"I Like Missile Arcs The Way They Are" Thread

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

Bamelin
level2
level2
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:10 am

"I Like Missile Arcs The Way They Are" Thread

Postby Bamelin » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:52 am

I noticed a big thread going on regarding complaints about missile arcs. Since I completely disagree but didn't want to crap in that thread I figured it better to seperate the two. This thread is meant for those people that feel missile arcs are fine and wish to voice their support of the current missle arc mechanic.

Personally I like that missiles can be shot down on the way to a target. It forces players to think before they nuke, and it also affects who one allies with (or betrays =) )

I think it would be a horrible mistake to change it so that "only the person targeted" can shoot down incoming nukes. One large benefit/point of an alliance is that each party provides air coverage to each other from incoming enemy nukes.

No flames please, this thread is only for those who agree or want to voice their support for missile arcs as they CURRENTLY work.
User avatar
Soaps
level1
level1
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:08 pm

Postby Soaps » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:56 am

I am ok if the archs stay the same. as in their degree and being shot down. but should the arches in the southern hem go the other way?
Bamelin
level2
level2
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:10 am

Postby Bamelin » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:58 am

Soaps wrote:I am ok if the archs stay the same. as in their degree and being shot down. but should the arches in the southern hem go the other way?


I'm assuming it's a balance issue. My guess is that the devs WANT nukes to be able to have a better chance at being shot down.
NLPeaden
level0
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:10 am

Postby NLPeaden » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:02 am

I'm guessing that the developers know that the EARTH IS NOT FLAT. ICBMs would be guided in the shortest orbit toward a target, which would appear to be an arc on a flat screen. The developers of DEFCON take this to a fundamental point, although I don't believe is wholly accurate south of the equator.
User avatar
palehorse864
level2
level2
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:54 am

Postby palehorse864 » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:57 am

Actually, I think the idea is to make it look like the nukes are rising and then falling back to earth. The only way to graphically represent this on a 2d map properly and maintain the right "look" is to move them north and then south. Ideally, in the real world, you wouldn't fly your missles over someone you know is going to shoot them down, especially if firing west to east or east to west. This is especially true if the Earth rotates in your favor. Fire them directly on a cardinal direction and they arrive and hit your enemy that much sooner.
Tken
level1
level1
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:19 am

Postby Tken » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:07 am

palehorse864 wrote:Actually, I think the idea is to make it look like the nukes are rising and then falling back to earth. The only way to graphically represent this on a 2d map properly and maintain the right "look" is to move them north and then south.


Not exactly. If an airborne object, i.e. a nuke, is heading from, say, midwestern Canada to western Europe, it won't take a straight course on a 2-D map. A 747 taking that trip would actually travel through a good part of Greenland due to the fact that Earth is a sphere. It's a shorter distance if the plane takes an "arc" instead of a straight path.

Liekwise, a nuke heading from two places on a map that are even with eachother, i.e. both on the equator, would not simply travel in an arc above the equator. It would take an arc up above the equator and then hook back down, just as Defcon simulates.
Lemon
level0
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:06 am

Postby Lemon » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:10 am

If the ICBM took an exact straight path, gravity would affect it and it'd curve around the globe because Earth is a spherical shape. Think of a tangent on a circle.

But besides that, I also believe the arcs are fine against human players. You'd have to create more alliances, create better strategies, etc. It just takes away from the realism.
kaikai
level1
level1
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:41 am

Postby kaikai » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:28 am

NLPeaden wrote:I'm guessing that the developers know that the EARTH IS NOT FLAT. ICBMs would be guided in the shortest orbit toward a target, which would appear to be an arc on a flat screen. The developers of DEFCON take this to a fundamental point, although I don't believe is wholly accurate south of the equator.

quoted for truth,
sheesh some people are stupid when it comes to gravity.
Zek
level0
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:44 am

Postby Zek » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:31 am

NLPeaden wrote:I'm guessing that the developers know that the EARTH IS NOT FLAT. ICBMs would be guided in the shortest orbit toward a target, which would appear to be an arc on a flat screen. The developers of DEFCON take this to a fundamental point, although I don't believe is wholly accurate south of the equator.

That's great and all, but that's not what Defcon does at all. Nukes arc north, always. Even if you're firing from the southern tip of Africa. Even if you're firing it right down the equator. It has absolutely nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth.
Tken
level1
level1
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:19 am

Postby Tken » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:35 am

Zek wrote:That's great and all, but that's not what Defcon does at all. Nukes arc north, always. Even if you're firing from the southern tip of Africa. Even if you're firing it right down the equator. It has absolutely nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth.


Actually it does, as I tried to explain. If you know any airline pilots they could explain it - commercial flights take a northern arc on any lateral flightpaths.
KuBi4K
level1
level1
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:22 am
Location: Not far form a real silo :)

Postby KuBi4K » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:30 am

OK, let me try to explain it clearly ^^

Here is a view from the ROUND earth and the way a ICBM will take to go from The Big Lakes in the USA to the upper north of UK.
The "camera view" at "top view" .
A line is the shortest way.

I drew a line, with 4 "mark" steps to help you visualize where the icbm goes.
Image

1 The Lakes
2 Somwhere in Canada
3 south of Groenland
4 North of UK


Now, I take a FLAT World Map, and i mark on it the same 4 steps

I link in red the 4 steps and ... OMG a curve line !!

Image
User avatar
LordSturm
level4
level4
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
Contact:

Postby LordSturm » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:38 am

Hehe, the arcs were obviously drawn to simulate the raise in the nuclear misile, but in reality, it cant take the path it does in the game, its acting asif its rising above the atmosphere, and not actually traveling north...

The problem is countries can attack the missile when its out of the atmosphere, a simple fix would be giving the missile a 3 dimensional range, where it can't be attacked until it is halfway through decent.
User avatar
True Blue
level2
level2
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:14 am
Location: Vault 13

Postby True Blue » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:29 am

KuBi4K wrote:OK, let me try to explain it clearly ^^

Here is a view from the ROUND earth and the way a ICBM will take to go from The Big Lakes in the USA to the upper north of UK.
The "camera view" at "top view" .
A line is the shortest way.

I drew a line, with 4 "mark" steps to help you visualize where the icbm goes.

*IMAGE SNIPPED*

1 The Lakes
2 Somwhere in Canada
3 south of Groenland
4 North of UK


Now, I take a FLAT World Map, and i mark on it the same 4 steps

I link in red the 4 steps and ... OMG a curve line !!

*IMAGE SNIPPED*


Excellent post. Could you do the same for South America to Africa? I'm curious how'd the arc would turn out.
"War. War never changes." - Fallout Narrator
SylKen
level0
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:41 pm

Postby SylKen » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:05 am

True Blue wrote:
KuBi4K wrote:OK, let me try to explain it clearly ^^

Here is a view from the ROUND earth and the way a ICBM will take to go from The Big Lakes in the USA to the upper north of UK.
The "camera view" at "top view" .
A line is the shortest way.

I drew a line, with 4 "mark" steps to help you visualize where the icbm goes.

*IMAGE SNIPPED*

1 The Lakes
2 Somwhere in Canada
3 south of Groenland
4 North of UK


Now, I take a FLAT World Map, and i mark on it the same 4 steps

I link in red the 4 steps and ... OMG a curve line !!

*IMAGE SNIPPED*


Excellent post. Could you do the same for South America to Africa? I'm curious how'd the arc would turn out.

The arc would go south....
On the equator there wouldn't be an arc.
ShadowXOR
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:06 am
Location: California
Contact:

Postby ShadowXOR » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:15 am

I think they're perfect how they are.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests