Landattack and Defconchange

Ideas for expansions and improvements to Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
Dunblas
level1
level1
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:17 am

Landattack and Defconchange

Postby Dunblas » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:26 pm

This is my idea about ingame-changes
If you think you want to change something, feel free to post, especially about the Italic parts, cause i don't really know what to do with those


------------------------------------

Here are the things i'd like to see changed in the Defcons
New Health:
- 1 New Health = 0.5 old Health
-->so nukes now do 2 Damage to cities and installation, so do the anti-air-bullets
-->Silo's have 6 health instead of 3 and the rest doubles too

Defcon 5:
-from now on you can place:
-->the normal stuff, which must be placed before Defcon 1, with some changes
-->two different land "vehicles" and bunkers, which must be placed before Defcon 4:
---->Anti-Aircraft (AA)(displayed as a patriot, health:1, able to shoot down aircraft but not the nukes, no ground defence)
---->Military Squad (MS)(displayed as a tank, health:2, no air defence)
---->Bunkers (Bu)(as powerful as a MS, but health:4 or 5, only ground defence, long range due artillery placed within, but not able to atk cities)
-->the normal stuff, which must be placed before Defcon 2 (instead of 3), with some changes:
---->Silo's will have the same abbillities as bunkers
-All buildings will have a own small territory around it, but you won't be able to place other units or buildings in this territory(this will be explained later)
-If a territory on land (so not in the ocean) is 2 coloured, it's no-ones territory.

Defcon 4:
-From now on you are able to move:
-->Fighters, but only the ones from the airports and only half the arsenal. You wont be able to atk any sea units, but they will be able to shoot you
-->AA within your territory
-->MS to enemy territory
---->If a MS reaches a city, it will stay there for about 60 sec, then it will lose 1 health due resistance, but you will gain both the city (and people) and the territory around it(and parts of the ocean if close to it).
------> Cities close to eachother will have little territory, cities close to nothing will have big ones.
------>Cities will not have overlapping territories
------>If a MS captures a city (and territory) you'll be able to build any other units, except for AA, MS and Bu, since you had to build them before Defcon 4.
------>You will also be able to move your AA into the territory, but if the enemy conquers that territory it will automaticly move towards your closest available territory.
----> If a MS destroyes a bunker, silo, radar or Airport (you are not able to capture) it will lose it's territory around it.

Defcon 3:
-Full scale Naval war
-Rest of the fighters becomes available

Defcon 2:
-All units must be placed

Defcon 1:
-All MS's and bunkers will have no further use and that's why they will disappear from the map, unless they are attacking something, then they will disappear, when they are done or destroyed
-THERMONUCLIAR WAR

--------------------------------------------------
Coral just gave my another idea to add in this one:

Special Type of Battleship:
The Cruiser
-2 modes, 30 sec to switch between the modes
-->Attack
-->Coast Attack
---->Attacks with new bullets (non heat-seeking, displayed as a hollow dot)
---->Only able to attack on land
----> Will be vulnerable to bunkers and silo's

--------------------------------------------------
This is my idea about ingame-changes
If you think you want to change something, feel free to post, especially about the Italic parts, cause i don't really know what to do with those
[/b]
poorsod
level1
level1
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:08 pm

Postby poorsod » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:08 pm

To be honest?
All of your ideas are crap, like giving the ninja in N a sword with which to fight the baddies.

IV deliberately left the battle to three levels to keep the strategic options pure and incredibly varied. You fight for control of the sea, then the air above your own territories and the air abov enemy territories, then nukes. Each level of strategy has a knock-on effect on the next.

Doubling everything is just like keeping it as it is. What happens when you multiply the top and bottom of a fraction by 2? It is the same fraction.

Giving the players enough time to place all their units until DEFCON 1 would also ruin the strategy. Imagine flying your fighters over enemy territory, seeing that they're undefended and launching your whole arsenal at them when suddenly six silos appear out of nowhere.

Land units would prevent the game from being what it is: Global Thermonuclear War that takes six hours to play out. Men take days to walk from country to country. Also, why would you want more civilians to take care of? Bunkers are just extras thrown in to balance out the land units, and if Silos can do this anyway why would you want bunkers?

Two-coloured territory does not exist on land as it stands in DEFCON.

Silos *are* the game's AA.

The point of releasing all the fighters at DEFCON 3 is that you have the option of scouting out territory or saving them, or splitting them between the two. It's also part of pacing the game.

As for the Cruisers, the game is perfectly balanced as it is (as I made out above)


Basically, you are turning DEFCON into an 'ordinary RTS', which is like turning Darwinia into a management game. IV are ahead of you. Think next time, and evaluate the game and the changes you are talking about before you say anything. Stop trying to over-complicate things.
User avatar
Dunblas
level1
level1
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:17 am

Quoting

Postby Dunblas » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:58 pm

To get back to your points:
1.Doubling everything is just like keeping it as it is. What happens when you multiply the top and bottom of a fraction by 2? It is the same fraction.

2.Giving the players enough time to place all their units until DEFCON 1 would also ruin the strategy. Imagine flying your fighters over enemy territory, seeing that they're undefended and launching your whole arsenal at them when suddenly six silos appear out of nowhere.

3.Land units would prevent the game from being what it is: Global Thermonuclear War that takes six hours to play out. Men take days to walk from country to country. Also, why would you want more civilians to take care of? Bunkers are just extras thrown in to balance out the land units, and if Silos can do this anyway why would you want bunkers?

4.Two-coloured territory does not exist on land as it stands in DEFCON.

5.Silos *are* the game's AA.

6.The point of releasing all the fighters at DEFCON 3 is that you have the option of scouting out territory or saving them, or splitting them between the two. It's also part of pacing the game.

7.As for the Cruisers, the game is perfectly balanced as it is (as I made out above)

8.Basically, you are turning DEFCON into an 'ordinary RTS', which is like turning Darwinia into a management game. IV are ahead of you. Think next time, and evaluate the game and the changes you are talking about before you say anything. Stop trying to over-complicate things.


To get back to your points:

1. Did you even read everything? The reason I doubled all the health is explained later on.
2. Then DONT LAUNCH ANYTHING UNTIL DEFCON 1.... fool!
3.-Who the hell walks these days??
-Bunkers are there, because you don't have enough Silo's to defend your hole territory
4. That's why i'm making it up right now
5. Silo's are Anti-air, the new units are anti-aircraft-only
6. -I splitted them up so you won't take out the hole MS-arsenal in one blow
-The balance is already a bit disturbed due the regenerationprocess of the fighters
7. This is your only point a slightly agree with, cruisers might make to much vulnerable
8. Defcon was never even close to a ordinary RTS. I see it more as a "global control"-game: you'll have the power to place units around the world, but you won't have much control over the battlefield. MY CHANGES WONT CHANGE THIS!

I made this idea up just so you'll have something to do before Defcon 1 starts and you can allready put the game in your favour before it's time to NUKE!
blackwhitehawk
level2
level2
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:21 pm

Postby blackwhitehawk » Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:11 am

land units that would add cool twist to the game. Hmmm be kinda like advance wars which is my fav ds game so far =). I love the idea about the bship i wish they had that right now thogh. But i do not like the idea about placeing units intil defcon1 i say keep it the same. you get 2 defcons to depoly or you lose it all seems more balanced that way.

To many people bash other peoples idea with out trying to help impove the idea its so sad really they should stop playing gunz.
poorsod
level1
level1
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:08 pm

Re: Quoting

Postby poorsod » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:56 pm

Dunblas wrote:1. Did you even read everything? The reason I doubled all the health is explained later on.
2. Then DONT LAUNCH ANYTHING UNTIL DEFCON 1.... fool!
3.-Who the hell walks these days??
-Bunkers are there, because you don't have enough Silo's to defend your hole territory
4. That's why i'm making it up right now
5. Silo's are Anti-air, the new units are anti-aircraft-only
6. -I splitted them up so you won't take out the hole MS-arsenal in one blow
-The balance is already a bit disturbed due the regenerationprocess of the fighters
7. This is your only point a slightly agree with, cruisers might make to much vulnerable
8. Defcon was never even close to a ordinary RTS. I see it more as a "global control"-game: you'll have the power to place units around the world, but you won't have much control over the battlefield. MY CHANGES WONT CHANGE THIS!

9.I made this idea up just so you'll have something to do before Defcon 1 starts and you can allready put the game in your favour before it's time to NUKE!

1. I was reading as I typed. Sorry for that one.
2. You need to launch before Defcon 1 in order to have an idea of the lie of the land, so you can calculate your missile strikes in advance.
3. The main part of my point there was 'why would you want more civilians to defend?', which you have not addressed. There is no point adding a feature which is not needed or wanted, then adding more features to rebalance.
-You are *meant* to not have enough Silos to defend your whole territory. You have to strike a balance across your whole territory. That's why Europe is easy to play: it's so tiny it's impossible to lose without being stabbed in the back by Russia. (balancing of map required here, IV)
4. But you haven't explained why you want to make it up, except to be able to place your units there up until Defcon 1. I have already explained the three layers of strategy.
5. Having a unit that's dedicated to shooting down aircraft would make it impossible to get any of your bombers or fighters through, and that would defeat the point of even having them.
6. see point 3
7. no comment
8. It's not really, though. It's a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors (or maybe noughts and crosses), and that's what makes the strategy so pure.
9. But you can, in DEFCON 3 and 2. Fighting for control of the sea and the air is extremely important. Do you send bombers to back up the battle at sea, or do you save them for nuking? Do you leave some Carriers behind to guard from subs and risk losing them to enemy battleships, or do you leave some battleships with them and risk losing the big battle further out, or bring them in and risk losing all your ships?

Oh, and other guy? Don't try and compare Defcon to a different game of a different genre with a different subject matter on a different platform.
blackwhitehawk
level2
level2
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:21 pm

Postby blackwhitehawk » Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:20 pm

yes yes my bad i was not doing to good when i was writeing that.
Typhoon
level1
level1
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:31 pm
Location: UK

Postby Typhoon » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:16 pm

There's a couple of nice ideas in there (like the suggestion for sea units that can pound the shoreline) but, to my mind at least, Defcon is already a finely balanced strategy game and is primarily about a full on nuclear exchange.

Making serious changes to the core gamplay elements (such as adding ground troops) could potentially break what is already a superb game and distract from the central theme - nuclear annihilation of the enemy.
User avatar
scholt
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:45 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby scholt » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:31 am

I agree with poorsod, perhaps you should buy Civilization or C&C if you want a more detailed Strategy Game. And in my opinion "landattack" does not really make sense, or do you want to capture nuclear wasteland?
blackwhitehawk
level2
level2
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:21 pm

Postby blackwhitehawk » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:57 am

as i do not really support land attack it would be kinda hard to use in defcon and change the game play to much. But i really like the battleship ideas maybe like 1/2 the power of a nuke and it would also have to be close range to.
User avatar
Kuth
level4
level4
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Keele Imperium
Contact:

Postby Kuth » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:36 am

blackwhitehawk wrote:land units that would add cool twist to the game. Hmmm be kinda like advance wars which is my fav ds game so far =). I love the idea about the bship i wish they had that right now thogh. But i do not like the idea about placeing units intil defcon1 i say keep it the same. you get 2 defcons to depoly or you lose it all seems more balanced that way.

To many people bash other peoples idea with out trying to help impove the idea its so sad really they should stop playing gunz.


If you like land units play Civilization!

DEFCON IS NUCLEAR ARCADE STRATEGY. NOT A SIMULATION.

We bash ideas like these because, like weeds or annoying children, they keep popping up no matter what we say or do. Bad suggestions offers...well...bad ideas, why they are bad, and why they would destroy Defcon if implimented.
Jetpac
level2
level2
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:02 pm

Postby Jetpac » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:54 am

"All buildings will have a own small territory around it, but you won't be able to place other units or buildings in this territory(this will be explained later)"

This is already the case.

TBH...... your ideas are all crap for the simple reason they are going away from the way the game was designed and the way it was ment to be played, nohing about you etc... but just they are not what the game is about.
User avatar
GeneticFreak
level3
level3
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:43 pm
Location: Indonesia
Contact:

Postby GeneticFreak » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:11 am

I don't think this game has health points for the units. There's only attack probability. Fighter bullets have higher probability of destroying a bomber compared to a battleship bullet, for example. Thats why you get the occasional "super nuke" that doesnt seem to die even after 20 anti-air missiles hitting it.
Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight
User avatar
Dunblas
level1
level1
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:17 am

Postby Dunblas » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:31 am

So it maybe not such a good idea after all, but still i want to clear some points out:

Even though i changed some things, is was never my intension to change the game back to a game closer to "normal war"-RTS, i always still wanted to keep this game a thermonuclear war, but i just wanted to be able to put the game more into my advantage before Defcon 1 begins. Just like you can have the most advantage on sea.
The reason you want more people to defend, is because with that comes more land for you to place units.
And even though you might not like this idea: I still like the basics of my ideas and i would like to see some of it ingame
yop
level1
level1
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:12 pm

Postby yop » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:08 pm

i'm 100% against all your ideas
blackwhitehawk
level2
level2
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:21 pm

Postby blackwhitehawk » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:50 pm

yop wrote:i'm 100% against all your ideas


please expain why your 100% against all his ideas or are you just a mindless fellower.

Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests