I've been thinking some, and while this may have been proposed before (not to my knowledge, but since I don't know everything...) I think I have come up with a move even more cheap, even more devious then the "Shiny/Bonsai".
I call it: the "scapegoat".
It is to be used when there are two teams involved, either 2v2 or 3v3. The idea is this: one member is designated as the one who will go for the actual victory, while the remainder are the scapegoats. The one who is setting up for victory sets up in a standard formation, focusing on a setup that allow their silo's to remain undetected for as long as possible. They play the game as normal.
The other teammate(s) set up their navies to defend the designated victor, except for subs. Subs are placed next to their land, away from a initial combat zone. Silos are set up next to every major city, airfields are set up in a group away from the borders, radar set up for maximum recon of the enemy.
At DEFCON 1 the scapegoat(s) open their silos and launch on the adjacent city. Subs open and launch on cities. Air fields focus on mass bombing the enemies silos first, then airfields. Since it takes less time for a silo to arm then a bomber missile, you should be able to wipe out most of the big mega kills before the enemy has a time to reach them. The scapegoat then is in a massive;y negative position, but no matter what does not target the enemy cities.
The victor then goes for the enemy cities (not sure if it would be better for him to to for them right of the bat or wait). Since his allies have not targeted them, he has two or three untouched continents to score points off of. The enemy, however, only has one. With the 2 point for a kill, 1 point for a survivor system, the designated victor has an easy advantage in their ability to score points. The scapegoat then rides out the game, finishing with a massively negative score, but securing a team victory.
The biggest risk would be that the enemy would see what is happening, and take similar steps. That is why I am unsure if it would be best for the designated victor to launch immediately, in hopes of catching them before they can implement their own scapegoat maneuver.
Unless I'm missing something, the plan is almost fool proof. I realize it is incredibly cheap. Any ideas or comments?
Scapegoat Maneuver
Moderator: Defcon moderators
Well, it is an interesting idea, with two major flaws:
1) In Defcon, only one player is declared the "winner." In a tournament situation, where only, say, the top half of players advance, the "scapegoats" are knocking themselves out. I don't see this kind of collusion happening in that situation. In a normal, day-to-day situation, I don't see any serious player using this technique, as the goal is to win, and this definitely takes one out of the running for that. Perhaps trolls might try it, but I think they would grow tired of it very quickly.
2) There is no definition of a "team victory" in Defcon. Is the winning team the team that has the winning player, or the team that has the highest overall ranking, or the team that scores the most combined points? In either of the second scenarios, this technique would lead to a team loss, as the "scapegoats" are losing massive numbers of points for their team, and demoting themselves to the last two slots, almost automatically.
So, while this is an interesting thought exercise, I doubt we will ever see it put into practice.
xander
1) In Defcon, only one player is declared the "winner." In a tournament situation, where only, say, the top half of players advance, the "scapegoats" are knocking themselves out. I don't see this kind of collusion happening in that situation. In a normal, day-to-day situation, I don't see any serious player using this technique, as the goal is to win, and this definitely takes one out of the running for that. Perhaps trolls might try it, but I think they would grow tired of it very quickly.
2) There is no definition of a "team victory" in Defcon. Is the winning team the team that has the winning player, or the team that has the highest overall ranking, or the team that scores the most combined points? In either of the second scenarios, this technique would lead to a team loss, as the "scapegoats" are losing massive numbers of points for their team, and demoting themselves to the last two slots, almost automatically.
So, while this is an interesting thought exercise, I doubt we will ever see it put into practice.
xander
Your right, there is no definition of a "team victory". However, there is such a thing as a team effort, especially in a game where defection is turned off.
In such a game victory is largely subjective. Team A might declare victory since they had the highest scoring player while Team B declares victory because they have the highest combined scored. Were that the case then everyone might walk away feeling that they have won, in which case the method would actually benefit everyone.
Also, while it is true that DEFCON has no built in rule system for a "team win", I have played many games (with defection on) where I have been content with a team mate winning, and consider such to be a win for myself as well. I think that since they reached that position as part of a team effort (sort of like how you always hear about Lance Armstrong winning, but he could not have done so without a whole support team of riders so he can draft, etc.)
You are also right in saying it has no real place in a tournament game, unless it was a team tournament with the rules stating that the winning team for each round is the one who has the highest scoring player.
I personally don't expect to see it much mainly since most games are a random group playing, and the individual ego will often preclude the individual from sacrificing their chance to be first, as well as condeming them to a relatively boring game, just so an unknown individual can win.
In such a game victory is largely subjective. Team A might declare victory since they had the highest scoring player while Team B declares victory because they have the highest combined scored. Were that the case then everyone might walk away feeling that they have won, in which case the method would actually benefit everyone.
Also, while it is true that DEFCON has no built in rule system for a "team win", I have played many games (with defection on) where I have been content with a team mate winning, and consider such to be a win for myself as well. I think that since they reached that position as part of a team effort (sort of like how you always hear about Lance Armstrong winning, but he could not have done so without a whole support team of riders so he can draft, etc.)
You are also right in saying it has no real place in a tournament game, unless it was a team tournament with the rules stating that the winning team for each round is the one who has the highest scoring player.
I personally don't expect to see it much mainly since most games are a random group playing, and the individual ego will often preclude the individual from sacrificing their chance to be first, as well as condeming them to a relatively boring game, just so an unknown individual can win.
If you do it wrong (or the other team counters it right), it could result in the other team taking all of the top positions.
If you know of this strategy (and everyone reading this now does), once the city nuking is spotted, it becomes immediately obvious that it's time to go into fighter launch mode, and try naval nuking around the 'champion'. After a while, it can just become three against one, which will be a complete whitewash if pacification comes before damage.
If you know of this strategy (and everyone reading this now does), once the city nuking is spotted, it becomes immediately obvious that it's time to go into fighter launch mode, and try naval nuking around the 'champion'. After a while, it can just become three against one, which will be a complete whitewash if pacification comes before damage.
-
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:
Two guys, in a ceasefire (but DIFFERENT TEAMS) agree to nuke only each others' cities.
So, for example say it's 100 pop, and you both manage to make a perfect 100 megakills on each other. You get 200 points for those kills, and you lose 100 points for the deaths. So you end up with 100 points, no cities to defend (so your score can't go below 100), and all your installations intact, ready to nuke everyone else.
Morally bankrupt and unbalanced though it may be, it has risks. See here for the original discussion.
So, for example say it's 100 pop, and you both manage to make a perfect 100 megakills on each other. You get 200 points for those kills, and you lose 100 points for the deaths. So you end up with 100 points, no cities to defend (so your score can't go below 100), and all your installations intact, ready to nuke everyone else.
Morally bankrupt and unbalanced though it may be, it has risks. See here for the original discussion.
whac- wrote:ahhh. i got it now. i am guessing shinygerbil had something to do with it (by the name) and maybe a player named bonsai. sounds like a creative idea. but i do consideri t unfair
shinygerbil and a player named Bonsai used this strategy in a tournament game. As to unfair or not, I consider it a perfectly valid strategy. You get to use it once, before everyone either gangs up on you, or does the same thing.
xander
-
deathtoyou
- level1
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:22 am
-
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 2 guests