Bad suggestions
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:19 pm
Or annoying things that everybody brings up on a contiual basis, usually by the post launchday crowd.
So, some things I DISAGREE with:
Armies and land units:
No. Why? Europe for one reason. How can you cram some 20 units worth of land material in there and hope to select and move them. I'd imagine Europe would be nearly one entire landmass of YOUR COLOR at that point.
And if we introduce land based units, then we have to introduce means of defenses to, like fortresses or something. Else what's to stop these land units from strolling up to an unguarded city and blowing it away? Sea units can't do this because, well, they're costal only, and aircraft can only do damage to ground facilities if they're carrying nukes.
"Fixing" missile arcs:
No. It is part of the game that they arc the way they do. Defcon is a realtime STRATEGY game, you use STRATEGY to figure out how to get your nukes from point A to point B- circumventing the defenses along the way. If you're S. America and want to pound Russia into the stonage REAL BAD, then send bombers and submarines up there to make a difference- don't go whining and complaining to Introversion saying "F1x 7h3s3 p134s3!"
This is an ARCADE STYLE STRATEGY GAME, not a nuclear warfare sim. Perhaps it will be someday, but for now enjoy it as it is, and mod it on your own if you really want it that bad (good luck).
Bunkers and HQs:
I disagree with this one for personal reasons. I like the distance Defcon has from trying to make it look as real as possible. In it's base form, one could imagine Defcon being everything from yes, hacking into NORAD, to virtual simulator battles to classroom study projects. There's no stables that makes it definately one or the other.
Adding HQs, or a big YOU ARE HERE sign, to me, just takes away from the general feeling of Defcon. If we do assume that this is a sim of 1980s Cold-war nuclear conflict, then why the hell is the middle east cooperating with China? If you have one bunker that commands that entire area, you're implying that they do, which clearly they never did.
Individual units for countries/territories
This pops up a few times in a few threads, especially after kinping's wonderful work showed up. It's also been suggested as far back as pre-launch day I beleive, but like all stupid ideas it kinda flared up like a bad sore after launchday.
So let's say we could introduce individual graphics sets for national areas. Everyone's happy. How long do you think it'll be before those same heads (or the sim people) DEMANDED!!!!!! that we make individual stats for them, dropping such things as endurance ranges and maximum speeds in atmosphere, as well as going faster when the nukes were dropped (or holding more than one nuke!)
Let me make this clear, once again:
Defcon is a game. A real time strategy game. Defcon is a Real time Arcade style Strategy game.
Arcade, as in "to hell with reality, let's make this FUN!!! And SIMPLE!"
So it's a domino effect really...
The Big Red Button
This has largely been defeated, but added here for completeness. The lazyasses out there want the real BIG RED BUTTON that says LAUNCH NUKES!!!111 and what some people have as avatars.
And, as largely pointed out by the older communtiy, it would ruin the game.
Why? It would turn into something akin to a 4-year old child's arcade game: HIT THE BUTTON THE FASTEST, THE HARDEST.
Where the hell is the strategy in this?
Resources
This comes up under various forms, but I'll address this all under one heading. Basicly, the players want a system that dictates how much of what is deployed on the warfield, or what affects ending score. Be it oil, money, what have you....
Defcon is, again, NOT A SIM. It is not supposed to be simulating anything. If anything, it abstracts everything to the point of being base and iconic (Since fighters and bombers are clearly different designs, we cannot have a generic 'Airplane' unit, despite the nearly hundreds of designs for fighters and bombers across the globe.)
Secondly, it takes away from the basic-ness of Defcon. Defcon is not supposed to be cruddy or cludgy, caked with special additions and addons with features as long (and as complex) as your arm.
This is not civilization, nor is it Alpha Centauri, or anything made out of Sid Meyer's closet. If anything, this is an atari-level strategy game. Until we can change the code itself (into a sim?) then there shouldn't be resources allowed, other than the points system needed to dictate fleet compositions.
And even then, does anyone use that function in normal games?
So, some things I DISAGREE with:
Armies and land units:
No. Why? Europe for one reason. How can you cram some 20 units worth of land material in there and hope to select and move them. I'd imagine Europe would be nearly one entire landmass of YOUR COLOR at that point.
And if we introduce land based units, then we have to introduce means of defenses to, like fortresses or something. Else what's to stop these land units from strolling up to an unguarded city and blowing it away? Sea units can't do this because, well, they're costal only, and aircraft can only do damage to ground facilities if they're carrying nukes.
"Fixing" missile arcs:
No. It is part of the game that they arc the way they do. Defcon is a realtime STRATEGY game, you use STRATEGY to figure out how to get your nukes from point A to point B- circumventing the defenses along the way. If you're S. America and want to pound Russia into the stonage REAL BAD, then send bombers and submarines up there to make a difference- don't go whining and complaining to Introversion saying "F1x 7h3s3 p134s3!"
This is an ARCADE STYLE STRATEGY GAME, not a nuclear warfare sim. Perhaps it will be someday, but for now enjoy it as it is, and mod it on your own if you really want it that bad (good luck).
Bunkers and HQs:
I disagree with this one for personal reasons. I like the distance Defcon has from trying to make it look as real as possible. In it's base form, one could imagine Defcon being everything from yes, hacking into NORAD, to virtual simulator battles to classroom study projects. There's no stables that makes it definately one or the other.
Adding HQs, or a big YOU ARE HERE sign, to me, just takes away from the general feeling of Defcon. If we do assume that this is a sim of 1980s Cold-war nuclear conflict, then why the hell is the middle east cooperating with China? If you have one bunker that commands that entire area, you're implying that they do, which clearly they never did.
Individual units for countries/territories
This pops up a few times in a few threads, especially after kinping's wonderful work showed up. It's also been suggested as far back as pre-launch day I beleive, but like all stupid ideas it kinda flared up like a bad sore after launchday.
So let's say we could introduce individual graphics sets for national areas. Everyone's happy. How long do you think it'll be before those same heads (or the sim people) DEMANDED!!!!!! that we make individual stats for them, dropping such things as endurance ranges and maximum speeds in atmosphere, as well as going faster when the nukes were dropped (or holding more than one nuke!)
Let me make this clear, once again:
Defcon is a game. A real time strategy game. Defcon is a Real time Arcade style Strategy game.
Arcade, as in "to hell with reality, let's make this FUN!!! And SIMPLE!"
So it's a domino effect really...
The Big Red Button
This has largely been defeated, but added here for completeness. The lazyasses out there want the real BIG RED BUTTON that says LAUNCH NUKES!!!111 and what some people have as avatars.
And, as largely pointed out by the older communtiy, it would ruin the game.
Why? It would turn into something akin to a 4-year old child's arcade game: HIT THE BUTTON THE FASTEST, THE HARDEST.
Where the hell is the strategy in this?
Resources
This comes up under various forms, but I'll address this all under one heading. Basicly, the players want a system that dictates how much of what is deployed on the warfield, or what affects ending score. Be it oil, money, what have you....
Defcon is, again, NOT A SIM. It is not supposed to be simulating anything. If anything, it abstracts everything to the point of being base and iconic (Since fighters and bombers are clearly different designs, we cannot have a generic 'Airplane' unit, despite the nearly hundreds of designs for fighters and bombers across the globe.)
Secondly, it takes away from the basic-ness of Defcon. Defcon is not supposed to be cruddy or cludgy, caked with special additions and addons with features as long (and as complex) as your arm.
This is not civilization, nor is it Alpha Centauri, or anything made out of Sid Meyer's closet. If anything, this is an atari-level strategy game. Until we can change the code itself (into a sim?) then there shouldn't be resources allowed, other than the points system needed to dictate fleet compositions.
And even then, does anyone use that function in normal games?