In the real world, military strategies change and evolve as time passes. No modern-day general uses Napoleonic strategy and, as history has shown, over-reliance on old-fashioned strategy leads to disaster. The current crop of strategy guides availible were written when EURussia was invincible and Africa was the worst nation. The result of using them in games against the top players today would be similar to the charge of the Polish Cavalry on the German Panzer Divisions; a complete catastrophe. So I propose the writing of a new strategy guide; one that includes naval nuking and the Feud Silo Layout. As I consider myself an intermediate player at best, I ask that contributions be made to it by a wide range of forum goers. I know that many threads have been made about various aspects of Defcon strategy in recent times; I will do my best to compile them into a cohesive whole. These are the sections the guide is going to contain, and if anyone wishes to contribute knowlege to these sections, just post.
Section One.
Installations: Placement and use.
RADAR
Nuclear Launch Silos and Air Defence
Airbases
Section Two.
Maintaining Naval Superiority.
Battleships
Aircraft Carriers
Submarines as Ship Killers
Naval Nuking
Bombers in Naval Combat
Section Three.
Gaining Air Superiority.
Fighters as Bomber Escorts
Fighters as Scouts
Fighters as Bomber Killers
Section Four.
Destroying the Enemy.
Subs as Nuke Platforms
Bombers as Nuke Launchers
Silos as Nuke Platforms
Section Five.
Diplomacy.
Choosing an Ally
The Art of Diplomacy
Backstabbing
Again, any contributions will be valued.
Global Thermonuclear Warfare: A Guide to Losing the Least.
Moderator: Defcon moderators
-
shinygerbil
- level5
- Posts: 4667
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
- Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
- Contact:
Pater wrote:How about starting the guide with the most important things instead of the minor subjects?
Think overall strategy, scoring..
Uhh, overall strategy should be "win", and scoring should be "higher than the others". It's no good having a perfect strategy if you can't actually implement it
For example, section 1 will detail placement. Even if you've got an awesome strategy, it's wasted if you decide to places your radars all in the centre, as close to each other as possible, and then place all of your silos in opposite corners of your territory.
Section 2 is probably the most important section, as your navy is the bulk of the action in DEFCON. If there were no navies, what would happen? Everyone would just send waves of beam attacks (while simultaneously trying to defend from enemy beam attacks with fighters, and then try and launch their silos at the right moment. Victory would come to those who simply got their timing right, and of course, who got their placement right
Pater wrote:How about starting the guide with the most important things instead of the minor subjects?
Think overall strategy, scoring..
In between each section, I am going to put a basic rule to follow when it comes to strategy, and how this rule can be applied to the game as a whole. I am currently, quite logically, writing section 5; I will probably be able to post it later today.
Section Five.
Diplomacy.
Choosing an ally.
There are many advantages in having a strong alliance. Allies can help you out in offence and defence. For example, playing as Europe, if you ally with North America any nukes being fired from silos in South America will be intercepted and destroyed before threatening your cities. Also, as Defcon 3 hits, a multinational fleet should easily take on a fleet of a single nationality. If you a very coordinated with your ally, one of you can organise the battleships and subs while the other rains down Air to surface missiles from their carrier's bombers.
However, which ally should you pick? The short answer is, all nations will serve some usefulness at some point in the game.Whether it is Europe and Russia or North America and Asia, an ally could save your cities or your fleet. Personally, I think that the personality and skill of the player rather than their geographical position determines how much use they will be to you. I have found that it is usually a bad idea to make a player think he is of a similar skill level to you. If this is the case, if he sees an opportunity to betray you, he will try his upmost to destroy you, expecting a well-planned defence. I find that the best relationship to have with someone is to make them think that you are vastly superior in skill, knowlege and intelligence and that you could crush them if they tried to betray. You can effectively make a nation your 'bitch' - they will do anything you say, trust you implicitly, and not say a thing against you, even if 25 of your bombers ar flying in close formation over their territory. This works best with [DEMO] players or new players to the game - just look across to their nation's set up - new players will have mixed carriers with subs and spread out their silos right across the country. Another beneficial relationship to have with a player is if they think you are vastly inferior to themselves. This means that the last thing they will expect is a combined air-strike/sublaunch/silo launch. I have seen it time and again - if an ally thinks you are
inexperienced they will often not bother with the overwhelming attack that they should execute to destroy you - they think that their superior skillz will allow them to destroy your biggest cities with 5 or 6 bombers rather than twenty.
The Art of Diplomacy.
The best way to keep an ally onside until you no longer need them is to present a common enemy - if they think that someone presents a bigger threat than you do, they will keep the backstabbing knife in reserve. The worst thing to do is to say something along the lines of 'join or die' - this always fails, and can create a enemy that will last multiple games. If you have multiple allies, the biggest danger is the possibility that they will gang up on you. To prevent this, at the beginning of the game, be the first to request an alliance with a neighbour, then invite a further player to join, and say to the first player something along the lines of 'We'll sort out [common enemy] first, then take on [second ally]' and say to the second ally '[first ally] wants me and [common enemy] to gang up on you. We'll kill that traitor after dealing with [common enemy]'. This creates a sense that you are both players 'real friend' and that they can trust noone else.
Be just as careful with what you say on public chat. Try not to create a sense of aloofness from the rest of the players. This will make them want to knock you off the top of the scoreboard as soon as possible. Refrain from any sort of name-calling or abuse; do not call anyone a noob and never use racist slurs - this will turn everyone against you, and rightly so. Do not whine or complain - it is ok to say something like 'Damn, Europe again. Guess I'll have to try my best :/', but something like 'i'm orlways fuking africa!!! The random nations thing is ghey!!!' will turn people against you. The most irritating thing you can do is to chatspam 'SPEEED!!!!!11' - careful micro-managers will get annoyed.
Generally, be nice in the chat, be nasty in the game.
Backstabbing.
When your allies' cities would give you more of an advantage than their continued loyalty, don't hesitate to consider betrayal. However, it is not as easy as you think to pull off a successful betrayal. Before you twist the knife, answer the following questions.
1. Are you guaranteed to rise at least one position as a result of your betrayal?
2. Can you cripple your soon to be enemy to the extent that a second strike can be easily deflected?
3. Are you sure that any other allies with sufficient nuclear capabilities to damage your chances in the game will side with you?
If the answer to these three questions are yes, then continue planning your former friend's demise. Two things must be considered: Timing and Execution. The best time to target your ally is when they are launching all of their silos or being nuked by another enemy -in the latter case your ally may not even notice you slipping a few nukes in to destroy his installations.
On the subject of execution, one thing to remember is the real-world strategic aphorism; 'Smash don't tickle.' If you can't deliver a decisive, crippling stab, then don't betray him at all; an ineffective, feeble blow will do massively more damage to you than you do to your former ally. Don't just send a few bombers over in the hope of grabbing a couple of points - launch a triple pronged attack from ground air and sea, destroy all
of his silos, and if the option presents itself, don't hesitate to carpet bomb his navy with your bombers' nukes. If you don't target cities in the first wave of destruction, you can remain in the alliance. Simply wait until the nukes from the second wave are approaching major population centres and then leave the alliance. The blow will destroy him, so don't be surprised to see abuse hurled at you through the public chat channel from players that have less experience of being betrayed.
Avoiding Betrayal.
Even if you took all my advice from the art of diplomacy, if you are winning and your friend is a close second, expect the knife. Constant vigilance is the key; watch where your ally's bombers are veering, and be especially careful when he goes out of his way that he will be putting bombers over your territory en-route to
an enemy. Sickning though it may be, if all else fails and your ally pulls off a perfect backstab and you are simply watching your score plummet as he takes the victory, congratulate him, and learn for next time so it won't happen again.
Diplomacy.
Choosing an ally.
There are many advantages in having a strong alliance. Allies can help you out in offence and defence. For example, playing as Europe, if you ally with North America any nukes being fired from silos in South America will be intercepted and destroyed before threatening your cities. Also, as Defcon 3 hits, a multinational fleet should easily take on a fleet of a single nationality. If you a very coordinated with your ally, one of you can organise the battleships and subs while the other rains down Air to surface missiles from their carrier's bombers.
However, which ally should you pick? The short answer is, all nations will serve some usefulness at some point in the game.Whether it is Europe and Russia or North America and Asia, an ally could save your cities or your fleet. Personally, I think that the personality and skill of the player rather than their geographical position determines how much use they will be to you. I have found that it is usually a bad idea to make a player think he is of a similar skill level to you. If this is the case, if he sees an opportunity to betray you, he will try his upmost to destroy you, expecting a well-planned defence. I find that the best relationship to have with someone is to make them think that you are vastly superior in skill, knowlege and intelligence and that you could crush them if they tried to betray. You can effectively make a nation your 'bitch' - they will do anything you say, trust you implicitly, and not say a thing against you, even if 25 of your bombers ar flying in close formation over their territory. This works best with [DEMO] players or new players to the game - just look across to their nation's set up - new players will have mixed carriers with subs and spread out their silos right across the country. Another beneficial relationship to have with a player is if they think you are vastly inferior to themselves. This means that the last thing they will expect is a combined air-strike/sublaunch/silo launch. I have seen it time and again - if an ally thinks you are
inexperienced they will often not bother with the overwhelming attack that they should execute to destroy you - they think that their superior skillz will allow them to destroy your biggest cities with 5 or 6 bombers rather than twenty.
The Art of Diplomacy.
The best way to keep an ally onside until you no longer need them is to present a common enemy - if they think that someone presents a bigger threat than you do, they will keep the backstabbing knife in reserve. The worst thing to do is to say something along the lines of 'join or die' - this always fails, and can create a enemy that will last multiple games. If you have multiple allies, the biggest danger is the possibility that they will gang up on you. To prevent this, at the beginning of the game, be the first to request an alliance with a neighbour, then invite a further player to join, and say to the first player something along the lines of 'We'll sort out [common enemy] first, then take on [second ally]' and say to the second ally '[first ally] wants me and [common enemy] to gang up on you. We'll kill that traitor after dealing with [common enemy]'. This creates a sense that you are both players 'real friend' and that they can trust noone else.
Be just as careful with what you say on public chat. Try not to create a sense of aloofness from the rest of the players. This will make them want to knock you off the top of the scoreboard as soon as possible. Refrain from any sort of name-calling or abuse; do not call anyone a noob and never use racist slurs - this will turn everyone against you, and rightly so. Do not whine or complain - it is ok to say something like 'Damn, Europe again. Guess I'll have to try my best :/', but something like 'i'm orlways fuking africa!!! The random nations thing is ghey!!!' will turn people against you. The most irritating thing you can do is to chatspam 'SPEEED!!!!!11' - careful micro-managers will get annoyed.
Generally, be nice in the chat, be nasty in the game.
Backstabbing.
When your allies' cities would give you more of an advantage than their continued loyalty, don't hesitate to consider betrayal. However, it is not as easy as you think to pull off a successful betrayal. Before you twist the knife, answer the following questions.
1. Are you guaranteed to rise at least one position as a result of your betrayal?
2. Can you cripple your soon to be enemy to the extent that a second strike can be easily deflected?
3. Are you sure that any other allies with sufficient nuclear capabilities to damage your chances in the game will side with you?
If the answer to these three questions are yes, then continue planning your former friend's demise. Two things must be considered: Timing and Execution. The best time to target your ally is when they are launching all of their silos or being nuked by another enemy -in the latter case your ally may not even notice you slipping a few nukes in to destroy his installations.
On the subject of execution, one thing to remember is the real-world strategic aphorism; 'Smash don't tickle.' If you can't deliver a decisive, crippling stab, then don't betray him at all; an ineffective, feeble blow will do massively more damage to you than you do to your former ally. Don't just send a few bombers over in the hope of grabbing a couple of points - launch a triple pronged attack from ground air and sea, destroy all
of his silos, and if the option presents itself, don't hesitate to carpet bomb his navy with your bombers' nukes. If you don't target cities in the first wave of destruction, you can remain in the alliance. Simply wait until the nukes from the second wave are approaching major population centres and then leave the alliance. The blow will destroy him, so don't be surprised to see abuse hurled at you through the public chat channel from players that have less experience of being betrayed.
Avoiding Betrayal.
Even if you took all my advice from the art of diplomacy, if you are winning and your friend is a close second, expect the knife. Constant vigilance is the key; watch where your ally's bombers are veering, and be especially careful when he goes out of his way that he will be putting bombers over your territory en-route to
an enemy. Sickning though it may be, if all else fails and your ally pulls off a perfect backstab and you are simply watching your score plummet as he takes the victory, congratulate him, and learn for next time so it won't happen again.
shinygerbil wrote:Pater wrote:How about starting the guide with the most important things instead of the minor subjects?
Think overall strategy, scoring..
It's no good having a perfect strategy if you can't actually implement it
Implementing good general tactics without a strategy will much more likely fail than implementing a good strategy poorly.
I frequently spread silos. I was able to beat most silo groupers consistently from the beginning.
Pater wrote:shinygerbil wrote:Pater wrote:How about starting the guide with the most important things instead of the minor subjects?
Think overall strategy, scoring..
It's no good having a perfect strategy if you can't actually implement it
Implementing good general tactics without a strategy will much more likely fail than implementing a good strategy poorly.
I frequently spread silos. I was able to beat most silo groupers consistently from the beginning.
Yay! A comment on my thread. Hang on, it's not even about the whole guide thing I am writing. Does anyone have any feedback on the guide I wrote at all, even if it is just abuse, or should I just shut up and shelve the project?
And although overall strategies are very important to the game, and not having such a strategy will ruin your chances of winning anything, and I am in fact going to suggest well-known strategies throughout the guide, it is just as important that you know how to use the weapons you are given.
No, really, its a nice effort so far, keep up the good work.
The only problem I can see with writing a strategy guide for Defcon is that no strategy is likely to work well in all different modes. (I wonder if these forums will be around long enough for someone to write a guide to all 30 possible 1v1 combinations )
Plus that most strategies tend to have a counterstrategy. If only you knew what strategy your opponent was using....
Maybe a good start for a strategy guide would be just pointing out all the advantages and disadvantages of different setups. Not that I'm a top player, but I'd be happy to help out if/when I find the time...
Cheers Tripper
The only problem I can see with writing a strategy guide for Defcon is that no strategy is likely to work well in all different modes. (I wonder if these forums will be around long enough for someone to write a guide to all 30 possible 1v1 combinations
)
Plus that most strategies tend to have a counterstrategy. If only you knew what strategy your opponent was using....
Maybe a good start for a strategy guide would be just pointing out all the advantages and disadvantages of different setups. Not that I'm a top player, but I'd be happy to help out if/when I find the time...
Cheers Tripper
shinygerbil wrote:Pater wrote:How about starting the guide with the most important things instead of the minor subjects?
Think overall strategy, scoring..
Uhh, overall strategy should be "win", and scoring should be "higher than the others".
How to win? How to score higher than others?
And it is EXTREMELY important to notice that 1on1 games are completely different than 6 player games.
-
Ace Rimmer
- level5
- Posts: 10803
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: The Multiverse
Pater wrote:And it is EXTREMELY important to notice that 1on1 games are completely different than 6 player games.
Everybody says this but I only partially agree. I play almost the same way/style in both modes and have no problems winning in either. It's just at the end of my initial 1v1 attack in a 6 player game, I move on to somebody else. I might throw in a secondary attack on a second player whilst operating in a 1v1 style (in 6 player games), but I've found that most of the time you can concentrate on one person exhaust their cities pretty quickly and move on to somebody else before the points are gone.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
-
Gen. Ripper
- level3
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:22 pm
- Location: London
ahh but that is of course only in Default score mode, it should be noted that in a 1 vs 1 you are basicly playing survivor mode. And for 6 player survivor mode, its all about defence and dis-arming your oppenents installations, but tactics are the same in a 1 vs 1 or 6 player
(exept you know where the attacks are coming in a 1 vs 1 I guess which changes your deployment)
(exept you know where the attacks are coming in a 1 vs 1 I guess which changes your deployment)
-
Ace Rimmer
- level5
- Posts: 10803
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: The Multiverse
Gen. Ripper wrote:ahh but that is of course only in Default score mode, it should be noted that in a 1 vs 1 you are basicly playing survivor mode. And for 6 player survivor mode, its all about defence and dis-arming your oppenents installations, but tactics are the same in a 1 vs 1 or 6 player
(exept you know where the attacks are coming in a 1 vs 1 I guess which changes your deployment)
1v1, unlike other modes, is zero sum. Every kill you get is points for you, every kill your opponent gets is points for him. All scoring modes are mathematically equivalent when playing 1v1. You can think of it as default (you have to get more kills than your opponent, but protect your population), survivor (you have to protect your population), or genocide (you have to get more kills than your opponent). They are the same in 1v1.
It can feel like survivor because other score modes provide a much greater potential pool of points from the beginning if you have more players. In genocide or default, you are rewarded for getting lots of kills, and protecting your own population is not greatly rewarded. But that doesn't mean that survivor tactics are the best. Personally, I like to use strong offensive tactics when playing 1v1 -- destroy my opponent and his ability to make war before he gets the chance to do so. That is not how I play survivor with more opponents. ;)
xander
-
Ace Rimmer
- level5
- Posts: 10803
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: The Multiverse
-
hi there (name sux)
- level2
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:49 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest