DEFCON Schematic Ideas
Moderator: Defcon moderators
We need Ion Canons, Country-leaders and Snipers to eliminate them as well as dogs with lasers in their mouths, Terrain would also be greatly appreciated as you could dig bunkers into the hills that are uberprotected or go and build an underwater-world. Furthermore, let's get the Enterprise and Cpt. Kirk in the game, completely with phasers that can be set to sleep or kill, of course Scotty was available then, too. And after a round has ended and 2 opponents have the same points let them play Tic-Tac-Toe against each other or Rock Paper Scissors.
Long story short: Do whatever you like to, just let me have the option of saying nay to it.
Long story short: Do whatever you like to, just let me have the option of saying nay to it.
Pretty much the only suggestion I'd go along with here is the addition of sattelites.
the space 'free zone' is probably the next acceptable application.
Generals - No- needless clutter as there are already enough units in the game as it is.
Stealth - No.
------------
I've thought about sattelite defenses long before Defcon was posted. The reasons why I see they are a great addition is because it adds to a country's anti-missile defenses. Currently the only AMS system are AA batteries- and one only has a handful of those. Every other unit in the game can down almost any other unit.
Sattelites would operate on parabolic orbits. Once they were launched, that orbit is set. They continue on the path attacking any missiles in range with beam weapon (As opposed to a 'missile') which either hits or misses, shooting at the same rate as a SAM. It only attacks nukes however.
The downside is it cannot change direction ever- it's locked on it's parabolic orbit and is subject to attack by enemy AMS systems. It canot be fired upon by any other unit.
Great thing is it's also a scout, as it can swing through an area and give intelligence while said enemy's AMS silos are busy shooting down nukes. Then again, even if the scouting ability is taken away, it still should be able to spot any ICBMs in range and fire upon them reguardless of alliance (unless they belong to the player).
It's a nice, balanced unit, that doesn't cause any necissary complications and further expands on the Nuclear Warfare scenario (ala starwars). Players would have at most four, but playtesting would have to decide the balance.
------
The only other unit I see being added, I think, is useless mostly- but that would be the attack submarine. Their whole purpose afterall is to attack SSBNs anyway.
the space 'free zone' is probably the next acceptable application.
Generals - No- needless clutter as there are already enough units in the game as it is.
Stealth - No.
------------
I've thought about sattelite defenses long before Defcon was posted. The reasons why I see they are a great addition is because it adds to a country's anti-missile defenses. Currently the only AMS system are AA batteries- and one only has a handful of those. Every other unit in the game can down almost any other unit.
Sattelites would operate on parabolic orbits. Once they were launched, that orbit is set. They continue on the path attacking any missiles in range with beam weapon (As opposed to a 'missile') which either hits or misses, shooting at the same rate as a SAM. It only attacks nukes however.
The downside is it cannot change direction ever- it's locked on it's parabolic orbit and is subject to attack by enemy AMS systems. It canot be fired upon by any other unit.
Great thing is it's also a scout, as it can swing through an area and give intelligence while said enemy's AMS silos are busy shooting down nukes. Then again, even if the scouting ability is taken away, it still should be able to spot any ICBMs in range and fire upon them reguardless of alliance (unless they belong to the player).
It's a nice, balanced unit, that doesn't cause any necissary complications and further expands on the Nuclear Warfare scenario (ala starwars). Players would have at most four, but playtesting would have to decide the balance.
------
The only other unit I see being added, I think, is useless mostly- but that would be the attack submarine. Their whole purpose afterall is to attack SSBNs anyway.
In my opinion:
Satellites although a great invention, would spoil the game, half the game is finding out where the enemies silos are with fighters so you can effectivly take them out with subs + carriers and thereby get said subs + carriers into a good position, but by doing so you give away the position of your carrier / air base, satellites would ruin that fear of the enemy knowing where you live, also the way the game map is built, a satelite would only have to make 1 pass of a continent to take enough pictures to see all the silos on the continent,
thus making satellite take down irrelevant.
On the idea of the 100/1 chance of the satellite crashing, on a game where nothing is left to chance, why ruin it?
Missiles going into space ruins half the need for alliances and cease fires, half the fun as china is teaming up with russia + taking out america or europe with them, or taking russia down when they disagree to the alliance.
Stealth bombers, why dont we just remove fighters from the game whilst we are at it...
on the idea of attack submarines, why not just use normal subs in active sonar mode?
on the idea of ground units, in the time it takes to mobilize a division of tanks, everyone will be dead.
on the idea of factories, it takes motnhs to build a nuke not 10minutes
on the idea of cruise missiles, who knows.
Satellites although a great invention, would spoil the game, half the game is finding out where the enemies silos are with fighters so you can effectivly take them out with subs + carriers and thereby get said subs + carriers into a good position, but by doing so you give away the position of your carrier / air base, satellites would ruin that fear of the enemy knowing where you live, also the way the game map is built, a satelite would only have to make 1 pass of a continent to take enough pictures to see all the silos on the continent,
thus making satellite take down irrelevant.
On the idea of the 100/1 chance of the satellite crashing, on a game where nothing is left to chance, why ruin it?
Missiles going into space ruins half the need for alliances and cease fires, half the fun as china is teaming up with russia + taking out america or europe with them, or taking russia down when they disagree to the alliance.
Stealth bombers, why dont we just remove fighters from the game whilst we are at it...
on the idea of attack submarines, why not just use normal subs in active sonar mode?
on the idea of ground units, in the time it takes to mobilize a division of tanks, everyone will be dead.
on the idea of factories, it takes motnhs to build a nuke not 10minutes
on the idea of cruise missiles, who knows.
-
Tactical Phallus
- level0
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:31 am
Free Space = cool idea
Sattelites .......hmmm .....A bit wary about that. As an alternative how about Stealth Spy Planes which have the range of bombers? They would have no attack capabilities. However they would make excellent scouts. I really dont like the fact if Im playing Russia, I barely have the ability to scout out S. & N. America. Of course there should only be a limited supply ....maybe one spy plane per airbase. and might have a chance of showing up on radar when passing through a radar unit's vision.
Stealth see above .....otherwise NO
Generals maybe ......but how about letting the player choose predetermined numbers of units depending on how you want to play. Maybe you would pick at the begining what kind of units you would like to have more of. There would be preset military packages with names like Bombadier, Submaranier, or Siloman. Say I pick Submaranier then I would get X+6 Subs but minus other units (with the total of 30 nukes).
Sattelites .......hmmm .....A bit wary about that. As an alternative how about Stealth Spy Planes which have the range of bombers? They would have no attack capabilities. However they would make excellent scouts. I really dont like the fact if Im playing Russia, I barely have the ability to scout out S. & N. America. Of course there should only be a limited supply ....maybe one spy plane per airbase. and might have a chance of showing up on radar when passing through a radar unit's vision.
Stealth see above .....otherwise NO
Generals maybe ......but how about letting the player choose predetermined numbers of units depending on how you want to play. Maybe you would pick at the begining what kind of units you would like to have more of. There would be preset military packages with names like Bombadier, Submaranier, or Siloman. Say I pick Submaranier then I would get X+6 Subs but minus other units (with the total of 30 nukes).
-
Gatedialer
yokken wrote: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.
And yet nukes are able to be shot down...
Which in the 1980's there was no capability to do that. =/
if it's the 1980s- why is Russia divided up?
And to make this clear, my idea of sattelites makes them able to be shot down by silos like any other aircraft. They are not magically immune because they're in orbit. Like regular nukes, they can be hit in mid-transition.
They're just a roaming AA battery that can be shot down by real AA batteries. They don't shoot at any unit other than a nuke, and might likely be the first unit taken down by the AMS grid as they move first on deployment (where fighters need defcon 3) and have no potential for self-defense or shooting back.
And to make this clear, my idea of sattelites makes them able to be shot down by silos like any other aircraft. They are not magically immune because they're in orbit. Like regular nukes, they can be hit in mid-transition.
They're just a roaming AA battery that can be shot down by real AA batteries. They don't shoot at any unit other than a nuke, and might likely be the first unit taken down by the AMS grid as they move first on deployment (where fighters need defcon 3) and have no potential for self-defense or shooting back.
-
LordSturm
- level4
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
- Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
- Contact:
Eh, you don't understand, stealth fighters are invisible to RADAR!!! 
Besides, atmosphere is for protection of airborne nukes ( and their arc. ) and satellites. If any.
Also Generals would NOT be units on the play field, just "representations" of your team, allowing X more Subs, but X less Bombers. Etc.
The Generals would NOT ever alter the total amount of available nukes. ( Take here, give there. )
Besides, atmosphere is for protection of airborne nukes ( and their arc. ) and satellites. If any.
Also Generals would NOT be units on the play field, just "representations" of your team, allowing X more Subs, but X less Bombers. Etc.
The Generals would NOT ever alter the total amount of available nukes. ( Take here, give there. )
"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!!!"
"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!!!"
The idea I like is the one of having nukes be "untargetable" while they're in the atmosphere. Though, you couldn't say it as a % of their route, but perhaps just a certain distance from launching and to their target. While close to launch, they're targetable, and while nearing the target's region, they're targetable. That way, subs and bombers wouldn't get the benefit of this, as they tend not to fire nukes for long ranges.
-
Thy-Tormentor
- level0
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:56 pm
But what about including carrier-based ground units, that can function in a anti ground/anti air modes, with limited range? Being carrier based (USMC for example) would mean, that the fleet has to be very close to the coast line, in order to be able to launch the troops. Units would be able to move slower than air units, but they would be independant.
Ground units would be modeled as a single unit, and each carrier would contain one. Marines would be ideal for hit-and-run tactics, when preparing for an airstrike/nuclear strike, as they would be able to destroy enemy surveillance capabilities. Also a new kind of facility should be added: Military bases. The purpose of the bases is to house the territory's internal ground defence forces. The number of the baes would be equal to the airfields, and the bases would contain two unit regiments. This way the defender would have the advantage in numbers, considering the attacker would have to deal with hostile air forces, as well as ground forces.
In Anti-Ground mode, units would be able to do the following:
-Attack enemy ground units, radar stations, airfields. I'm not sure wether or not they should be able to sabotage/destroy enemy missile silos, because they are hidden underground, and it would probably hurt the balance.
-Move around with average speed, ex. 1/3 slower than aircrafts.
-Return to the carrier
In Anti-Air mode:
-Effective against air threats in a relatively long range (About the size of a fighter's radar coverage)
-Unable to engage in ground combat
Now that we had ground units included, the way of the game during the first DEFCON levels would be more towards traditional warfare and the best thing is, that the original concept of global thermonuclear warfare would still be there, but now, it would be the climax, the ultimate escalation of world wide hostilities.
As a side suggestion:
-AWACS (Would be placed like any other unit, but ther would be only one, with a long range radar coverage, but unable to attack.
-Bomber stealth capabilities (Would work like previously suggested)
-New system for DEFCON (The current system, where each level of DEFCON is being declared by a timer, the new system would calculate the "seriousness" of the global warfare. The system would go like this:
DEFCON 5
The only DEFCON level, that has timer for DEFCON 4.
DEFCON 4
Peace, exept for increased intelligence --> Sensors will be turned on, just like now.
There will be three ways to reach DEFCON 3:
1. Forces would ignore eachothers, unless armed engagement occurs (This has to be an direct order, otherwise units will hold fire) OR
2. If units would get too close eachothers (more than two enemy units withing firing range), there would be an armed conflict.
3. More than four enemy units detected inside territorial borders (ships from a fleet for example, or ground units spotted by radars on foreign soil)
DEFCON 3
In Defcon three, the warfare system will work as it does now.
DEFCON 2
When three or more enemy units are spotted by one the radars of your territory, DEFCON 2 would occur.
DEFCON 1
Hostile armed effort targeted at your territory would immediately result in DEFCON 1.
Each territory would have their own DEFCON, and it would vary according their policy towards other territories, but when DEFCON 1 is declared in ANY territory, others would go automatically to the same DEFCON level, no matter what.
You will be able to fight a war on air, sea, as well as ground, and when you've had enough, you can clean the whole mess up and cause some real damage.
Ground units would be modeled as a single unit, and each carrier would contain one. Marines would be ideal for hit-and-run tactics, when preparing for an airstrike/nuclear strike, as they would be able to destroy enemy surveillance capabilities. Also a new kind of facility should be added: Military bases. The purpose of the bases is to house the territory's internal ground defence forces. The number of the baes would be equal to the airfields, and the bases would contain two unit regiments. This way the defender would have the advantage in numbers, considering the attacker would have to deal with hostile air forces, as well as ground forces.
In Anti-Ground mode, units would be able to do the following:
-Attack enemy ground units, radar stations, airfields. I'm not sure wether or not they should be able to sabotage/destroy enemy missile silos, because they are hidden underground, and it would probably hurt the balance.
-Move around with average speed, ex. 1/3 slower than aircrafts.
-Return to the carrier
In Anti-Air mode:
-Effective against air threats in a relatively long range (About the size of a fighter's radar coverage)
-Unable to engage in ground combat
Now that we had ground units included, the way of the game during the first DEFCON levels would be more towards traditional warfare and the best thing is, that the original concept of global thermonuclear warfare would still be there, but now, it would be the climax, the ultimate escalation of world wide hostilities.
As a side suggestion:
-AWACS (Would be placed like any other unit, but ther would be only one, with a long range radar coverage, but unable to attack.
-Bomber stealth capabilities (Would work like previously suggested)
-New system for DEFCON (The current system, where each level of DEFCON is being declared by a timer, the new system would calculate the "seriousness" of the global warfare. The system would go like this:
DEFCON 5
The only DEFCON level, that has timer for DEFCON 4.
DEFCON 4
Peace, exept for increased intelligence --> Sensors will be turned on, just like now.
There will be three ways to reach DEFCON 3:
1. Forces would ignore eachothers, unless armed engagement occurs (This has to be an direct order, otherwise units will hold fire) OR
2. If units would get too close eachothers (more than two enemy units withing firing range), there would be an armed conflict.
3. More than four enemy units detected inside territorial borders (ships from a fleet for example, or ground units spotted by radars on foreign soil)
DEFCON 3
In Defcon three, the warfare system will work as it does now.
DEFCON 2
When three or more enemy units are spotted by one the radars of your territory, DEFCON 2 would occur.
DEFCON 1
Hostile armed effort targeted at your territory would immediately result in DEFCON 1.
Each territory would have their own DEFCON, and it would vary according their policy towards other territories, but when DEFCON 1 is declared in ANY territory, others would go automatically to the same DEFCON level, no matter what.
You will be able to fight a war on air, sea, as well as ground, and when you've had enough, you can clean the whole mess up and cause some real damage.
-
LordSturm
- level4
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
- Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
- Contact:
I think the Defcon timer works out fine right now, or certain strategies will brew that allow the game to enter defcon 1 from within a single minute.
As for the nuclear arc, imagine the arc were a wavelength ( one rising from its trough ) the rest position could be the atmosphere which means it gets protection for 50% of its journey.
Of cause looking at the nuclear arc, it travels at a steady speed, naturally a nuclear warhead would slow a bit before reaching its crest, then come plummeting down towards its target. The nuclear missile could also possibly be invisible to radar prior to exiting the atmosphere, which could bring about unfairness, needs looking into.
Satellites would NOT be controllable, you possibly only get one satellite per game, and you can only send it wayward in a general direction, ie. West, it will continue moving west, for any amount of X:00 time, but every passing 1:00 a random number is picked from 1 to 100, and if the number is say 50, the satellite will fall out of orbit, and re-enter the atmosphere, it will have no general target, but it will act identical to a nuclear warhead. ( Probably the only nuke available before DEFCON 1. ) - For this reason satellites can only be launched in DEFCON 2.
[quote=Bckster]On the idea of the 100/1 chance of the satellite crashing, on a game where nothing is left to chance, why ruin it? [/quote]
Every time a target is shot at, theres a chance it's going to die, theres no set HP for the unit, just chance.
The game is full of chance.
As for the nuclear arc, imagine the arc were a wavelength ( one rising from its trough ) the rest position could be the atmosphere which means it gets protection for 50% of its journey.
Of cause looking at the nuclear arc, it travels at a steady speed, naturally a nuclear warhead would slow a bit before reaching its crest, then come plummeting down towards its target. The nuclear missile could also possibly be invisible to radar prior to exiting the atmosphere, which could bring about unfairness, needs looking into.
Satellites would NOT be controllable, you possibly only get one satellite per game, and you can only send it wayward in a general direction, ie. West, it will continue moving west, for any amount of X:00 time, but every passing 1:00 a random number is picked from 1 to 100, and if the number is say 50, the satellite will fall out of orbit, and re-enter the atmosphere, it will have no general target, but it will act identical to a nuclear warhead. ( Probably the only nuke available before DEFCON 1.
) - For this reason satellites can only be launched in DEFCON 2.
[quote=Bckster]On the idea of the 100/1 chance of the satellite crashing, on a game where nothing is left to chance, why ruin it? [/quote]
Every time a target is shot at, theres a chance it's going to die, theres no set HP for the unit, just chance.
The game is full of chance.
"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!!!"
"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!!!"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests