I appoligise if this idea has been up before, but I couldn't find this one.
My suggestion is that each player has a capital city, wich will give you double killing points in default games, and is counting double points in Survival mode.
Secondly giving the option to play with a monument in each city, it only need one nuclear bomb to be destroyed, but is worth a lot of points.
Don't be too hard on me, if this has been suggested before.. I could seriusly not find a topic about it.
Capital/monument
Moderator: Defcon moderators
Actually, I do think something similar has come up before. But not exactly like it nor often enough for you being flamed for it, so no worries about that.
As for the idea:
The main con from my point of view is that it would increase the focus of the game in the direction of very specific targets, and since for many cases the capitals would probably be one of the largest cities the amount of points obtained would be shameful. In a time when IV just added the option to equalize population and most veteran players choose to go for medium size cities instead of an all out battle for the big ones, the suggestion is going against the flow.
As for the idea:
The main con from my point of view is that it would increase the focus of the game in the direction of very specific targets, and since for many cases the capitals would probably be one of the largest cities the amount of points obtained would be shameful. In a time when IV just added the option to equalize population and most veteran players choose to go for medium size cities instead of an all out battle for the big ones, the suggestion is going against the flow.
Last edited by Xocrates on Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- shinygerbil
- level5
- Posts: 4667
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
- Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
- Contact:
Not to rains on your parade, but a search for "capitals" within the Think Tank subsection brings up 3 results. The third of these was this topic: http://forums.introversion.co.uk/defcon ... php?t=3458
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.
It has been mentioned before, but that was ages ago, and I can't find the relevant topic, so, as far as I am concerned, you are forgiven. ;)
As to the idea itself, I am opposed to it, but not rabidly. I think it would add an element of complexity to Defcon that isn't really necessary. One of the things that I have noticed about Defcon is that there is no way to defend any particular target -- a well coordinated launch of as few as five nukes can obliterate any target on the map. Thus, monuments or capitals would probably get nuked very early on, and not have much impact on the final outcome of the game. Again, I am not rabidly against this idea, I just don't see the point.
xander
As to the idea itself, I am opposed to it, but not rabidly. I think it would add an element of complexity to Defcon that isn't really necessary. One of the things that I have noticed about Defcon is that there is no way to defend any particular target -- a well coordinated launch of as few as five nukes can obliterate any target on the map. Thus, monuments or capitals would probably get nuked very early on, and not have much impact on the final outcome of the game. Again, I am not rabidly against this idea, I just don't see the point.
xander
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests