Position

In-depth tactical discussion on how to lose the least

Moderator: Defcon moderators

tl8
level1
level1
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Toowoomba, Australia

Position

Postby tl8 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:45 am

I am just suggesting that the location of your territory plays an import part in the final outcome of the game.
Eg if you don't have anyone above you then you have less chance of being atttacked. Also in direct relation to
this is the location of your population base. Ie South Asia's population base is no way near any others which make it a long trip for nikes from silo's. What are your thoughts on this?
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:54 pm

Unless you're playing survivor, and even then it's a shaky argument, I totally disagree. I play with the expectation that my entire population will be removed and can win with any territory. You simply need to know how to play each territory to its fullest.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:18 pm

If you are new to the game, or not very skilled, your initial position can influence the outcome. However, once you learn to play the game, you will realize that all of the continents have advantages and disadvantages. In a survivor game, NA and SA can do fairly well, because the rest of the world is farther away, and may have trouble getting there (especially with well managed fleets). On the other hand, it can be hard to hit other players and cause damage, because they are farther away. Southern continents (Africa, China, and SA) may have trouble getting nukes through the northern territories, but they are also protected by those northern territories, if they can ally. Africa is perhaps a bit difficult to defend, but it has incredible access to Europe and the USSR without having to give away its own building positions. It can also easily hit China or SA, and can get to NA.

It is all more complicated than the above, and depends greatly on the number of players. However, it is more than possible to win with each continent, and your location shouldn't effect the outcome. It should, however, effect the strategy that you use.

xander
lukasbradley
level1
level1
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:22 pm

Postby lukasbradley » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:15 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:Unless you're playing survivor, and even then it's a shaky argument, I totally disagree. I play with the expectation that my entire population will be removed and can win with any territory. You simply need to know how to play each territory to its fullest.


Yes, but if you were playing five others of like experience (or playing five clones of yourself, for the sake of discussion), I'm sure that one of the territories would have a consistently better score than the others.

Complete and total balance in strategy games is not possible if you have any sort of differences in the tools (in this case, territories) players are given.

EDIT --

Sorry, I should have simply agreed with what Xander said.

It is all more complicated than the above,
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:36 pm

lukasbradley wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:Unless you're playing survivor, and even then it's a shaky argument, I totally disagree. I play with the expectation that my entire population will be removed and can win with any territory. You simply need to know how to play each territory to its fullest.


Yes, but if you were playing five others of like experience (or playing five clones of yourself, for the sake of discussion), I'm sure that one of the territories would have a consistently better score than the others.

Hmm, playing against five clones of myself would be interesting. "No Clear Victor"?

lukasbradley wrote:Complete and total balance in strategy games is not possible if you have any sort of differences in the tools (in this case, territories) players are given.

EDIT --

Sorry, I should have simply agreed with what xander said.

It is all more complicated than the above,


(fix'd)

I knew that he (xander) would throw in his opinion before I posted and that he would have more of a "complete" response. Thus, I kept my reply short. The English language is native to me, but certainly not where I am most gifted. :wink:

I simply summed what he posted with "you need to know how to play each territory to its fullest", meaning strategy is more important that position and obviously you need experience for that. :)
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:06 am

Edit: How does
Last edited by Ace Rimmer on Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:07 am

Edit: this happen?
Last edited by Ace Rimmer on Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:52 am

My god! There are three of him!
tl8
level1
level1
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Toowoomba, Australia

Postby tl8 » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:39 am

I fully agree with you ace. But its sure as hell easy to run a strategy better if you don't have 20 nukes streaming into your cities. If for example South Asia's Population base was near the western side then it would be a much more inviting target as you wouldn't have to wait long before you hit something.
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:46 am

tl8 wrote:I fully agree with you ace. But its sure as hell easy to run a strategy better if you don't have 20 nukes streaming into your cities. If for example South Asia's Population base was near the western side then it would be a much more inviting target as you wouldn't have to wait long before you hit something.


I'm not too sure why you think the position of Asia's population is such a problem. Do you mean silo launch?

Asia has several things to worry about, the least of which is missiles from silos - all of it's major cities are vulnerable to sub launch from just about anywhere along it's coast, and also from the northern seas of the USSR. Add to this problems defending bomber attacks from the north and/or south Pacific, USSR, Africa, Indian Ocean. And this is just scratching the surface of complexity...

In fact I don't mind attacking Asia because of the number of fronts it can have to deal with...unless it's Radiant Caligula's territory of course ;)
tl8
level1
level1
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Toowoomba, Australia

Postby tl8 » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:36 am

Your right, it is open to attack but its not worth anything if they don't attack it. Its true with all territories. I guess this is the point I'm trying to make.
If you are apart from the rest of the territories then you have less [b]chance[/b] of being attacked than if you were the next territory over
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:24 pm

tl8 wrote:Your right, it is open to attack but its not worth anything if they don't attack it. Its true with all territories. I guess this is the point I'm trying to make.
If you are apart from the rest of the territories then you have less chance of being attacked than if you were the next territory over


define apart of the rest of the territories. Each continent is usually a direct target for at least two others. On occasion one is forgotten but if he gets too high on points too soon, I'll assure you he is very unlikely to win.
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 Mar 20, 2007 12:25 pm

Position? 69 plskthx


I feel like such a moron writing that.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:19 pm

KingAl wrote:My god! There are three of him!


I need another 3 for a full game. :roll:
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:41 pm

Unless you are playing with survivor scoring, it doesn't matter what happens to your own population. It really doesn't. To win in a default or genocide game, you have to kill, and kill a lot. In a six player game, I think this is easiest to do with Africa, then Asia. The reason for this is that Africa and Asia can both position airbases and silos just out of RADAR range from the other three powers in that part of the world, but you can place RADAR towers to see most of the enemy's territory. Thus, you have three large targets ready to go, and your own silos and airbases are less likely to get hit.

North America and South America also do okay in genocide or default, if you can win in the Atlantic. If you can win in the Atlantic, you can easily hit Europe, Africa, and the other America. If you don't win in the Atlantic, your bombers are likely to be shot down en route, and you will really only be able to hit the other America. Again, that gives you three good targets, and, for the most part, the enemy can't see you.

Europe and the USSR have similar strategies, but it is a little harder, because China and Africa probably know where your silos are from the start, and you really want those to survive long enough to fire. If you are really good, you might unload your silos from the start, but if your opponents are any good, they will be ready to bomb them from the start. The strategy should be to take out your local opponents as quickly as possible, and keep fighters in the air against bombers. Especially Europe needs to play fairly defensively to get much of anything accomplished, which really hurts in default or genocide, as most of the good kills will be gone by the time you get around to your offensive game. At least, that is, if you play defensively.

As to survivor mode, I strongly believe that you shouldn't bother to defend your largest target^Wcity. New York, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Cairo, and Mexico City will get glassed. One of your opponents (or more) will send a group of 25 bombers after whichever city you happen to have on your continent, and will reduce it to radioactive obsidian. Defend the larger groups of medium sized cities. In the USSR and Europe, this can be a bit difficult, as the big cities are near the little cities, thanks to the distribution of cities. In North America, defend the west coast, and the heartland. Defend southern Africa, and try to keep Kinshasa alive. Bombay and southern Asia is good if you are playing China. Sao Pablo is a bit harder to defend, as is Lima, but that is where I tend to focus if South America.

Honestly, I think that Asia is one of the easiest places to defend. You can get fleets from one coast to the other (Indian Ocean to the Pacific, or vice versa) fairly easily (unlike North America, where you have to go around South America), and there is only one fleet that should be able to start in a place to threaten the city that you are defending (whether that be the USSR after Tokyo, or Africa against Bombay). While other fleets will arrive with time, you should be able to deal with them one at a time, and the later fleets should be depleted from fighting another enemy.

Anyway, just my two cents.

xander

Return to “Strategic Air Command”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests