DEFCON Schematic Ideas

Ideas for expansions and improvements to Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
LordSturm
level4
level4
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
Contact:

DEFCON Schematic Ideas

Postby LordSturm » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:50 am

I posted these elsewhere, but they did not get a good look at.

Atmosphere and 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 A-SAT ( Anti-Satellite ) missiles and possibly other advanced satellites. ( Ion/Particle )

Give Bombers Stealth Abilities:

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 of cause it should take a fair bit of time to re-enter passive stealth mode. ( A schematic would be implemented 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.

Commanding Officers:

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?
Last edited by LordSturm on Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Surely you didn't mean to press that button just then did you?"
"No, nor will i disarm the nukes."
"Oh well, I will have my Fighters shoot them down."
"Sure you will."
"Oh NOES, ITS BEEN PATCHED!!!"
User avatar
True Blue
level2
level2
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:14 am
Location: Vault 13

Postby True Blue » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:05 am

I honestly thing it would, for the most part, needlessly clutter and complicate the game.
"War. War never changes." - Fallout Narrator
User avatar
LordSturm
level4
level4
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
Contact:

Postby LordSturm » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:07 am

:P

I'll complicate and clutter you in a second.
"Surely you didn't mean to press that button just then did you?"

"No, nor will i disarm the nukes."

"Oh well, I will have my Fighters shoot them down."

"Sure you will."

"Oh NOES, ITS BEEN PATCHED!!!"
User avatar
True Blue
level2
level2
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:14 am
Location: Vault 13

Postby True Blue » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:09 am

LordSturm wrote::P

I'll complicate and clutter you in a second.


Oh my, are you hitting on me, or threatening me? :wink:
"War. War never changes." - Fallout Narrator
User avatar
LordSturm
level4
level4
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
Contact:

Postby LordSturm » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:10 am

Just watch the skies...
"Surely you didn't mean to press that button just then did you?"

"No, nor will i disarm the nukes."

"Oh well, I will have my Fighters shoot them down."

"Sure you will."

"Oh NOES, ITS BEEN PATCHED!!!"
Maxwek
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:10 pm

Postby Maxwek » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:31 am

Yeah every idea you mentioned should be added in the game.

But its incomplete: they should also add ground units. And more buildings such as "factories" that would produce more radars or nukes, "Harbors" to produce ships and "AirFactories" to build planes. But of course, to fund the production they should add "ressources" such as plutonium tu make Nukes, Iron and Oil for the ships and planes, and Gold to bribe ennemies or accelerate productions. And in order to gather those ressources, we'll need non-fighting units we could call "Workers" or "Peons", that would be built inside cities. Btw, we should be able to micromanage cities, build nuclear shelters inside, and so on.
And they should make more beautiful graphics, like in 3D with HDR. And rename the game: how about "CivilizationCraft" ?

... :?


FFS this game is already GREAT thanks to its simplicity. Why do people always want to ADD things ?...
User avatar
LordSturm
level4
level4
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
Contact:

Postby LordSturm » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:34 am

No your mock suggestion was all about adding production options, mine was about adding schematics.

- Include an Atmosphere, for nukes and satellites. ( Ok, so i added satellites so what. :P )
- Allow Bombers to Stealth.
- Incorporate Different CO's with advantages/Disadvantages for differentiating Strategies.
"Surely you didn't mean to press that button just then did you?"

"No, nor will i disarm the nukes."

"Oh well, I will have my Fighters shoot them down."

"Sure you will."

"Oh NOES, ITS BEEN PATCHED!!!"
Maxwek
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:10 pm

Postby Maxwek » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:45 am

LordSturm wrote:- Include an Atmosphere, for nukes and satellites. ( Ok, so i added satellites so what. :P )

Although il like the idea of nukes being impossible to destroy in mid air (which is already the case unless they fly over another territory), i dont like the idea of stellites.

LordSturm wrote:- Allow Bombers to Stealth.

I totally dislike that. Bombers are already overpowered. If they were stealth, fighters would be useless once the reckoning part is over.

LordSturm wrote:- Incorporate Different CO's with advantages/Disadvantages for differentiating Strategies.


That would take away the base principle of Defcon: everyboy starts with the same set of units/buildings to go through the game.
User avatar
LordSturm
level4
level4
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
Contact:

Postby LordSturm » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:53 am

If you read my stealth bombing section, you would see how it evened out the bombers power.

1. It is stealth-ed ONLY when taking a nuke within firing range. ( Once ready, it reveals itself like nuking subs. )
2. Bombers are slow when their payload is released, leaving it a vulnerable target. ( Get em all and no more bombers. )

This is generally to protect the bomber from being intercepted before it can fire its nukes. ( From alliances etc. )

To counter this stealth, Fighters could have a "visual" range, as apposed to their radar range, in which they can formulate Ghost's from Stealth fighters.


As for satellites, i was simply commenting on someone else's ideas, so i might not agree anyway, but nuke's need protection before their re-entry.

CO's are equally balanced, none getting a advantage over the other overall, but in aspects it will favor in certain ways.
( Its somewhat like saying there should only be one race in Starcraft. )
"Surely you didn't mean to press that button just then did you?"

"No, nor will i disarm the nukes."

"Oh well, I will have my Fighters shoot them down."

"Sure you will."

"Oh NOES, ITS BEEN PATCHED!!!"
dawnchorus
level2
level2
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:35 pm

Postby dawnchorus » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:53 am

I like to think of this game being played out in the 1980s to a soundtrack of Nena's 99 Red Balloons. So no stealths, please.
User avatar
LordSturm
level4
level4
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
Contact:

Postby LordSturm » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:04 pm

Rofl, so does everybody. :P
"Surely you didn't mean to press that button just then did you?"

"No, nor will i disarm the nukes."

"Oh well, I will have my Fighters shoot them down."

"Sure you will."

"Oh NOES, ITS BEEN PATCHED!!!"
graphain
level1
level1
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:26 pm

Postby graphain » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:16 pm

I think at the very least to capability to mod in additional units/features would be appreciated. I also like the specialisation idea (air force or whatever) and I think it would be nice to mix-up the game a bit. I'm going to look into what can be modded now and see how feasible additional units are.
Zarkow
level4
level4
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:54 pm
Contact:

Postby Zarkow » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:30 pm

LordSturm wrote:If you read my stealth bombing section, you would see how it evened out the bombers power.

1. It is stealth-ed ONLY when taking a nuke within firing range. ( Once ready, it reveals itself like nuking subs. )


So all bombers would get atleast one free payload-delivery?

Since it would be impossible to shoot them down before releasing their nuke.

Loosing stealth (and keeping it lost) after releasing the nuke doesn't make sence either btw, since un-armed stealth-fighters/bombers are the most 'stealthed', not least. Nothing ruins stealth-capability as good as missiles, rockets or bombs on outer pylons or having a bomber opening it's bay-doors.

Btw, check out this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft
yokken
level2
level2
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:02 pm
Contact:

Postby yokken » Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:11 pm

Um, these are all good and all, but erm... DEFCON is pretty simple as it is, and I have trouble controlling my fleet strategically AND defending my turf AND sending out bombers and planes all at the same time. I really don't want to have to click on a bomber to make it launch while over enemy territory, only to see it be shot down. A stealthed bomber would really only be good for scouting. Honestly. I like the CO idea, however. And the satellites... we're not fighting in 2065. This is 1980's here. Let's stick to the time.
Ramius
level0
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:05 pm

Postby Ramius » Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:20 pm

I think that would be pointless and would clutter the game. Harpoon 3 is available commercially and that has every facet of naval warfare imaginable it even has similar graphics to Defcon. I believe Defcon should be left as is.

Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests