gets dropped? It would make for a nice frantic match, as everyone tried to simply stay out of bottom place

[worksoprob]

I quite like the idea of Elimination mode - but instead of having bunkers, why not just set a time (say x hours after Defcon 1, and then every hour after that) at which the person with the lowest score gets dropped? It would make for a nice frantic match, as everyone tried to simply stay out of bottom place

Sounds interesting! Maybe this could be tied in in a similar way to the Victory Timer, with an Elimination Countdown, with the same time limit as Victory Countdown, triggered at certain milestone percentages of nukes remaining? (eg, 6 player might be 80%, 65%, 50%, 35%, and then 20% for the final two players?)

[GeneticFreak]

I quite like the idea of Elimination mode - but instead of having bunkers, why not just set a time (say x hours after Defcon 1, and then every hour after that) at which the person with the lowest score gets dropped? It would make for a nice frantic match, as everyone tried to simply stay out of bottom place

Yeah! That would get rid of the friggin turtles!

[Sirthomasthegreat]

why not have it where if you lose lets say 50% or 75% of your population you pull a hitler and commit suicide in you bunker...
thus being eliminated...
or terminated...
or just dead...
anyway, this would prevent puppy guarding of said bunker...
i know...
i am god right...

[Montyphy]

I quite like the idea of Elimination mode - but instead of having bunkers, why not just set a time (say x hours after Defcon 1, and then every hour after that) at which the person with the lowest score gets dropped? It would make for a nice frantic match, as everyone tried to simply stay out of bottom place

I quite like that idea.

[sapi]

I quite like the idea of Elimination mode - but instead of having bunkers, why not just set a time (say x hours after Defcon 1, and then every hour after that) at which the person with the lowest score gets dropped? It would make for a nice frantic match, as everyone tried to simply stay out of bottom place

I'm not sure i like that - it'd make holding out until the end next to impossible.

But imagine speed defcon with that sort of thing Every 3 mins (irl) after defcon 1 someone is dropped

[Chris]

Nice idea - I like it.

Would you imagine the players units spontaniously exploding when he is eliminated? Or would they be taken over by an AI? Or would they just lay dormant?

One fascinating possibility would be to give all the players units to the player who did them the most damage!

[scholt]

I like the idea too

One fascinating possibility would be to give all the players units to the player who did them the most damage!

How about giving half the (naval) Units to that player so there would be a small melee. And if you see that Bunker as a kind of intelligence and command center, the player who looses his Bunker can not launch nukes from Silos and Subs anymore. Perhaps also cut in half the range of the bombers ...

This would be cool because the Player wont be totally crippled

[shinygerbil]

Maybe this could be tied in in a similar way to the Victory Timer, with an Elimination Countdown, with the same time limit as Victory Countdown

That would make it better. Watch the player in last place launch all their nukes 5 minutes before time's up - and watch them fall 1 minute too late

I'm not sure i like that - it'd make holding out until the end next to impossible.

That's kind of why I like it - it would completely change the way you have to play the game.

Nice idea - I like it.

Would you imagine the players units spontaniously exploding when he is eliminated? Or would they be taken over by an AI? Or would they just lay dormant?

One fascinating possibility would be to give all the players units to the player who did them the most damage!

One problem that might arise is what to do with the cities. Disappearing would not make much sense, but there has to be some way of stopping all the players from repeatedly nuking the dead cities for points; a low points multiplier, for instance.

Spontaneously exploding would be cool (imagine all 10 nukes from an unused silo going off at once!), but it might be kind of unsatisfying for the others, and probably quite disappointing for the losing player. (As if losing wasn't enough ) But it would be nice to see a big, gratifying explosion!

As for being taken over by an AI, it doesn't really confer any advantage to the remaining players; it's basically the same as if the player in last place decided to quit because they weren't winning.

Laying dormant is a nice idea; you might come across some ships floating aimlessly in the ocean, and think "there goes the fleet of that once-great continent.."

I think that giving the territory to the current leader is also a good way to do it, as it would encourage alliances to spring up to defend against the rapidly-spreading superpower. It would also solve the problem of what to do with the deceased territory's cities.

[Studders]

I was thinking of a new game type for Defcon the other day, and I thought you might like to hear it.

Essentially, we add one extra unit type to the game; Bunker. You only get one bunker, and you can place it wherever you like. It is very strong, and can take, say, ten direct hits without being destroyed. However, the bunker is the very same bunker mentioned in the description of the game; it is where you, the general, are directing the battle from. As such, if the bunker is destroyed, you are dead, and you are eliminated from the game - sent into spectator mode, your country basically flattened.

However, the obvious strategy for that would be to stick every single one of your silos around the bunker. To prevent this, we make it so that the bunker must be placed a certain distance from cities, and force it into default scoring mode; essentially meaning you have to defend your bunker, but you can lose just as easily from having your cities wiped out.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thats a shit idea, everyone wud just aim for the bunker when they found it, i mean come on.... IMO anyways




Although the elimination idea is good