Things: Kamikazes and Naval Nukes
Moderator: Defcon moderators
-
- level2
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
- Location: Canada
When I say cheap, I mean cheap as in slightly crooked, it IS an exploit, and thus unintended in the grand strategic design of this brilliant game.
Everything else in this game has a counterbalance. Fleet nuking does not truly have a counter. You can argue that you shoot down the bombers first, but that is not a counter for the in-flight nukes themselves. There is none. Odds are you are far away from friendly silo cover. Running like hell? Those fleets move awfully slow sometimes
Everything else in this game has a counterbalance. Fleet nuking does not truly have a counter. You can argue that you shoot down the bombers first, but that is not a counter for the in-flight nukes themselves. There is none. Odds are you are far away from friendly silo cover. Running like hell? Those fleets move awfully slow sometimes
kentuckyfried wrote:When I say cheap, I mean cheap as in slightly crooked, it IS an exploit, and thus unintended in the grand strategic design of this brilliant game.
Everything else in this game has a counterbalance. Fleet nuking does not truly have a counter. You can argue that you shoot down the bombers first, but that is not a counter for the in-flight nukes themselves. There is none. Odds are you are far away from friendly silo cover. Running like hell? Those fleets move awfully slow sometimes
Who ever said that it was unintended? Did one of the developers say so? If not, then I don't think we can rightly assume that a game feature was unintended.
Well, by that logic one can say that there is no counter balance for the submarine torpedo. Sure, you could depth charge them before, but that is not a counter for an in transit torpedo. Silos can't stop them, you can't really run from them.
-
- level2
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
- Location: Canada
Feud wrote:kentuckyfried wrote:When I say cheap, I mean cheap as in slightly crooked, it IS an exploit, and thus unintended in the grand strategic design of this brilliant game.
Everything else in this game has a counterbalance. Fleet nuking does not truly have a counter. You can argue that you shoot down the bombers first, but that is not a counter for the in-flight nukes themselves. There is none. Odds are you are far away from friendly silo cover. Running like hell? Those fleets move awfully slow sometimes
Who ever said that it was unintended? Did one of the developers say so? If not, then I don't think we can rightly assume that a game feature was unintended.
Well, by that logic one can say that there is no counter balance for the submarine torpedo. Sure, you could depth charge them before, but that is not a counter for an in transit torpedo. Silos can't stop them, you can't really run from them.
That's a really good point Feud, but considering how slow the subs maneuver and retreat from the sinking targets as an attacker, how relatively inoccuous a torpedo is (compared to a direct nuke hit), I think that it's definitely a comparable point you've made, but there are still balanced countermeasures in play for the sub's torpedo.
I truly believe that this is a game of balance. I used to think that there were unbalances all over the place, but that was my own inexperience. My argument for the sub nuking is that there isn't a defence for an incoming, all-destroying nuke. Intentional one-hit kills against units in the game doesn't fit with what I think the philosophy of the rest of the game is.
- Ace Rimmer
- level5
- Posts: 10803
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: The Multiverse
kentuckyfried wrote:Feud wrote:kentuckyfried wrote:When I say cheap, I mean cheap as in slightly crooked, it IS an exploit, and thus unintended in the grand strategic design of this brilliant game.
Everything else in this game has a counterbalance. Fleet nuking does not truly have a counter. You can argue that you shoot down the bombers first, but that is not a counter for the in-flight nukes themselves. There is none. Odds are you are far away from friendly silo cover. Running like hell? Those fleets move awfully slow sometimes
Who ever said that it was unintended? Did one of the developers say so? If not, then I don't think we can rightly assume that a game feature was unintended.
Well, by that logic one can say that there is no counter balance for the submarine torpedo. Sure, you could depth charge them before, but that is not a counter for an in transit torpedo. Silos can't stop them, you can't really run from them.
That's a really good point Feud, but considering how slow the subs maneuver and retreat from the sinking targets as an attacker, how relatively inoccuous a torpedo is (compared to a direct nuke hit), I think that it's definitely a comparable point you've made, but there are still balanced countermeasures in play for the sub's torpedo.
I truly believe that this is a game of balance. I used to think that there were unbalances all over the place, but that was my own inexperience. My argument for the sub nuking is that there isn't a defence for an incoming, all-destroying nuke. Intentional one-hit kills against units in the game doesn't fit with what I think the philosophy of the rest of the game is.
There's no real defense for an all out "Hanky Spanky" either (all silos/subs/bombers to one territory), but that doesn't mean it's not part of the game. The only counter there is to make sure you can out score the person by doing your best to keep you ground units hidden for later use.
Plus, even with carpet bombing the ocean, you have to be real lucky or the other person low-skilled enough to pull off a large hit ratio. It's easy to out maneuver incoming nukes with ships. most of the time just stay still until the last few moments.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
kentuckyfried wrote:My argument for the sub nuking is that there isn't a defence for an incoming, all-destroying nuke. Intentional one-hit kills against units in the game doesn't fit with what I think the philosophy of the rest of the game is.
Yes there is! Move out of the way. In most cases you can avoid the nuke and even carpet bombing is not that effective.
-
- level2
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
- Location: Canada
Radiant Caligula wrote:ynbniar wrote:It might be a low down, dirty, vile, rotten old crispy bacon smelling tactic but if it's not a cheat or an exploit its valid.
I'm proud that you honour the legend of bacon to all that is vile and nasty.
Actually I'm KOTH and I decree that bacon is banned...only Haggis shall be eaten while playing DefCon while I'm in charge. In fact it's compulsory.
- Peace and Love
- level2
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:28 am
- Location: la la land
- Contact:
On collateral: I don't think airplanes should kill subs by landing on them. I still agree with some collateral but I think the destroyed ship or plane should just damage the target, for example - one crashed fighter is equivalent to three shots from a battleship. It should be toned down.
On Naval Nukes: I think it's fine
What Shall I Do to Avoid Becoming a Victim:
Dodge: This is vital and takes skill. If you even see a nuke that looks like it's heading anywhere near your ships, put the game on slowest and move in one concentrated direction. About 1/10 chance, you move your ships into the nuke, and 4/10 times your ship moves away from the nuke. 1/2 times the nuke doesn't even hit your ships.
Fighters: Same thing, slow down to the slowest possible speed and immediately scramble all fighters, the majority at where you think the enemy bombers are coming from and a few in random directions just in case. Make SURE you micromanage those fighters to shoot down as many bombers as possible. This tactic is vital, because even if he takes out three of your ships via nukes, you can take out a whole squadron of 10 bombers, which could in many cases be more important.
Peace and Love's fleet formation: Anyone who's played me knows that I spread my fleet out because I use single-ship fleets and groups of three. You don't have to have single ship fleets per se, but it allows you a great deal of flexibility when it comes to avoiding enemy nukes. The best way of course is to avoid clutter, which is multiple ships stacked atop one another and moving in different directions. If they're all moving in one direction, they're still fast, but if all the ships are stacked and moving randomly, they will be slower than subs (seriously).
Unpredictability: I've killed eleven subs and four carriers once with four bomber nukes at the little area west of India because I simply predicted my foe to take advantage of that little nest. That was an extreme case, but the truth is most of the time your opponent just throwing nukes randomly at where he thinks you are. If he actually knows where you are, that means you probrably see him on radar and knows where to send fighters. If he sees your fleet on radar, move
Now a lot of criticism and aid has been given but one thing this thread is lacking: a solution to the original problems proposed.
If there really must be something to be done about naval nukes, they should install anti-nuke turrets that are weaker than silo defense turrets atop battleships. This could make battleships too powerful so better yet, there could be a new anti-nuke ship. It'd add a whole new layer to the game.
On Naval Nukes: I think it's fine
What Shall I Do to Avoid Becoming a Victim:
Dodge: This is vital and takes skill. If you even see a nuke that looks like it's heading anywhere near your ships, put the game on slowest and move in one concentrated direction. About 1/10 chance, you move your ships into the nuke, and 4/10 times your ship moves away from the nuke. 1/2 times the nuke doesn't even hit your ships.
Fighters: Same thing, slow down to the slowest possible speed and immediately scramble all fighters, the majority at where you think the enemy bombers are coming from and a few in random directions just in case. Make SURE you micromanage those fighters to shoot down as many bombers as possible. This tactic is vital, because even if he takes out three of your ships via nukes, you can take out a whole squadron of 10 bombers, which could in many cases be more important.
Peace and Love's fleet formation: Anyone who's played me knows that I spread my fleet out because I use single-ship fleets and groups of three. You don't have to have single ship fleets per se, but it allows you a great deal of flexibility when it comes to avoiding enemy nukes. The best way of course is to avoid clutter, which is multiple ships stacked atop one another and moving in different directions. If they're all moving in one direction, they're still fast, but if all the ships are stacked and moving randomly, they will be slower than subs (seriously).
Unpredictability: I've killed eleven subs and four carriers once with four bomber nukes at the little area west of India because I simply predicted my foe to take advantage of that little nest. That was an extreme case, but the truth is most of the time your opponent just throwing nukes randomly at where he thinks you are. If he actually knows where you are, that means you probrably see him on radar and knows where to send fighters. If he sees your fleet on radar, move
Now a lot of criticism and aid has been given but one thing this thread is lacking: a solution to the original problems proposed.
If there really must be something to be done about naval nukes, they should install anti-nuke turrets that are weaker than silo defense turrets atop battleships. This could make battleships too powerful so better yet, there could be a new anti-nuke ship. It'd add a whole new layer to the game.
-
- level1
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:02 am
- Location: The Past
My opinion is just opinion. Is not fact. Is not solid. So lets try a little science shall we? What do you do when you come to an impasse in a debate and each side is just restating thier positions? Well, usually I don't know, but now I have an experiment to propose. Get together a couple players you can trust to their word, if you can find such things in this cutthroat world of Defcon, and play a few matches without naval nuking. By code of honor. Honor exists, right? Give yourself time to adjust to the idea, it shouldn't take too long. And after you finish this experiment, decide if you like the game better with it or without it. I've been playing your game for a while, wouldn't be fair to give mine at least a try? Some of you have said you miss what the game was before naval nuking. Just give it a try? If not, I can't make you.
And thanks for all the strat tips, I guess.
And thanks for all the strat tips, I guess.
Peace and Love wrote:If there really must be something to be done about naval nukes...
no
Peace and Love wrote:...they should install anti-nuke turrets that are weaker than silo defense turrets atop battleships. This could make battleships too powerful so better yet, there could be a new anti-nuke ship. It'd add a whole new layer to the game.
And everyone will deposit battleships either near enemy silos of on possible nukes trajectory to add to their missile defense. That's a BAD idea.
NMO
Actually it's quite a nifty idea- battleships under suspected missile arcs aren't out defending carriers, or loosely escorting subs. I'd be quite up for seeing how SSM mode (Surface-Surface Missile / standard battleship mode currently) and SAM (Surface-Air) mode for battleships worked out- of course, they wouldn't be able to hit fighters/bombers whilst they were in SSM, and likewise couldn't hit other battleships or carriers in SAM...
But anyways. Fleet nuking is annoying, but legit, and yeah it's nice when it doesn't happen. It's also nice to use it at times. Where I come from, there is a phrase:
Deal with it boy!
But anyways. Fleet nuking is annoying, but legit, and yeah it's nice when it doesn't happen. It's also nice to use it at times. Where I come from, there is a phrase:
Deal with it boy!
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
Actually, (yay for expired NDA!), battleships could take out nukes in earlier versions of Defcon. However, this made the game unbalanced, as one could just leave a set (say six or so) battleships on their shore, or park the aforementioned battleships somewhere near the midpoint of a nuke flight and they'd be able to protect their country even if all their silos were in nuke mode.
Granted, nukes are the only item in the game which have only one way to kill them (ignoring catching nukes in nuke crossfire), but then in real life (TM), there's not much which can stop an already launched nuke.
NeoThermic
Granted, nukes are the only item in the game which have only one way to kill them (ignoring catching nukes in nuke crossfire), but then in real life (TM), there's not much which can stop an already launched nuke.
NeoThermic
To Love and Peace: the game works in that every unit has 1 hp. If the missile fired at a unit 'rolls a hit' the unit is destroyed. The probability of hitting is determined by the attack odds (medium, hihg, very high, etc.) So you cannot have only a small amount of dmage inflicted by an exploding plane, because 'damage' in that sense doesn't exist. However, you could make the liklihood of an exploding plane killing the unit it crashes into medium. This would be fair in my opinion.
Sometimes I don't understand you lot.
Here is one of the best articulated ideas I've read, and everyone is jumping up and down saying 'if you don't like it play a different game' Ok I exagerate in saying this and most posts seemed really constructive. I didn't read all of them though.
Would you all be so upset if, indeed, fleet nuking became toggable with a checkbox ??*
Do your strategies rely so heavily upon that 1 tactic?*
The question whether or not fleet nuking can be prevented is inconsequential. I second the vote to make fleet nuking a (n) (un)toggable feature. BUT I strongly oppose removing the feature all together!!!
I can just see why people would not want it in their games, while others probably wouldn't want to play without and some others (including myself) don't really care too much. In the end, I probably too will be one of those people enjoying creating "no fleet nuking" games, mind you.
Whether someone is good at fleet nuking, has never done it or sucks at it -and all related risks and what not- really is not the point here. There is a legit demand, supported by a number of players apparently, and the change could be made without significantly altering game mechanics (just make it so bomber nukes cannot ever target sea/ships).
Perhaps a poll would be interesting?
*rhetorical questions. (e.g. If there is no one around, does bacon still produce a nice smell?)
Here is one of the best articulated ideas I've read, and everyone is jumping up and down saying 'if you don't like it play a different game' Ok I exagerate in saying this and most posts seemed really constructive. I didn't read all of them though.
Would you all be so upset if, indeed, fleet nuking became toggable with a checkbox ??*
Do your strategies rely so heavily upon that 1 tactic?*
The question whether or not fleet nuking can be prevented is inconsequential. I second the vote to make fleet nuking a (n) (un)toggable feature. BUT I strongly oppose removing the feature all together!!!
I can just see why people would not want it in their games, while others probably wouldn't want to play without and some others (including myself) don't really care too much. In the end, I probably too will be one of those people enjoying creating "no fleet nuking" games, mind you.
Whether someone is good at fleet nuking, has never done it or sucks at it -and all related risks and what not- really is not the point here. There is a legit demand, supported by a number of players apparently, and the change could be made without significantly altering game mechanics (just make it so bomber nukes cannot ever target sea/ships).
Perhaps a poll would be interesting?
*rhetorical questions. (e.g. If there is no one around, does bacon still produce a nice smell?)
I'll quote ynbniar on this one:
Point of fact is, it would open a precedent, and soon everybody would whine about how their most hated tactic should be toggable. This is not very different from the already suggested minimum range for silo nukes. It's basically changing the game so it's less complex and, in a way, easier.
ynbniar wrote:Where will it end...
An option to reduce the naval combat range of bombers because my fleet keeps getting roasted
An option to limit bomber groupings so players can't swarm me
An option to prevent tight silo groupings so all my opponents nukes don't land on my silos at the same time
An option to stop my opponents from locating their silos away from their population and my radar range
...madness...
Point of fact is, it would open a precedent, and soon everybody would whine about how their most hated tactic should be toggable. This is not very different from the already suggested minimum range for silo nukes. It's basically changing the game so it's less complex and, in a way, easier.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests