Fighters need bingo fuel range displayed during launch

[Analog Kid]

This has probably been discussed 1000 times before, but here's my additional vote to get this fixed.

The bingo fuel range of a fighter needs to be displayed during launch, so players can see how far a fighter can travel and return without stupidly crashing.

Fighters also need to manage their own fuel, disengaging from fights and returning to a base / carrier before they stupidly die from running out of gas.

This applies to bombers as well. Bombers happen to have enough fuel to survive most of the time, but they too will fly themselves to death unless told not to.

I would very nearly rate this as a bug defect in the game. Launching a fighter almost always results in it's death, unless the player sets aside playing DEFCON to playing a game that's about fuel management for dumb units.

[rus|Mike]

The bingo fuel range of a fighter needs to be displayed during launch, so players can see how far a fighter can travel and return without stupidly crashing.

Try to deviding the shown range on 2?...

Fighters also need to manage their own fuel, disengaging from fights and returning to a base / carrier before they stupidly die from running out of gas.

Well, don't 'stupidly' let them do it you're a commander afterall.

fuel management for dumb units.

A unit can't be dumb. However, a player can very well be

[Analog Kid]

Very well, let's try this again.

I'm an idiot. Thick as a brick. Useless as a glass hammer.

I can't visually disect the diameter of the "attack range" circle in precisely two each and every time I launch a fighter. I have difficulty concentrating on multiple fighter icons twirling in circles around an enemy, mousing over each of them to monitor their fuel status and send them home before they die while my opponent is launching nuclear missles at me. Monitoring multiple situations on the game map at the same time takes most of my abilities of concentration while still retaining control of the drool in my mouth and urine in my bladder.

I recognize my inadequacies and have made peace with them. I did, however, also spend money on this game and I expect it to give me joy. It takes joy away from me when fighters run out gas without doing anything about it themselves.

[xander]

VI'm an idiot. Thick as a brick. Useless as a glass hammer.

Then maybe DEFCON wasn't the game for you. It should be noted, however, that fighters are basically disposable units. Their job is to destroy bombers. If you are losing too many fighters to fuel loss, and having trouble keeping track of them, then perhaps you should launch fewer of them.

xander

[rus|Mike]

...

App. waht xander said. Nobody cares about fighters. I hardly remember a couple of times I returned fighter back to base. As far as they are reproduced during the game, you don't need to care about their numbers too much.

I did, however, also spend money on this game

You should have played DEMO firstly

[Analog Kid]

I have to admit some astoundedness that some people are actually writing replies in defense of stupid units in a strategy game. I guess if you enjoy micro-managing every unit on the game map, the smartness of the AI controlling your forces while you're playing at the strategy level doesn't bother you. I might suggest that The Sims or some other tend-to-every-detail game is a better match for such people. To me, it's an outstanding flaw in any strategy game to have units that need baby sitting to keep them from dying from just running out of gas.

And of course I played the demo. I found it enjoyable enough to buy the game. But DEFCON isn't perfect. It can be better. Fighters and bombers can be made to watch their own fuel levels, for example.

[Pox]

I disagree: DEFCON is all about how you use your units on every scale. If you choose to simply fire and forget, so be it: don't expect to be in with a chance, though. The micromanagement required is what sets defcon apart: it's about tactics (though strategy is still a bit part). It's not a simulation, and your bombers are not flying bricks with pilots: they're vector art. They do what you say. If you say fly blindly to NZ, they'll go there, and sink.

[Hyperion]

And of course I played the demo. I found it enjoyable enough to buy the game. But DEFCON isn't perfect. It can be better. Fighters and bombers can be made to watch their own fuel levels, for example.

If your opponent had your territory surrounded by his navy and all you can do to defend yourself is to send your fighters out in the hopes of killing his bombers before they do too much damage...you would be cursing your fighters if they started turning around just before the P.N.R.

It's a 2 way system, if you're not managing to micro manage your aircraft units to be able to save them before they pass the P.N.R then you won't manage if you have to re-give them orders to fly pass their P.N.R to chase your opponents units.

The conclusion being that having to micro manage your aircraft if you want them to return is the better of the two evils as it is far more useful for them to automatically pass their P.N.R if you just want to use them for scouting/suicide chases.

Besides, your aerial units return to the nearest re-fuelling station (Airbase/Carrier) once they reach their destination point (unless there's a valid target in their combat range), so it's just a question of you compromising and not choosing their destination to be over halfway from wherever they're stationed and you do get the aircrafts range perimeter from where ever they're launched.

[rus|Mike]

you enjoy micro-managing every unit on the game map

And what did you expect from people still being on the forums when the game's out for like years? Ofcoirce we do enjoy it

[xander]

I have to admit some astoundedness that some people are actually writing replies in defense of stupid units in a strategy game.

Let us take this to its extreme. You say that fighters are stupid, because they don't turn around by themselves, run out of fuel, and die. Okay, so let's fix the fighters. Bombers can have the same problem, so let's fix that too. Oh, and carriers can't defend themselves very well, so it would be pretty stupid for a carrier to stay still when bombers attack them. So, let's have carriers automatically run away from bombers. But wait, bombers are faster than carriers, so running away won't really help. So, lets have other carriers automatically launch bombers to protect the carriers, and let's have some battleships move in to intercept. And boy, it really is hard to get a well synchronize nuke launch together -- we should probably have the game do that for us, too. In fact, there are a lot of units, and giving orders to any of them is a pain in the ass. We should just let the computer control all of the units. And you know, I often forget to place radar towers or silos. I should have the computer place them for me, so I don't forget. You know, I suck at Defcon. I think I will just have the game play it for me.

Clearly, we don't want the units to be too smart, because then there would be no game at all. And I can think of tons of other games where units don't do anything until told to (Chess and Civilization come to mind). A game developer has to make a choice about how much control to give to players, and how much control to give to the AI. IV made the decision to give most of the control to the player, and to make the player manage most of their units themselves. In exchange, they provided only a few units.

Thought of another way, IV is a very small company. They don't have the budget or man hours that a company like EA or Blizzard has. They can't invest in really, really good AI for their games. So, instead, they play to their strengths, and don't make games that require killer AI.

And, just to be clear, a bingo fuel line at launch would be basically useless. How do you draw the line? Do you just assume that it is the half-way point in their range? But that doesn't give the fighter time to turn around, so it will crash just short of the base. Okay, so we make the range a bit shorter. But what happens if the fighter actually engages in combat, and has to maneuver. Oops -- now we don't have enough fuel to go back. Fighters don't have enough range to effectively be launched, and expect to get home. They are disposable. By the time they have done anything useful, they don't have enough fuel to get home. If they have enough fuel to get home, chances are that they haven't done anything useful.

In short, it isn't going to change, and there is no reason that it should change.

xander

[Analog Kid]

Holy smokes! I point out a basic flaw in the game that needs to be fixed and the fanbois come out from all sides! I wasn't really interested in debating this flaw. I was really only interested in letting IV know that I support having it fixed.

This will be my last post because I'm not really interested in debating this game flaw. It should go without saying that I disagree with all of you.

Pox: You are incorrect that DEFCON is about tactics. It's an abstracted, simplified and fun strategy game. A unit that requires micromanagement to ensure it doesn't self destruct minutes after putting it on the board is out of place in a high-level strategy game.

Hyperion: If, if, if, if ... we could come up with 1,000 "what if" situations and still never debate them all. See my reply to Pox, above. A unit that by default will die without micromanagement is out of place in a strategy game.

xander: Similar to Hyperion, you're attempting to debate by inventing exteme, nonsensical examples. I can come up with as many fairy tale scenarios as you can, but even if we debated them all, fighters will still die on their own unless players distract themselves from playing DEFCON to tend to them. That is a flaw in any strategy game and needs to be fixed in DEFCON.

There; we have our conclusion. This is my last post to this thread.

[Phelanpt]

I can't be swayed by logic, and the developers did not make the game I wanted, so I am now assuming that you all agree with me.

I think someone is into tuna fishing.

[xander]

Holy smokes! I point out a basic flaw in the game that needs to be fixed and the fanbois come out from all sides! I wasn't really interested in debating this flaw. I was really only interested in letting IV know that I support having it fixed.

Read this, and understand it: IT IS NOT A FLAW. IT IS THE WAY THE GAME WAS DESIGNED TO WORK. If you don't like it, play another game. IV are not changing it.

You also completely failed to comment on the fact that the point of no return changes as a fighter acts, and as carriers move about the map. You could have a fighter returning to a carrier, only to sink into the ocean because the carrier moved out of range. Not only is your suggesting in violation of how the game was specifically designed to work, it is impractical, as there are too many variables that can change for a proper point of no return to even be accurately calculated.

xander

[tllotpfkamvpe]

.

[xander]

I think there is a problem with all aircraft in general in the way they dont obey orders exactly as you want them...

I agree with you entirely on that one. Planes can be pretty brain dead about landing, and carriers will sometimes wander into harms was to catch a falling fighter. I'm sure that people that play more often than I have even worse problems with the AI. I mean, there are legitimate gripes about the AI -- the lack of a bingo fuel indicator, or a specific behaviour for planes with no fuel, is not one of them.

Also, MVPE, in case you care, I really appreciate the maturity that have shown over the last several months. You have gone from one of my least favorite people on the boards to someone who is worthy of a fair bit of respect and admiration. I have no idea how that translates into games (as I don't play that much), but it is welcome on the forums. I'm glad we have you around. ;)

xander