Mutually Beneficial Destruction

[Grim_Reaper]

This is a tactic I have been thinking about, but have as yet to try, as it requires either a trustworthy ally, or the ability to persuade an ally of the validity of the strategy. It would only apply in standard scoring games, as it relies on kills being rated higher than deaths.

Usually, if my ally is going down, I'll leave the alliance, and go after him. If his cities are going to get nuked, I might as well be the one nuking them. However, why only do this if things fall apart? If two allies could agree , for a period of time, to quit the alliance, and leave cease fire on, they could both nuke the cities of their former ally. With the radioactive dust settled, and the alliance remade, they would both be up 100 points; -100 from deaths, +200 from kills. This is assuming a standard population setting and, for the sake of the argument, a 100% percent casualty rate.
The two would then have a marked scoring advantage over their competitors, and their installations would like be left mostly alone, as the lack of population leaves little reason for going after them (neglecting the fact that they will now be 100 points up).

Thoughts, scathing criticism, biscuits?

[DueAccident]

Sounds interesting. I don't think I would risk it, as there is a high chance the ally with nuke you, turn AA on and turn off ceasefire

[Gen. Ripper]

makes sense....although if all the teams did this, there would be no point I assume, mmm this is why I favour survivor mode...makes the most sense to play that mode.

still, your basicly making it so you cant lose points, since you cant be harmed after that aye?

[Ace Rimmer]

Well, I've had one player directly offer me his cities once long ago (and one recently in a similar way). I was Asia and he was USSR and he had not been hit all that much.

I protested and stated that I didn't need to nuke his cities to gain the advantage. Once I learned how to play (or at least what works for me) I began to play the game expecting that my entire population would be nuked anyway. This frees you from worrying too much on defense (the exception being survivor) and forces you to play for maximum points. It's also the reason that I adapted Feuds silo placement and made it my own.

So I would say it might be interesting, but I would not consider it a glorious victory should I engage in such a tactic however valid it might be.

[Weps]

I've had one game where I was winning. Then, just to make sure I didn't, the nme alliance broke, one turned on ceasefire and the other nukes his cities. After he got enough points, they made the alliance again. This happened including smacktalking.

Smells like a cheap cheat. I'm pretty sure that if you can find the right persons, you can always win this way. (well always, depending on the number of cities/pop/scoring method).

[Grim_Reaper]

I've had one game where I was winning. Then, just to make sure I didn't, the nme alliance broke, one turned on ceasefire and the other nukes his cities. After he got enough points, they made the alliance again. This happened including smacktalking.

Smells like a cheap cheat. I'm pretty sure that if you can find the right persons, you can always win this way. (well always, depending on the number of cities/pop/scoring method).

Cheap? Yes. Cheat? No. And I agree that if everyone did this, it would ruin standard scoring games, but that does not make it any less valid.
Also, what Weps describes goes against the grain of what I described. In Weps' story, the guy seems to to suffer from the illusion that by being in the same alliance as the winner, he also wins.

[roflamingo]

the guy seems to to suffer from the illusion that by being in the same alliance as the winner, he also wins.

I have come across this particular affliction many times in games, and my proposal for the next Beta is the following:

If you are in the same alliance as the winner, after the "VICTORY TO ROFLAMINGO" (or whoever) comes up, another message comes up and says:

"YOU LOSE YOU STUPID PATSY"

[lukasbradley]

I look at it this way:

I don't want to win a game like that. If others choose to do it, so be it.

It's like the player who launches from subs at you, then continually tries to join your alliance while the nukes are in the air so you can't react as quickly. It's cheap, and it's not how I want to play.

[Ace Rimmer]

I agree with that.

I'll say that when I get multiple requests from the same player to join (one after another) I just move the box out of the way and let it count down. They usually give up after that.

[caranthir.pkk]

Gosh, while we are on the topic let me express my incredible hatred for the mbm - minion butt munch. They spend all their time trying to please one player by being his bit*h because they are too afraid of trying to win. Nothing bugs me more and nothing ruins a game more than that. I'd rather have someone who tries to cheat in all possible ways, at least I know he's there to win.

my $0.02

cara

[lukasbradley]

Gosh, while we are on the topic let me express my incredible hatred for the mbm - minion butt munch.

And who might you be talking about here?

[caranthir.pkk]

Gosh, while we are on the topic let me express my incredible hatred for the mbm - minion butt munch.

And who might you be talking about here?

I was speaking in general. I don't mind alliances but why not try to win at that crucial moment? I understand people enjoy "allying" but then do a game without defection...

[Xocrates]

I don't mind alliances but why not try to win at that crucial moment? I understand people enjoy "allying" but then do a game without defection...

If I had a good game and a cool ally, I don't mind to go for an "allied victory". It's not like someone is going to pay me a lunch if I get first place. Sure, if your ally is just an insurance then go berserk on his ass and get those juicy points, but if everyone's getting fun, no point to go and ruin it just to please your ego.

[caranthir.pkk]

I don't mind alliances but why not try to win at that crucial moment? I understand people enjoy "allying" but then do a game without defection...

If I had a good game and a cool ally, I don't mind to go for an "allied victory". It's not like someone is going to pay me a lunch if I get first place. Sure, if your ally is just an insurance then go berserk on his ass and get those juicy points, but if everyone's getting fun, no point to go and ruin it just to please your ego.

Not what I meant. If I have no chance of winning - even if backstabbing my ally - I most certainly won't. However, when you have someone who has a shot at winning but doesn't take it, its basically like giving someone a free missile shield or an additional 100 nukes, completely distorting the game and making it little to no fun to play. For me the kick in Defcon comes from the fact that you have to always cover all your bases, think of all eventualities and interact with the other players at the same time; and with quasi-teams thats all irrelevant.

[lukasbradley]

Not what I meant. If I have no chance of winning - even if backstabbing my ally - I most certainly won't. However, when you have someone who has a shot at winning but doesn't take it, its basically like giving someone a free missile shield or an additional 100 nukes, completely distorting the game and making it little to no fun to play. For me the kick in Defcon comes from the fact that you have to always cover all your bases, think of all eventualities and interact with the other players at the same time; and with quasi-teams thats all irrelevant.

I agree with you completely in theory, but in practice, not as much.

Some players, like Ace, will ALWAYS turn on you when you are their ally. Therefore, I'm forced to hit him early and often, or not ally at all.

My point is you can't be predictable when backstabbing. Sometimes you have to wait for the right GAME to do it.

Having said this, if Moscow and Leningrad haven't been hit, and our "alliance" isn't winning, I'm nuking those two, no matter what.