Winning without any silos OR airbases

[diomedes]

well, i got up and left the speed on three forgetting that i had only placed my fleet and radars, realized it right as defcon three hit.

turned out, i won the game with only my fleet. pretty impressive

i forget how to host images but just picture it for yourself, i was asia and won with 230 ish points, second place was europe with 150 ish

[Maxini]

Heh told you that screen shot would come in handy! Sorry I left, had a really bad connection, and was in the process of rejoining when the server closed.

[xander]

I can't say that I am hugely surprised. You were playing default, right? If you can manage fleets well, you have no need for silos or airbases. Sure, they help, but I have seen many, many games won before the first silo is even armed.

xander

[Hyperion]

I can't say that I am hugely surprised. You were playing default, right? If you can manage fleets well, you have no need for silos or airbases. Sure, they help, but I have seen many, many games won before the first silo is even armed.

xander

You're implying the silos were still present to defend where as Diomedes is not

[xander]

I can't say that I am hugely surprised. You were playing default, right? If you can manage fleets well, you have no need for silos or airbases. Sure, they help, but I have seen many, many games won before the first silo is even armed.

xander

You're implying the silos were still present to defend where as Diomedes is not :)

No, I'm not. In a default game, there are 1200 points on the map, if you have six players (600 million people * 2 points per megadeath). However, there are also -600 points on the map (from cities getting killed). One player can get, at most 1000 points from the general pool, and lose 100 from the general pool. In general, however, no one player is going to get all of the kills (other than his own population). In general, there is going to be something of a spread -- 1200 points split six ways. Thus, a player that can get, say, 300-400 points early on can be very difficult to stop, because other players have to split the remaining 800-900 points 5 ways (average of 150-175 points apiece, rather than the original 200). Couple this with the fact that most games don't exploit all of the available points, and a 300-400 point score early on becomes very hard to stop, even if the entire population is wiped out.

Now, getting that 300-400 point early lead can be hard, depending on where you start. For instance, if you are Africa or China, and you set up off of Saudia Arabia with your fleet, you can take out Europe and Russia in one strike, and take out your neighbor with another. This should give you an easy 300+ points, and can be done with only naval units. Russia and Europe can do similar things to each other and their neighbors to the south. NA can take out SA, Europe, and China for a similar result, with some of Africa thrown in depending on how South America plays. South America can take out Africa, China, and North America, with the same caveat. In all of the above scenarios, using well coordinated attacks that target large to moderate civilian populations can be devastating, and put the offensive fleet-only player over the top.

Thus, while I am not saying that it is easy to win without silos or airbases, it is certainly well within the range of possibility with genocide or default scoring, where attacking is so heavily rewarded compared to defending.

xander

[kentuckyfried]

I say congratulations on making success with what you had!

[diomedes]

yes it was default scoring, and i know it is certainly not close to impossibility, especially when the others were not aware of that fact that i had no defense.

[Hyperion]

I have seen many, many games won before the first silo is even armed.

I'm not sure you understood me , diomedes stated he forgot to place any silos and still won. You implied that you'd seen games won before silos were armed...implying that silos were present of said player (and able to defend) but in the case of diomedes this was not so.

Im not arguing the fact that you can win with only a fleet and no other support.

Although whilst i was writing this it occurred to me that you stated that you had seen many 'games won' and not 'players winning', stating that clearly the other players in those games or diomedes games would have had silos to use...however i still think you misunderstood my point as i didn't understand you're reasoning for the long post on scoring i've based my original post on what i assumed was simply a miss wording on your part i think i was being too picky and didn't expect a lengthy involved response, hence my only writing a one lined response to your post...apologies. (seems im making lots of apologies of late, perhaps i'm too passive ).

[xander]

I have seen many, many games won before the first silo is even armed.

I'm not sure you understood me :? , diomedes stated he forgot to place any silos and still won. You implied that you'd seen games won before silos were armed...implying that silos were present of said player (and able to defend) but in the case of diomedes this was not so.

No, I understood you. Look at it this way -- if a player has 600 points, they are untouchable. Period. I don't care if there is time left on the timer, he has already won the game. Thus, I have seen plenty of games won before the first silo is even armed. I have seen people with incredible leads before they start launching their silo nukes. Thus, if a player can win before they use their silos, the silos were not needed. That was the point.

xander

[Hyperion]

Im tempted to keep debating this but ill cease i understand and agree with your point though. I just didnt feel it was valid to diomedes initial post.

[xander]

Im tempted to keep debating this but ill cease :wink: i understand and agree with your point though. I just didnt feel it was valid to diomedes initial post.

My point was, and still is, that I have seen several players get unstoppable leads before they use any silos. Ergo, using only fleets and airbases, they have "won" the game, and the silos are icing. Ergo, fleets can win games without silos. I don't understand why you keep telling me that this doesn't apply to the initial post. diomedes winning a game without silos (because he had no silos) is not that different from any other player winning a game without silos (because they don't use their silos).

xander

[diomedes]

ah you said you've seen players win "using only fleets and airbases " well, i had no airbases =]

i think hyperion is trying to point out that even if you dont use the nukes in your silos, they still fire anti air for defense use. so in fact, they are being used.

[Hyperion]

ah you said you've seen players win "using only fleets and airbases " well, i had no airbases =]

i think hyperion is trying to point out that even if you dont use the nukes in your silos, they still fire anti air for defense use. so in fact, they are being used.

My point entirely but since i may have miss-understood your initial post (xander) my point can be said to be mute. I agree with everything you've said in these posts but that was not my argument, my argument was simply the fact that if a player even has silos they play an effective part in the game even if they are not armed. Regardless of the score that an early big lead could have on the game (that was never in question) hence my referring to Domino stating he had no silos.

Anyone can agree a game can be won on sheer priority target hits (cairo, new york, sao paulo, london should win you the game).

[xander]

ah you said you've seen players win "using only fleets and airbases " well, i had no airbases =]

i think hyperion is trying to point out that even if you dont use the nukes in your silos, they still fire anti air for defense use. so in fact, they are being used.

My point entirely :roll: but since i may have understood your initial post (xander) my point can be said to be mute. I agree with everything you've said in these posts but that was not my argument, my argument was simply the fact that if a player even has silos they play an effective part in the game even if they are not armed. Regardless of the score that an early big lead could have on the game (that was never in question) :) hence my referring to Domino stating he had no silos.

And my argument is that, because I have seen players win by huge margins without using silos, it doesn't surprise me that someone can win with no silos or airbases. I'm getting a little tired of you telling me that my point is irrelevant and wrong. It is drawing a parallel between this situation and a similar one in order to explain why I am not terribly surprised that someone pulled this off. Hell, a couple of months ago, someone posted a survivor mode game where they won with no silos (though they did place airbases). I also disagree that silos play a significant role in the game if they are in AA mode. Silos in AA mode do nothing against a player that really knows what they are doing, except to draw fire for a bit. Silo nukes can be useful, but you can get more than enough kills without silos (which was the point of all the math).

Also, you meant to type "moot," not "mute."

Anyone can agree a game can be won on sheer priority target hits (cairo, new york, sao paulo, london should win you the game).

So, because I am agreeing with something obvious it is not relevant?

xander

[Hyperion]

a) I'm getting a little tired of you telling me that my point is irrelevant and wrong.

b) It is drawing a parallel between this situation and a similar one in order to explain why I am not terribly surprised that someone pulled this off.

c) Hell, a couple of months ago, someone posted a survivor mode game where they won with no silos (though they did place airbases).

d) Silos in AA mode do nothing against a player that really knows what they are doing, except to draw fire for a bit.

e) Silo nukes can be useful, but you can get more than enough kills without silos (which was the point of all the math).

f) Also, you meant to type "moot," not "mute."

Hyperion wrote:
Anyone can agree a game can be won on sheer priority target hits (cairo, new york, sao paulo, london should win you the game).

So, because I am agreeing with something obvious it is not relevant?

xander


xander

Ok, fine...i was trying to be polite about this so not to provoke you but we'll have this argument/discussion then.

a) I did not once mention that your point was either 'irrelevant' or 'wrong', i infact agreed with you on most of your points. But you are right, i shouldn't have 'implied' your post was not relevant, that is not my place to judge, i simply said in a polite tone, and i quote 'as i didn't understand you're reasoning for the long post on scoring'. I apologise for this if it has caused you offense.

b) You did not state this fact and if you had i would have understood your 'parallel similar situation' from your first post and would have carried it no further, if you had simply stated this before all this complicated ranting (and yes maybe you shouldn't have had to so again i apologise for being picky) but i would have considered your points from a different perspective entirely and not from the relevance to the original post and diomedes situation to with which i was speaking of and not to your 'apparent surprise to games in general that can be won without effective/non-existent silo usage'.

c) I too have seen many posts and debriefs regarding winning games with no silos/airbases and a variety of other missing unit placements. Ace Rimmers most currently comes to mind but i was/am not arguing that fact with you (As i believe you well know).

d) I have to disagree with that 100%, simply for personal opinions and i state that they are only opinions, if i happen to disagree with you on any of your posts on others threads simultaneously then that is not an attack or an attempt to provoke you, i assure you of that...that is simply my stance on whatever subject matter the post may be on.

e) I completely agree with you on this also. I simply assumed that you had misunderstood my reply concerning diomedes first post. I have no argument with your mathematics or your opinion on that matter and i perhaps was disrespectful in how i said i didn't understand the reasoning/need for your long mathematic example but we simply seem to be debating points from different points of view (even diomedes stated this) which is what i have been trying to clarify and at the same time 'attempting' to be neutral in my choice of words with you and certainly didn't mean to offend you. I've used words that i consider non hostile in these forums threads but they have still caused provocation (and i could possibly understand why in some cases and i generally write a disclaimer note at the end of a post if i think such an occurance were to present itself) yet i find myself of late backtracking my opinions to explain myself and fixing any said 'insults'. (Feud being the last person (of a very small few) who i took the choice to explain myself too out of courtesy and respect).

f) That was petty.

I will not be apologising to you again on this matter so i hope you don't wish to take this further. (<<< and that statement is not intended to give me the upper hand or moral highground. It is simply a fact as i think i have justified myself and my words to you enough on this matter).