xander wrote:The other problem with a globe is that it would drastically change gameplay. Currently, if you are the USSR, you have to worry about your nukes being intercepted by Europe on their way to North America. On a real globe, this would not be a problem. While there are many people on these boards who would tell you that is a good thing, it would not be Defcon.
Yes, it would change gameplay... but wouldnt and could'nt alliance's shift accordingly? You seem to be telling me that defcon does not = globalthermonuclearwar but rather Defcon = mercator projection thermonuclearwar, with adjusted nuke arcs to increase relevance of neighboring nation states.
"it would not be defcon"
well no, i dont think that is true. i think we would have the various defcon levels, bombers, subs, battleships, fighters, airbases, radar and silos and cities. scoring would be the same. that to me is pretty much defcon. tactics and strategy would have to change, to reflect a real globe. perhaps the defining element to you, about defcon, is unrealisitc nuke arcs. perhaps your fav element of defcon is having to fly bombers over europe to get them from america to russia. i guess if you feel that those are the defining elements of defcon, then you are convinced that i am somehow trying to attack the fundamental character of the game 'defcon' itself.
I do not see, for the life of me, why increasing the realisim on the order of having the game on a globe rather than on a mercator projection, would decrease the fun. i dont see how being able to use the north and south pole, somehow would rob the 'fun' of the game.
rather, i am attempting, seriously, to get a answer from guys who made the game, or from guys who are modding the game, as to why they did not pursue this path in the first place? was it deemed to damn hard to code? to bulky? was it no fun to be south america and be able to shoot nukes at other nations without 3rd parties being able to get involved?