Suggestion: New Game Versions

[graphain]

Some new version ideas (nothing special):

Hi-Tech
Player can use a satellite image/UAV every so often as of Defcon 2 to get a view of an enemy locale. Perhaps nuke silos excluded.

Possibly add Sat Relay Buildings.
Possibly implement Stealth Fighters.

Although on second thoughts this may push the boundaries of the cold-war idea.


Stress
All alliances break down at Defcon 2. Broken alliances can not be re-formed for at least 2 minutes after a break.


Commander
One placed silo is designated the commander silo but appears and works as normal to everyone else. If this silo is destroyed no nukes can be deployed (Essentially back to Defcon 2 Level).

[MattD]

It could be cool, in the sequel to Defcon, if IV used a GUI and concept exactly like Google Earth's that allowed gameplay exactly like Defcon. This would re-define the genre.

[Al3xand3r]

Defcon redefines the (rts) genre. I don't think 3D graphics would make any difference. They would either have to make the gameplay complex/realistic which would mean it wouldn't have the same charm as now, or they would keep the gameplay the same which would mean the 3D graphics were just a gimmick. Oh and IV don't do sequels (so far).

[Tken]

I like one of your suggestions - some sort of sattelite that can be used to surveil their land. IMO, there should be more ways to scout them out than just fighters. When you're fighting it out over an ocean, Carriers are your one and only source of scouting fighters; just doesn't make much sense. Perhaps the sattelite could lock out your defenses and nukes for a minute or two after using it to "ping" them as a drawback.

[Funky Moped]

It could be cool, in the sequel to Defcon, if IV used a GUI and concept exactly like Google Earth's that allowed gameplay exactly like Defcon. This would re-define the genre.

There won't be a sequel. IV don't do sequels. Ever.

[Al3xand3r]

Have they said anything about expansions

I wouldn't mind seeing them do cheap DEFCON "mods" sold as expansions. Stuff like the space combat mod a dev suggested to modders as long as they were far more than simple graphical tweaks and actually offered different gameplay situations..

[xander]

Have they said anything about expansions ;)

I wouldn't mind seeing them do cheap DEFCON "mods" sold as expansions. Stuff like the space combat mod a dev suggested to modders as long as they were far more than simple graphical tweaks and actually offered different gameplay situations..

IV don't do expansions, either. The best you can hope for is a patch, and, while it wouldn't be entirely unprecidented, fundamental changes in the gameplay mechanic are unlikely (with the icon system in Darwinia being the exception that proves the rule :P ).

xander

[KingAl]

(with the icon system in Darwinia being the exception that proves the rule ).

xander

LANs, anyone?

[LordSturm]

Hi-Tech:
Whilst the game is set in the Soviet era, i belive it should be modern too , but far to many fantics here will disagree, as for satellites...

There should be a distinguished ATMOSPHERE ( or ATMOFLAT in Defcon's case. ) in Defcon, where nuclear missiles would exit the atmosphere, and be invulnerable to air defenses, but upon reaching the last 15% of its trip, it would leave the atmosphere and be perfectly prone to being shot out of the sky. ( This would solve ALL the missile arc issues. )

There should also be Satellites that can be launched from DEFCON 4, they act like nuclear missiles, but look totally different, but they would keep orbiting the map, until they "crashed" which would be defined with something like a 1/100 chance, taken every passing ( in game ) second/minute. So if you were unlucky the satellite could just come crashing down once it entered its orbit. ( The Satellite would have a comprehensive radar range smaller than that of a fighter. )

Like nuclear missiles, satellites are given a target BEFORE entering orbit, they will pass over the target once, then continue orbiting the map. ( East or West. )

This would also allow the game to gain a depth of complexity, with ASAT missiles and possibly other advanced satellites. ( Ion/Particle )

Stealth Fighters:

I believe when NOT assigned a NON-Nuke target ( ie. something that switches the bomber to Naval Combat ) it should idle in "Passive Stealth Mode" where it has no radar, but it carries a SMDB, and upon the 250 second timer being expired, and firing the SMDB, the Stealth Bomber becomes visible.

Of cause, to make this all fair, the Bomber should be slower when in SMDB Launch mode, ( make up for the flawless entry. ) also ofcause it should take a fair bit of time to re-enter passive stealth mode. ( A schematic would be implemeneted so Bombers defaulted to Stealth rather than Naval, but assigned a target where the Bomber carries no nuke, it will default to Naval Combat, in order to have its weapons ready in time for the attack. ) - Lock Passive Stealth Mode until DEFCON 1 also.

Stress:

This sounds rather inappropriate, as all this will tend to function as, is giving you no option for cease fire for 2 minutes, alliances can break any time they want, i doubt some stress period would influence such alliances to break.

Commander:

I wouldn't go for this unless the following were also implemented. ( And I've mentioned it before. )

Somewhat like games "Generals: Zero Hour" and "Advance wars 1/2/DS" DEFCON should allow the option for feature biased Commanding Officers or "CO's"

An example would be the Air Force General, who would have superior fighters, and the option of an extra airbase to deploy. But his naval would be inferior, and only access to 6 Battleships. ( To fairly hinder his naval support, without removing nukes or planes from game play. )

Another example could be the President of United States, who would have early access to Nuclear arms, being able to fire nukes 10 seconds/minutes ( in game 10:00 ) before DEFCON 1. ( From silo's only. ) His disadvantage being, the nukes are more susceptible to enemy defenses, and they fire at a lowered rate. ( Once in the air, they move at the same speed. )

As you can probably tell, the CO's would be region based only, with the above two being Northen American, you could imagine the others.

What do you think?

[Ruges]

IV don't do expansions, either. xander

Yet the discription for this forum is Idea's for exspansions.

I would not be suprized if IV decides they have enough copies of this game sold to make a good profit on an exspansion of his game.

[xander]

IV don't do expansions, either. xander

Yet the discription for this forum is Idea's for exspansions.

I would not be suprized if IV decides they have enough copies of this game sold to make a good profit on an exspansion of his game.

Meh. You are arguing semantics. Read the rest of what I wrote, and recognize the tongue in cheek nature of it.

xander