Missile Arc map

In-depth tactical discussion on how to lose the least

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
LarsMB
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Postby LarsMB » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:34 am

Well, if the arcs below the equator curved south, it would make Australia a viable continent to play as well. The alliance pattern would change, but I'm not sure it'd change for the worse. It's not a bad idea.

(However, right now, stability & performance sort of take precedence.)
User avatar
furtim
level2
level2
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:04 pm
Location: Brighton, MA, USA
Contact:

Postby furtim » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:09 pm

I love how everyone just assumes that IV never examined the possibility of south-curving arcs. I guess the ones we have were just completely arbitrary, huh? Good thing we have a bunch of non-game-designers around here to tell IV how to do their job!
Spitfire
level1
level1
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:38 am

Postby Spitfire » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:25 pm

how about mirrored arcs?

why when i launch at asia as africa, do my nukes have to curve up over europe and russia???

why can't they just launch to the right instead of the left?
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:28 pm

That is something I wouldn't mind seeing included.
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.
Image
Nathan-A.
level1
level1
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: Missile Arc map

Postby Nathan-A. » Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:36 pm

Kuth wrote:Someday I hope to compile a series of maps which illustrate the possible arcs from various continents attacking other continents.

That way, you should know who to ally with?

This a good idea Y/n?
it would be good but it would take forever. It would be better to have some kinda strategic air defense placement map.
User avatar
hellcatv
level2
level2
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:58 pm
Contact:

Postby hellcatv » Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:40 pm

I think the polar mod fixes this mostly :-) due to the way I rotated the earth
Vega Strike Lead Developer
http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/
Spitfire
level1
level1
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:38 am

Postby Spitfire » Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:03 pm

palehorse864 wrote:Ok, I worked up a map just of South America's firing arcs towards Asia (assuming Asia has some beef with you and you want to retaliate before they can do a lot of damage).

Image

Image

One shot is assuming you are firing from the west coast of South America. The results are the same if fired from the south. The game doesn't take into account how far down your silos are placed, only how high or low your target is. Your nuke will go a certain degree northward of your intended target before coming down. Your best bet is to fire at a southern target from a northern point because there will be little northward arc to your missile and it should go more or less straight to the target.

I woudl typically choose North America as my missile path if I could just because the Europe/russia path before facing Asian AA fire as well just seems worse.


Now if only I was allied with N. America and Russia, my missles would make it.

Instead, i'll loose the firs 3rd to N. America, the 2nd 3rd to Russia and the final 3rd of my attack will be brought down efferlessly by my inteded target, Asia.
chaz1356
level1
level1
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:38 am

Postby chaz1356 » Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:48 pm

wattro wrote:
xander wrote:
wattro wrote:
cleverivan wrote:I would've thought that all arcing of Missile tracks well below the Equator would arc towards the South and not the North. :?


you'd be just like most of the rest of us ;)

really, nuke trajectories should be computed against a 3d model and representated on the 2d map with equivalent arc similar to they way they are now (arcing), but should speed up relative to the amount of arc

I agree, 100%. Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, just like the movements of pieces on a chess board.

...

Defcon is a game, not a simulation. It is not meant to simulate life. It is not meant to be realistic. It is a game.

xander


Are you following me around? :roll:

Changing nuke arcs to be more realistic does not make it any less of a game... I'm not sure what the point of your post is... are you saying Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, or are you saying that it should be more of a game by having nuke arcs behave unrealistically?

Btw, chess pieces do not move realistically... just look at a rook/castle, they can slide down any row/column, but really they shouldn't be able to move. And pawns can't move backwards? Since when do legs not work moving backwards... however, i view that as design as opposed to being a bug. Nuke arcs not arcing south below the equator could be viewed as a bug.


Quoting is so much fun.
chaz1356
level1
level1
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:38 am

Postby chaz1356 » Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:48 pm

chaz1356 wrote:
wattro wrote:
xander wrote:
wattro wrote:
cleverivan wrote:I would've thought that all arcing of Missile tracks well below the Equator would arc towards the South and not the North. :?


you'd be just like most of the rest of us ;)

really, nuke trajectories should be computed against a 3d model and representated on the 2d map with equivalent arc similar to they way they are now (arcing), but should speed up relative to the amount of arc

I agree, 100%. Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, just like the movements of pieces on a chess board.

...

Defcon is a game, not a simulation. It is not meant to simulate life. It is not meant to be realistic. It is a game.

xander


Are you following me around? :roll:

Changing nuke arcs to be more realistic does not make it any less of a game... I'm not sure what the point of your post is... are you saying Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, or are you saying that it should be more of a game by having nuke arcs behave unrealistically?

Btw, chess pieces do not move realistically... just look at a rook/castle, they can slide down any row/column, but really they shouldn't be able to move. And pawns can't move backwards? Since when do legs not work moving backwards... however, i view that as design as opposed to being a bug. Nuke arcs not arcing south below the equator could be viewed as a bug.


Quoting is so much fun.

Lots of fun
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6256
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:51 pm

chaz1356 wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
wattro wrote:
xander wrote:
wattro wrote:
cleverivan wrote:I would've thought that all arcing of Missile tracks well below the Equator would arc towards the South and not the North. :?


you'd be just like most of the rest of us ;)

really, nuke trajectories should be computed against a 3d model and representated on the 2d map with equivalent arc similar to they way they are now (arcing), but should speed up relative to the amount of arc

I agree, 100%. Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, just like the movements of pieces on a chess board.

...

Defcon is a game, not a simulation. It is not meant to simulate life. It is not meant to be realistic. It is a game.

xander


Are you following me around? :roll:

Changing nuke arcs to be more realistic does not make it any less of a game... I'm not sure what the point of your post is... are you saying Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, or are you saying that it should be more of a game by having nuke arcs behave unrealistically?

Btw, chess pieces do not move realistically... just look at a rook/castle, they can slide down any row/column, but really they shouldn't be able to move. And pawns can't move backwards? Since when do legs not work moving backwards... however, i view that as design as opposed to being a bug. Nuke arcs not arcing south below the equator could be viewed as a bug.


Quoting is so much fun.

Lots of fun


You do realise that I added some code ages ago that makes it impossible to nest more than 9 successive quotes?

NeoThermic
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:02 am

NeoThermic wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
wattro wrote:
xander wrote:
wattro wrote:
cleverivan wrote:I would've thought that all arcing of Missile tracks well below the Equator would arc towards the South and not the North. :?


you'd be just like most of the rest of us ;)

really, nuke trajectories should be computed against a 3d model and representated on the 2d map with equivalent arc similar to they way they are now (arcing), but should speed up relative to the amount of arc

I agree, 100%. Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, just like the movements of pieces on a chess board.

...

Defcon is a game, not a simulation. It is not meant to simulate life. It is not meant to be realistic. It is a game.

xander


Are you following me around? :roll:

Changing nuke arcs to be more realistic does not make it any less of a game... I'm not sure what the point of your post is... are you saying Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, or are you saying that it should be more of a game by having nuke arcs behave unrealistically?

Btw, chess pieces do not move realistically... just look at a rook/castle, they can slide down any row/column, but really they shouldn't be able to move. And pawns can't move backwards? Since when do legs not work moving backwards... however, i view that as design as opposed to being a bug. Nuke arcs not arcing south below the equator could be viewed as a bug.


Quoting is so much fun.

Lots of fun


You do realise that I added some code ages ago that makes it impossible to nest more than 9 successive quotes?

NeoThermic


What exactly are you trying to say? It sounds very much like a challenge issued. one we have no hope of beating
chaz1356
level1
level1
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:38 am

Postby chaz1356 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:59 am

shinygerbil wrote:
NeoThermic wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
wattro wrote:
xander wrote:
wattro wrote:
cleverivan wrote:I would've thought that all arcing of Missile tracks well below the Equator would arc towards the South and not the North. :?


you'd be just like most of the rest of us ;)

really, nuke trajectories should be computed against a 3d model and representated on the 2d map with equivalent arc similar to they way they are now (arcing), but should speed up relative to the amount of arc

I agree, 100%. Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, just like the movements of pieces on a chess board.

...

Defcon is a game, not a simulation. It is not meant to simulate life. It is not meant to be realistic. It is a game.

xander


Are you following me around? :roll:

Changing nuke arcs to be more realistic does not make it any less of a game... I'm not sure what the point of your post is... are you saying Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, or are you saying that it should be more of a game by having nuke arcs behave unrealistically?

Btw, chess pieces do not move realistically... just look at a rook/castle, they can slide down any row/column, but really they shouldn't be able to move. And pawns can't move backwards? Since when do legs not work moving backwards... however, i view that as design as opposed to being a bug. Nuke arcs not arcing south below the equator could be viewed as a bug.


Quoting is so much fun.

Lots of fun


You do realise that I added some code ages ago that makes it impossible to nest more than 9 successive quotes?

NeoThermic


What exactly are you trying to say? It sounds very much like a challenge issued. one we have no hope of beating

Nah i dont think so
eliteLuke
level0
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:22 pm
Contact:

Postby eliteLuke » Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:02 pm

chaz1356 wrote:
shinygerbil wrote:
NeoThermic wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
wattro wrote:
xander wrote:
wattro wrote:
cleverivan wrote:I would've thought that all arcing of Missile tracks well below the Equator would arc towards the South and not the North. :?


you'd be just like most of the rest of us ;)

really, nuke trajectories should be computed against a 3d model and representated on the 2d map with equivalent arc similar to they way they are now (arcing), but should speed up relative to the amount of arc

I agree, 100%. Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, just like the movements of pieces on a chess board.

...

Defcon is a game, not a simulation. It is not meant to simulate life. It is not meant to be realistic. It is a game.

xander


Are you following me around? :roll:

Changing nuke arcs to be more realistic does not make it any less of a game... I'm not sure what the point of your post is... are you saying Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, or are you saying that it should be more of a game by having nuke arcs behave unrealistically?

Btw, chess pieces do not move realistically... just look at a rook/castle, they can slide down any row/column, but really they shouldn't be able to move. And pawns can't move backwards? Since when do legs not work moving backwards... however, i view that as design as opposed to being a bug. Nuke arcs not arcing south below the equator could be viewed as a bug.


Quoting is so much fun.

Lots of fun


You do realise that I added some code ages ago that makes it impossible to nest more than 9 successive quotes?

NeoThermic


What exactly are you trying to say? It sounds very much like a challenge issued. one we have no hope of beating

Nah i dont think so


9?
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:55 pm

eliteLuke wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
shinygerbil wrote:
NeoThermic wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
wattro wrote:
xander wrote:
wattro wrote:
cleverivan wrote:I would've thought that all arcing of Missile tracks well below the Equator would arc towards the South and not the North. :?


you'd be just like most of the rest of us ;)

really, nuke trajectories should be computed against a 3d model and representated on the 2d map with equivalent arc similar to they way they are now (arcing), but should speed up relative to the amount of arc

I agree, 100%. Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, just like the movements of pieces on a chess board.

...

Defcon is a game, not a simulation. It is not meant to simulate life. It is not meant to be realistic. It is a game.

xander


Are you following me around? :roll:

Changing nuke arcs to be more realistic does not make it any less of a game... I'm not sure what the point of your post is... are you saying Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, or are you saying that it should be more of a game by having nuke arcs behave unrealistically?

Btw, chess pieces do not move realistically... just look at a rook/castle, they can slide down any row/column, but really they shouldn't be able to move. And pawns can't move backwards? Since when do legs not work moving backwards... however, i view that as design as opposed to being a bug. Nuke arcs not arcing south below the equator could be viewed as a bug.


Quoting is so much fun.

Lots of fun


You do realise that I added some code ages ago that makes it impossible to nest more than 9 successive quotes?

NeoThermic


What exactly are you trying to say? It sounds very much like a challenge issued. one we have no hope of beating

Nah i dont think so


9?


You know, I really wasn't going to rise to this, but:

That was your first post?!
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:02 pm

shinygerbil wrote:
eliteLuke wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
shinygerbil wrote:
NeoThermic wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
chaz1356 wrote:
wattro wrote:
xander wrote:
wattro wrote:
cleverivan wrote:I would've thought that all arcing of Missile tracks well below the Equator would arc towards the South and not the North. :?


you'd be just like most of the rest of us ;)

really, nuke trajectories should be computed against a 3d model and representated on the 2d map with equivalent arc similar to they way they are now (arcing), but should speed up relative to the amount of arc

I agree, 100%. Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, just like the movements of pieces on a chess board.

...

Defcon is a game, not a simulation. It is not meant to simulate life. It is not meant to be realistic. It is a game.

xander


Are you following me around? :roll:

Changing nuke arcs to be more realistic does not make it any less of a game... I'm not sure what the point of your post is... are you saying Nuke arcs should be represented realistically, or are you saying that it should be more of a game by having nuke arcs behave unrealistically?

Btw, chess pieces do not move realistically... just look at a rook/castle, they can slide down any row/column, but really they shouldn't be able to move. And pawns can't move backwards? Since when do legs not work moving backwards... however, i view that as design as opposed to being a bug. Nuke arcs not arcing south below the equator could be viewed as a bug.


Quoting is so much fun.

Lots of fun


You do realise that I added some code ages ago that makes it impossible to nest more than 9 successive quotes?

NeoThermic


What exactly are you trying to say? It sounds very much like a challenge issued. one we have no hope of beating

Nah i dont think so


9?


You know, I really wasn't going to rise to this, but:

That was your first post?!

Collapse. I win.

xander

Return to “Strategic Air Command”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest