An observation

[Ruges]

In any game where you get points by killing all the you have todo is be the first to luanch a succesful attack on all the major cities.

For instance playing on a lbig map with 200m population. around 4 major cities will have a population of 35m each and around 6 more with 20M each and a couple more with 10m. At the start you luanch everything in spurts to each major city. Time it so 4 missles are to land at the same time. Thats 140 score on the 35m cities 240 score on the 20m ciities get a couple of kills on the other 10 mill cities that brings you to 500-600 score. Minus 100-200 for deaths of your own country. This person will win the game score wise everytime by using this tactic. with or without allies (best if done with Russia with EU as ally and at end backstab EU)

Now the above player will have killed the most civilians but only hit a dozen cities and did no damage to military units.

Then you look at anouther player who uses skill in his game attacks one country and totaly decimates it. destroys the radar/airbases/siloes and flatens every cities in the country (except the capital that the other player hit) Now this player kills the rest of the 140M surivors in that country. leaving that country with a population of almost nothing. That brings his score to 240, however his own country takes a hit too leaving him with a final score of 100.


Now the person with the low score of 100 looks sucky compared to the person with a score of 300 or 400 hundred. Even thow the person with the score of 100 did much more in the way of destroying the enemy.

I just think scoring needs to be looked at. Maybe make an option to get scores off of military units (keeping them alive and killing the enemies)

[ander75it]

Well, yes, but it's not very easy to hit major cities around the globe, if you are shooting over enemies... Still, it certainly pays to attack major cities only (or mostly).

[kruko]

I don't want to open a new thread, so i'll just ask here. It's about the cities. Do you get extra points for totally destroying the city (0.0m)? Since i saw AI do that many, many times.

[ander75it]

Don't know... Interesting question.

[mibias]

you dont...

[kruko]

bah

[Hegemon Hog]

Well, you're right that it pays to be the first to strike.

That said, I'm not sure your tactic would work. There are a couple issues. You'll never have such unhindered trajectories to all these major cities. Also, 4 nukes simultaneously will not all get through their AA defense and, even if 1 does, that's half the population (not all of it). You can't launch just 4 nukes at a city and say with very much confidence that even one or two will hit their target.

In practice it's much harder (i'd say, impossible) to execute such a grand precision strike all over the globe as you are saying. Ideally you want to launch early strikes, but more concentrated. You might not be able to hit ALL those nice overcrowded cities, but you can (with confidence) hit some of them, plus their slightly smaller but more numerous neighbors.

[Dru Lee Parsec]

I've won a few times with the opposite strategy. I leave my silos in anti aircraft mode and launch fighters so I have a lot of possibility to shoot down incoming ICBMs. Once my enemy has used up his ICBM's I then launch an extreme counter strike. So at times, it seems to be good to wait before striking.

[Yonder]

Now the person with the low score of 100 looks sucky compared to the person with a score of 300 or 400 hundred. Even thow the person with the score of 100 did much more in the way of destroying the enemy.

I just think scoring needs to be looked at. Maybe make an option to get scores off of military units (keeping them alive and killing the enemies)

I think that you are sorta missing the point. In this game you are supposed to lose the least and what you just described is the total and complete destruction of your entire country. 15 years from then the entire world would remember your country (only now being repopulated and claimed by your enemies) as one ruled by a madman who embarked on campaign of genocide and had to be forcibly put down, regrettably at the cost of his entire country. I am not saying that the other countries weren't genocidal as well, but they have people left who can skew history in their favor, and all of your people are dead. That's why you only get 100 points and everyone else gets 300-400. You can't totally abandon the defence part of war and just kill a bunch of enemies and expect to win. I actually think that the "default" scoring system should be +1 for every kill and -2 for every death.

[bjrn]

I think that you are sorta missing the point. In this game you are supposed to lose the least

Actually, Ruges started with saying that his post was about games where you get points for killing, making it quite clear he's talking about the default mode, where the goal isn't to have the least casualties, but the most points.

If you want to play for who survives the most, you play survival, where you probably want to use really different tactics.

[Ruges]

exsactly I was not talking about survival mode where this tactic does not work. But Genocide or defualt mode where you get 2 points for killing and neg1 point for civilian loss.

Now this tactic might only work on the larger maps. And I have only done it with Russia and having UK as my ally.

I just ran anouther game with 5 players and 1 AI player (wanted to make sure UK stayed my ally during the game) I was russia and my ally was europe. I used the above strat and look at my score. Now in this game for some reason I was never attack hard. So I lucked out in not taking very many losses.

[Yonder]

Actually, Ruges started with saying that his post was about games where you get points for killing, making it quite clear he's talking about the default mode, where the goal isn't to have the least casualties, but the most points.

If you want to play for who survives the most, you play survival, where you probably want to use really different tactics.

I know he was talking about Default, it was obviously not survival because of his tactics, and it obviously wasn't Genocide because he was worried about his civilian losses, but what I said still stands. The emphasis of defending is lessened, but it is definitely still there, and he is ignoring it. So in default he should be losing many points for this.

[Ruges]

I know he was talking about Default, it was obviously not survival because of his tactics, and it obviously wasn't Genocide because he was worried about his civilian losses, but what I said still stands. The emphasis of defending is lessened, but it is definitely still there, and he is ignoring it. So in default he should be losing many points for this.

In defualt you get 2 points for each million killed and negative one point for each million protected. My point is in the defualt scoring ( the one most poeple play) to win (come #1 in the points) is to nuke every major city first. This strat will put you in the number one position almost every time. (when playing defualt or Genocide).

By using this strat all you are doing is score mongering and not playing the game.