Anti-Naval nuking

In-depth tactical discussion on how to lose the least

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16867
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Riverside, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:40 am

With regard to the attitude that naval nuking is "cheap," I suggest that you read through this.

xander
User avatar
Teddy Coalition
level2
level2
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:45 am
Location: Plushie Town, BC.
Contact:

Postby Teddy Coalition » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:53 am

sometimes it can be your last ditch effort.

I was in a 2v2, and my ally, didnt help abit, he was suppose to fully deploy in atlantic. (I was South Amer. & he was Africa) and I was to defend in pacific.
anyways, I got fully scouted and was sitting duck, i scouted with planes and saw his fleet moving up my coast. I used my silos to totaly oblitirate his subs, Battleships & AC's... I used bombers and subs only against cities, and got 2 of his scattered silos. My ally did the rest.

Anyways, the point is, naval nuking can save u the game. Although naval nuking from silos is the worst idea, lol, it can be a last ditch effort, even though bombers are best at that.
Join the Coalition or perish at it's feet!
Image
Lumberjack
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Postby Lumberjack » Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:19 am

xander wrote:With regard to the attitude that naval nuking is "cheap," I suggest that you read through this.

xander


I'm sorry, but I just can't respect the legitimacy of this "scrub" concept. There's a few reasons:

1. The chess analogy is flawed, in part because computer games have far more variables that you need to control than other variables. In chess, for example, the rule is that bishops move diagonally. Pretty straightforward. On the other hand, in Defcon, there are many added playing options for all the "pieces" (units and buildings). This means there are literally millions of options, compared to Chess having far fewer. Not to mention the turn-based vs. real-time aspect. Computer games operate on entirely different rules SYSTEMS from, say, Chess. Chess doesn't need to have complex rules since there are fewer possible options with the limited technology involved.

2. The "fun" that the author seems to espouse is based on the assumption that players continually are WILLING to explore new strategies. In reality, very few are willing to do so, and most new players are turned away by getting repeatedly beaten by more experienced players and then being called "noobs". It's the equivalent of a kid going to a friend's house, playing chess for the first time, then being called an idiot for not doing better.

3. This assumes a model where all games are solely designed for competitive experimentation, and that fun is solely based on the intellectual goals of enhancing strategy. This is patently false; I enjoy poop jokes.

4. The author is dismissive of "scrubs" and goes so far as to call them "naive" and "ignorant". A computer game is not an exclusive club; a smug pretension that your view is right doesn't make friends, except among people you agree with.

5. An exploration of new strategies is best served by trying new ones. Most players DO use naval nuking as a crutch. The definitio of a "crutch" is something you rely on. I know a number of people who have continually lost in normal naval battles against me, but win whenever they hold their navy back until defcon 1 just to naval nuke.

6. In many cases, luck DOES play a role. In one game, I lost about 4 subs that never went on to active sonar, and were never spotted previously by subs or ships, and weren't in any of the predictable hiding spots for subs (they were in the middle of the atlantic, and I mean middle). Naval nuking doesn't serve the experimental model that you (and the author of the article you linked to) propose, since it misallocates success in many cases (i.e. a weak deliberate strategy does well for external variables to the strategy itself).

7. There are some case where people do cry foul at legit strategies (I don't know anyone who hasn't at least once, and I admit to doing so), but it's impossible to make a clear, distinguishable, and reasoned line separating illegitimate complaints from reasonable ones.

8. If the experimental approach is true, then naval nuking would've been either replaced or modified. I see no variation to it; implying most people simply use it as a matter of convenience, not because it is a dominant strategy.

9. "Playing to win" is an absurd concept and is based on an irrational desire to self-legitimate and self-. To say "I am not being a jerk, I'm simply playing to win" whenever someone asks you even politely to stop using a strategy that makes the game less worthwhile for them. A GAME while also involving aspects of strategic choice, also is supposed to be enjoyable not just for a narrow subset of its players. There's a reason why so few people play Defcon nowadays...

10. Naval nuking eliminates strategic choices by preventing alternate options (such as conventional naval battles) from surfacing, thus HARMING the strategic project.

11. The author does admit some strategic choices are competitively unfair. His example (Akuma from Super Turbo Street Fighter) is clear proof that you need not literally break the rules of the game or exploit glitches therein in order to be considered unfair.

12. The "scrub" and "non-scrub" are interchangeable, which is proven in this quote from the article "You're not going to see a classic scrub throw his opponent 5 times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimize his chances of winning? Here we've encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary." Your insistence on naval nuking being an acceptable strategy is just as arbitrary; after all, even if a bomber is on SRBM launch mode, if you try to target a ship, it automatically switches back to naval combat mode; clearly the game's designers didn't WANT people to naval nuke. Further, see point 10 - your distinctions are just as arbitrary as mine since there's no clear point at which you can say "oh, your claim is bunk because of x, y, and z, which are all fundamentally true and agreed upon."

13. The intellectual activity the author bandies on about is absurd and denied categorically by the unintellectual nature of discussions regarding both this game and many others (see chat during games), not to mention that if it were the case that the game is an intellectual pursuit, I would have a leg up on everyone else as an International Studies Major in college.

14. There are tons of arbitrary conventions that people have in defcon, such as not leaving early, not attacking allies unless we leave the alliance, etc.. I don't see any reason why naval nuking shouldn't be added to that list other than "well, we like using that strategy". That isn't a compelling argument. Defcon has a number of competitively unfair but technically permissible strategies that people regularly emply, thus violating the principles that the article you cite promotes.

15. Fine, so if we want to get all technical, the article does reject unfair strategies (Akuma). This means players shouldn't be placing subs in the indian ocean against EU, since EU can't counter (among other examples). There are a number of strategies players employ in Defcon that are competitively unfair, but normal. If we accept naval nuking as a "fair" strategy, we therefore have to examine other common tactics.

All of that said, I don't think there should be a rule against naval nuking. My complaint is that if I were to go into a server right now and say "I want to try other strategies, please don't naval nuke me", I would automatically be called a noob, even though 1. I'm not, 2. I am not asking for "special treatment", I'm asking for an opportunity to contribute to the game by trying new strategies, and 3. I know the strategy, have used it, and still disapprove.
Last edited by Lumberjack on Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:05 am

Lumberjack wrote:All of that said, I don't think there should be a rule against naval nuking. My complaint is that if I were to go into a server right now and say "I want to try other strategies, please don't naval nuke me", I would automatically be called a noob, even though 1. I'm not, 2. I am not asking for "special treatment", I'm asking for an opportunity to contribute to the game by trying new strategies, and 3. I know the strategy, have used it, and still disapprove.

Hehe, I wouldn't call you any names, but I'd sure naval nuke you. :P

To me, naval nuking is just another weapon in an arsenal, same as using the Star of India. Neither are necessary and both are kinda 'cheap' (in terms of strategy), but only if you are limited in your approach.

I really can't believe you read all that either.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
Blackbeard
level4
level4
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:05 pm

Postby Blackbeard » Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:13 pm

I try not to play 1v1, 2v2 etc, because I'm sick of naval nuking myself (as well as BOR, "cleaning", South V North, and a few other instances that I can't think of right now :) ).
I've experimented with a few different game modes to this end, namely: 1v1v1v1 - or 2v2 with the victory trigger set quite high, but unfortunately, due to my PC/connection I don't make a very good host :( .
Defcon options are flexible enough to make "cheap" tactics unviable, or at least to replace the cheap tactics you don't like with ones that you do :P , but the player base is quite small, and so unless you want to host games yourself (with the settings that suit you), then you might end up frustrated :? .
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16867
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Riverside, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:05 pm

Lumberjack wrote:--==<snip>==--

First off, don't conflate my ideas with the author's ideas. I linked to an article, without comment.

Second, I think you have rather missed the point. The author is discussing tournament play, and explaining why a certain group of people tends to lose in tournament play. They lose because they adhere to an arbitrary set of rules that has nothing to do with the game universe.

Third, naval nuking is now a part of Defcon. IV have had the opportunity to remove it from the game, and haven't. I even seem to recall Chris making some comment about it, and how it was interesting to see such an unexpected tactic. If you want to try new things, go for it. But recognize that unless your new ideas can deal with naval nuking, they won't be useful in competitive play.

Naval nuking is part of the landscape of Defcon. Get over it, or find something that works better.

xander
Lumberjack
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Postby Lumberjack » Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:52 pm

xander wrote:
Lumberjack wrote:--==<snip>==--

First off, don't conflate my ideas with the author's ideas. I linked to an article, without comment.

Second, I think you have rather missed the point. The author is discussing tournament play, and explaining why a certain group of people tends to lose in tournament play. They lose because they adhere to an arbitrary set of rules that has nothing to do with the game universe.

Third, naval nuking is now a part of Defcon. IV have had the opportunity to remove it from the game, and haven't. I even seem to recall Chris making some comment about it, and how it was interesting to see such an unexpected tactic. If you want to try new things, go for it. But recognize that unless your new ideas can deal with naval nuking, they won't be useful in competitive play.

Naval nuking is part of the landscape of Defcon. Get over it, or find something that works better.

xander


"With regard to the attitude that naval nuking is "cheap," I suggest that you read through this." - That's an endorsement.

I'm not completely conflating your opinion and his, several of the 14 (I don't even know why 3 is incomplete, but I'm about to edit it) points I made last night don't even have that much to do with the article and are related much more closely to naval nuking in specific (see points 5, 6, and 10).

My concern is that the competitive ethic has led in part to a closed atmosphere. If someone says right before the game starts, "hey, I'm new, please don't be mean", the proper response is to NOT BE MEAN. All too often I see people in 2v2 servers complaining about how their teammate is a "noob". No wonder so few people play the game! Right now Defcon has at any given time only 20-25 experienced veterans online at once, and only 3 or 4 new players. I don't think naval nuking is something that never ever should be used, I just believe that if I go in and say "hey, I don't like it because it damages my experience with the game". A truly adaptable player should be able to beat me with any strategy (really, I'm not even that good :D )

Further, just because it's part of the landscape, doesn't make it competitively acceptable (case in point, Star of India is very competitively unbalanced, as is pretty much anyone vs. EU). You're assuming that if it's widely used it's acceptable, which effectively takes a positive statement and turns it into a normative one. Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought to be...
User avatar
trickser
level5
level5
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: The Senate ; GMT+1
Contact:

Postby trickser » Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:37 pm

There is just no way to get it out of the game. You can have a gentlemans agreement, but would you know you can trust it? Specially when another part of Defcon is backstabbing, which is sadly missing in the style Defcon is played today.
We are (I am) happy about every new player. And when i say Noob, you should imagin a warm voice that crows about the cuteness of a child.
2v2 is a very bad mode to mix Noobs and veterans, its very chess like with moves and counter moves, and if you dont have the ambition to understand these, you will get beaten over and over. And it also sucks for the veteran, who just will do his usual tricks, knowing the other will quit before the game ends.
The free-for-all 6 player games (also fun with 3,4,5) are less strategic with a lot of randomness, these give NewPlayers a more pleasing start.
Join MORs Default or Totally Random Test and have a little patience, players will join.

Oh, and i for myself can win a Defcon game without Naval Nuking, and i say, everybody can, its an overrated tactic and the amount of micromanagement it involves (for attacker and defender) is just horror. But there is just no way to get it out of the game or to stop people using it. At least there is Defcon 3 & 2, when no nuke can blow up our fleet formation.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16867
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Riverside, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:32 pm

Image

xander
User avatar
Schubdüse
level5
level5
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Seoul

Postby Schubdüse » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:07 pm

:shock: And I renamed myself NOOBSchub! :shock:

/me go asking girlfriend about the origin of that baby... :wink:
Vorsprung durch Kraft - Triebwerke saugen - Präzisionsarbeit... Schubdüse.
Why?
level5
level5
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:34 pm
Location: Verona

Postby Why? » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:13 pm

Lumberjack,

I, and others I've spoken to, hated naval nuking when we first encountered players who are good at it. It seems unfair, but once you get good at reading it, and delivering it; you'll love it. It's a whole other subset of naval strategy.

My favorite strategy, that can totally defeat naval nuking, is to simply move fast and hard. You've gotta design and build an effective tank, with your navy, and hit that motherfucker right at 3. Full steam. Fighters are ready to go, so 'spaz' out the first wave of fighters and micro them when they get near bombers and ships. Right after they go, switch to bombers, and weave them back and forth, while trying to keep their combat range as close to the edge of your ship's radar range, as you can. Keep some carriers up near your BBs, to maximize this range. After bombers are out, spaz fighters and micro them. Take out bombers first, then ships.

2-5 game minutes before Defcon 1, send out fighters and retreat. Hopefully you're at your enemy's coast at this point, and the last wave or two of fighters is a scouting attempt, while you retreat. Take out bombers. Take out bombers, take out bombers. You may have to sacrifice a lot of planes to save your ships and keep advancing. So have some flying in to reload your ships, as you advance and retreat. Perhaps a carrier or two between your fleet and the airbases, to help the reload effrort, and for juggling bombers, after. (Juggling is when you have more bombers in the air, than carrier spots, and you're too far away from your coast to land them all at an airbase. Land them on the carriers at well-timed intervals and send them back out, as fast as you can.)

If you take a LOT of bombers and take all their ships; they shouldn't have many bombers left to nuke you with. They'll also have little to no naval radar to see you with. It's pretty much game over at this point, as long as you don't lose your subs.
Lumberjack
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Postby Lumberjack » Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:00 pm

xander wrote:Image

xander


There's a difference between a noob and someone who played the game before naval nuking got to be so prevalent and never adapted to it/became "that old guy", who sits on the porch with his old man's cane yelling at all the damn kids for their crazy new strategies and their skateboards on the goddamn sidewalk.

While naval nuking has been around for a while, I remember back in the good ol' days when it was my navy vs. your navy, and we would fight it out for honor and glory, but now these damn kids with their "imaphones" and their "twatter" are just annoying the hell out of me. Shame on them!
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:05 pm

Lumberjack wrote:While naval nuking has been around for a while, I remember back in the good ol' days when it was my navy vs. your navy, and we would fight it out for honor and glory, but now these damn kids with their "imaphones" and their "twatter" are just annoying the hell out of me. Shame on them!

I've been around since shortly after Defcon was released, and I have been playing ever since. Does this mean I'm "that old guy with a damn skateboard on the other old guy's lawn (yours)"?

:P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
trickser
level5
level5
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: The Senate ; GMT+1
Contact:

Postby trickser » Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:09 pm

Stop the Gummitwist* and behave like your age, dinosaur!

Edit: meh, no good translations for the funny german terms: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_jump_rope
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16867
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Riverside, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:10 am

Lumberjack wrote:There's a difference between a noob and someone who played the game before naval nuking got to be so prevalent and never adapted to it/became "that old guy", who sits on the porch with his old man's cane yelling at all the damn kids for their crazy new strategies and their skateboards on the goddamn sidewalk.

While naval nuking has been around for a while, I remember back in the good ol' days when it was my navy vs. your navy, and we would fight it out for honor and glory, but now these damn kids with their "imaphones" and their "twatter" are just annoying the hell out of me. Shame on them!

I beta tested the game. Care to tell me, once again, how you have been around since the dawn of time, or whatever?

xander

Return to “Strategic Air Command”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest