Mathematical proof why the star is unbeatable

[Ace Rimmer]

As far as I know, yes.

Note: there is a difference between playback speed and in-game speed. If you don't change the speed setting while watching the recording, the game will run just as it did originally. I.e., if the players set it at 1x, it plays at real time, if they set it at 20x, it plays at 20x. When you change the speed of the playback, all in-game speeds are changed.

[Grandstone]

Muchas gracias.

[Ace Rimmer]

Ok, so I think I can finally agree with the title of this thread, at least when I'm using the Star. Why? because 98m+ is the lowest number of kills I've gotten when playing even at a relaxed state since I've refined my method. Not relaxed, 99+m kills is not difficult. If I as Asia kill 99+m kills (and you can't stop me, muahahaha!), what can you do to win? Nothing, at best you get a draw.

Now, rus|Mike keeps referring to the now deceased Ladder in which a draw meant the challenger effectively lost, but in the Master Challenge, there is no challenger trying to move up the ranks, and if there was it'd be you rus|Mike since I'm higher up in the stats. (21:13)

latest Star game, feature an All Star cast of players and specs!

[Nightwatch]

at best you get a draw.

i wouldn´t say that. In the end Mike was short one or two nukes. If you hadn´t nuked his subs or shot down this or that bomber this would have gone in a different direction.

Sure, you made mistakes and you won´t repeat them. But the same goes for Mike.

[Ace Rimmer]

at best you get a draw.

i wouldn´t say that. In the end Mike was short one or two nukes. If you hadn´t nuked his subs or shot down this or that bomber this would have gone in a different direction.

Sure, you made mistakes and you won´t repeat them. But the same goes for Mike.

Hehe, but the point is, I did nuke his subs and did shoot down this or that bomber. If I play a flawless game, 99m+ it is. You can't beat 99m+.

Edit: I forgot to congratulate rus|Mike for being the only person to ever come close (draw vs slim loss) to "officially" beating the Star.

[Nightwatch]

If I play a flawless game, 99m+ it is. You can't beat 99m+.

Thats not the point.
You can`t play flawless in every game. In fact, you can`t play flawless in any game.
Its normal. You´re human and this is a war simulation. People make mistakes in war. There is no flawless game.
The only question is if your opponent is good enough to exploit your mistakes.
Mike came close to it - made a couple of mistakes too btw- with one or two hits more he would have won.
Therefore, the star is beatable. Not very likely to be but it is possible even with you in command.

[Ace Rimmer]

Well, what I meant was that I played that game at a lower than normal level (because of over confidence), and still got a draw out of it. Obviously nobody can play technically flawless game of Defcon.

[Tripper]

Oh Ace, you are so a gravedigger!!!

Not that I have access to DEFCON at the moment to replay the game, I'm sure that the first post assumed that the star was played competently. Anyway, like I can remember something I posted almost a year ago . . . .

/relurks. Currently I'm in Munich enjoying the Oktoberfest, then it'll be cycling across to Italy to try to avoid the approaching bad weather ...

Cheers, and good to see people are still arguing about the star even after Multiwinia has come out, Tripper

[Ace Rimmer]

Have fun cycling.

[Consumerist]

So wait. If most of russias population is located on the eastern border can't you just make a star of russia to protect it?

[ynbniar]

So wait. If most of russias population is located on the eastern border can't you just make a star of russia to protect it?

No...see this thread

[Consumerist]

I found out the perfect strategy for beating the star of india:

Don't play asia 1 on 1 as russia.