Hitting allied silos / Break alliance on launch option

[dobbie]

It would be nice to be able to play games where launching against allies means your alliance breaks when the first nukes hit the air. This would cut down on the flavor of deceit where you first wipe out someone's entire defence grid (Silos,radars, air bases) while still allied to him (perhaps when he is busy with a naval battle somewhere else), then break alliance and wipe out his cities. (Only hitting radars / Silos does not cause point-reducing collateral damage)

I have not been subjected to this myself - rather I have done it to others several times, and it just seems to work too well. Hence, an option to make alliances a bit "safer" would be nice.

An alternative solution would be to simply introduce (optional) collateral damage for hitting the silos/radars/airfields of your allies. Even simpler, come to think of it.

(repost from General - good to see a suggestions forum)

/ Dobbie
Senior analyst
B.L.A.N.D Corporation

[alphager]

disagree. Defcon i smeant to be playedin high-paranoia-mode.

[xander]

I'm with alphager on this one. Another line of reasoning: let us assume for a moment that Defcon is a simulation, not a game. In the real world, it may be incredibly difficult to impossible to tell where missles are going when they are launched. Thus you see the launch from an ally, and assume that it is going to an enemy. You wouldn't know until they hit where they were aimed. Hell, you wouldn't even know where they came from. Thus, you couldn't break the alliance (as the victim of a backstab), because you wouldn't even know that the alliance was broken. Adding an option like what you describe would basically kill the game, as far as I am concerned.

xander

[Sunjumper]

I don't think that realism is really a valid point.
In reality ICBMs can't be shot down, they also don't tend to do a sight seeing tour over the northern continents.

I agree with dobbie that this kind of behaviour should bring a stiff collateral damage penalty with it either that or using an alliance to sneak in an attack should not bring any penalties to the aggressor. It is a question of consistency.

[xander]

I don't think that realism is really a valid point.
In reality ICBMs can't be shot down, they also don't tend to do a sight seeing tour over the northern continents.

I agree with dobbie that this kind of behaviour should bring a stiff collateral damage penalty with it either that or using an alliance to sneak in an attack should not bring any penalties to the aggressor. It is a question of consistency.

Realism is just one justification. alphager made the stronger argument. The whole point of the game is paranoia and distrust. Don't trust your allies. Be prepared for a backstab.

xander

[dobbie]

Two points:

- The request is for an option, not for making anything madatory.

- If the this kind (sneak attack) of gameplay is intended to be the non-optional bread and butter of the game , that makes me wonder why the collateral penalty exists at all?

[Sunjumper]

Good point.

Yet while I agree on the general idea that paranoia and mistrust should be paramount, it adds a lot of tension to the game, I am of the opinion that dobbie has a point. Why can I crush all the silos of my 'ally' in one strike without having to face any form of consequence and the after dissolving the alliance reduce his cities to large glow in the dark sweets, when it would ruin my score if I did the same thing in opposite sequence?

It does not seem very consistent with how the game works. As mentioned above I'd rather have it completely one way or the other. Why bother with an alliance if an enemy can use it to blind his ally and destroy him? It then would be prudent not to ally at all but simply hammer away at who ever is at the nearest border.
It also does not make much sense when the different possible settings of the alliances are taken into account.


It seems that this issue is a matter of taste though, so it might be best to, if at all possible, to make these kind of actions optional.

[TheDan]

Yet while I agree on the general idea that paranoia and mistrust should be paramount, it adds a lot of tension to the game, I am of the opinion that dobbie has a point. Why can I crush all the silos of my 'ally' in one strike without having to face any form of consequence and the after dissolving the alliance reduce his cities to large glow in the dark sweets, when it would ruin my score if I did the same thing in opposite sequence?

Because attacking silos isn't going to change your points, regardless of alliances. The alliance could be viewed as a truce not to attack eachothers cities (& hence damage both your and your allies' scores), since it wouldn't be in eachothers' own interests.

IMHO, I think this would be a bad change, since the point about backstabbing is that your opponents shouldn't see it coming (as opposed to instant notification before an attack has even landed). I know a lot of people get grumpy about slowing the game down online, but it is these sort of situations which it is there for. & don't forget, you're not gonna backstab every ally you ever have

As for having your attention elsewhere, I feel that it is more than manageable to keep an eye on several areas at once (again, controlling the speed makes a big difference); regardless of what offensive manoeuvres you make, you should always be watching your territory, for any sort of activity really.

[Sunjumper]

If you want to be a really sneaky bastard you start a massive simultaneous launch against you ally pretending to target a common enemy. Then before the missiles strike you leave the alliance. You prey has no chance to escape. You can twril you moustachio and laugh manically. It also requires a bit of skill on the side of the betrayer. Furthermore it makes alliances more of a liability. Why exactly would I ever ally with anyone then if all that it does is give my ally a free shot at my most vital resources?
So far it seems to be a weakness in how the game handles things. But I see that opinions are diverging.


So how hard would it be to make this an option?
If it is to great a hassle or it is not much requested I could lie with that; I'll adapt my tactics accordingly.
It would weaken the positions of both Asia and Africa as these are the two continents that have rely most strongly on alliances with their northern neighbours, while at the same time making both Europe and Russia stronger.

[Andersong]

Here's what I prefer - no or optional radar sharing for alliances!

That way, you can notice if there's betrayal in the planning when your ally's air planes starts scouting your territory.

[Guest]

Why exactly would I ever ally with anyone then if all that it does is give my ally a free shot at my most vital resources?

Its that dilemma which makes the game fun. When I play i usually become form an alliance because it makes nuking the other guys easier, for that reason alone an alliance is never a liability. When you've defeated your common enemy(s) you should expect your allies to start nuking it out because they all want to win. This game is all about deceit, betrayal and mistrust, i dont think i've ever played a game where i havnt had at least 3 subs sitting just of the coast of an ally just in case the attempt a backstab.

[mindule]

Trust... is a weakness.