Europe Balanced?

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

DanMonkey
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:49 am

Europe Balanced?

Postby DanMonkey » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:09 am

I know it's a bit premature since the game is not yet out, but the thought occured to me that Europe has the smallest land area to cover from attack, yet easy access to everyone else. How will this be balanced (or does having a small area to cover not really matter)? :?:
jrbreen
level2
level2
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:15 pm
Location: SOS Brigade Strategic HQ

Postby jrbreen » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:14 am

Well, I guess they can focus their defense buildings into a smaller area, and they get better overall fighter coverage.

Look at South Asia. It looks like their westernmost city is Tehran, and they stretch out to Japan. How tough is it going to be to get full coverage with silos, airbases, and radar sites for them? Europe can cluster their stuff together. Depending on the range of ABM sites, you could possibly have four or five running intercepts on one nuclear barrage. How powerful would that be? You also get a centralized position, with easy strikes against Russia, Africa, and North America.

It's all about the tradeoffs. Of course, when I play the game, it could all be different, but that's what it looks like to me now.
User avatar
Wasgood
level5
level5
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:44 am

Postby Wasgood » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:32 am

America or Russia is most probably the best defensible.
Btw Im watching Wargames for the first time now.
notforsale
level1
level1
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:44 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Postby notforsale » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:44 am

dense easy access to everything, means everything has dense easy access to you... smaller radar coverage, shorter warning times, bar alliance cover. Enemies are better able to find all your defenses in Defcon 3 (thats when fighters can be launched IIRC) Defenses are tighter for better coverage.

It seems a decent balance of pros & cons.
Its Probably in the FAQ
User avatar
martin
level5
level5
Posts: 3210
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby martin » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:23 am

someone's going to say the words 'martin' and 'turtle' in the same sentance soon...
GENERATION 22:The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
User avatar
SuVir
level2
level2
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: En-ger-land

Postby SuVir » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:44 am

Martin Turtle.

If you ever play against him, choose Europe first :wink:
User avatar
Wasgood
level5
level5
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:44 am

Postby Wasgood » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:11 am

Whats all this Martin Turtle thing?
User avatar
kikinchaz
level2
level2
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:58 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby kikinchaz » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:45 pm

I read about Europe being imba apparently in a review a few minutes ago. Something to do with the fact the nukes fire with an arch upwards. I still dont quite understand how this affects things - can someone explain this to me?

Heres the quote from the review (a very good review btw)

The only negative thing I can say about this game is how the nukes themselves are fired, it gives an advantage to these on the top of the map as they always fly in an upward arch. However saying that out of the 8-10 games I have played that hasn't been a major outcome in the result of the round (it just means people will want to play Europe a lot).


ChaZ
User avatar
Enerccio
level1
level1
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Kosice, Slovakia

Postby Enerccio » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:47 pm

Dont worry in game is checkbox that will make you to random players again continets. And also europe is good continet, not bad - its small and so on... 8)
Defcon and Uplink rules! lol
User avatar
TinFoil
level2
level2
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: 64-Bit Dedicated Gaming Bubble

Postby TinFoil » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:01 pm

Turtling is a popular Strategy Game method. From the start, the player just hoardes weapons and puts up anti-everythings until his/her base is an unpenetrable fortress. Very late in the game, they attack with a huge mass of forces. The way to beat these bloody turtles is to rush. Turtles are more of the newbie type, or on 3 on 3 maps with 2 players in front-1 at back, a wise choice.

Take Homeworld 2 for example. The Crimson Bond map is a GREAT map to Turtle on, except the mineable asteroids force you to move out. The two players in the front can be frigate/corvette happy and line them up to make a huge barrier protecting all 3 players. The player in the back is now safe. S/he can now concentrate on attacking, rather than attacking and defending. Turtles on this map usually hitch along with the back player's attacks.

Savvy? Tell me if you need clarification. :P
User avatar
Enerccio
level1
level1
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Kosice, Slovakia

Postby Enerccio » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:07 pm

TinFoil wrote:Turtling is a popular Strategy Game method. From the start, the player just hoardes weapons and puts up anti-everythings until his/her base is an unpenetrable fortress. Very late in the game, they attack with a huge mass of forces. The way to beat these bloody turtles is to rush. Turtles are more of the newbie type, or on 3 on 3 maps with 2 players in front-1 at back, a wise choice.

Take Homeworld 2 for example. The Crimson Bond map is a GREAT map to Turtle on, except the mineable asteroids force you to move out. The two players in the front can be frigate/corvette happy and line them up to make a huge barrier protecting all 3 players. The player in the back is now safe. S/he can now concentrate on attacking, rather than attacking and defending. Turtles on this map usually hitch along with the back player's attacks.

Savvy? Tell me if you need clarification. :P

Sounds like bot techniqe for me. Bots in this game play like that. But they usually not win so.... :twisted: :P 8)
Defcon and Uplink rules! lol
User avatar
TheHappyFriar
level2
level2
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: upper left

Postby TheHappyFriar » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:47 pm

so thre's a downside to being in europe: 10 seconds till impact. :)

the balance is that it's inbetween the US & Russia. Since those are two huge forces, you could be considered a waste of firepower until the end & form some aliances to help ya out.
User avatar
Avenged
level2
level2
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Over there.......

Postby Avenged » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:12 pm

Europe is balanced. You have a smaller area to defend so you have a better defence. Plus if africa or asia try and attack, they risk the chance of russia inadvertantly protecting them as the nukes go over. Also its got a small coast, so getting subs near it is difficult. On the offensive, you can easily sneak up on russia to the north of the map. Your nukes will be compact as you launch from close proximity, meaning that they will be harder to stp if you launch them all at once. In fact there are lots of pros and cons to europe...
DanMonkey
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:49 am

Postby DanMonkey » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:16 pm

Avenged wrote:Europe is balanced. You have a smaller area to defend so you have a better defence. Plus if africa or asia try and attack, they risk the chance of russia inadvertantly protecting them as the nukes go over. Also its got a small coast, so getting subs near it is difficult. On the offensive, you can easily sneak up on russia to the north of the map. Your nukes will be compact as you launch from close proximity, meaning that they will be harder to stp if you launch them all at once. In fact there are lots of pros and cons to europe...


All of those are pros though, I guess the only con would be that you don't know whether the nukes are headed for you or not.
jrbreen
level2
level2
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:15 pm
Location: SOS Brigade Strategic HQ

Postby jrbreen » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:30 pm

TheHappyFriar wrote:the balance is that it's inbetween the US & Russia. Since those are two huge forces, you could be considered a waste of firepower until the end & form some aliances to help ya out.

Actually, I would think that Europe would be one of Russia's greatest threats. Look at where most of Russia's cities are. Right next to Europe. That leaves two real choices: alliance or annihilation. Also remember that although the US and Russia have a lot of land, they each have the same amount of firepower as Europe, so there isn't a whole lot of merit to the 'waste of firepower' theory. Well, at least for Russia. North America has South America to worry about.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests