Elimination Mode?

[xander]

An elimination mode might be fun, though I think that I would never play it -- it doesn't suite my play style. I tend to horde my nukes for the end, and appear to be little threat. Then, my opponents tend to go after eachother, and ignore me. In the endgame, I still have all of my nukes, and can score many points.

I did this in a game this morning -- was playing Asia in a six player game, and allied with Europe and the USSR early on. I was mostly ignored through the early stages of the game, and suffered only minor losses while inflicting minor damage upon Africa. Just before the victory timer started, I launched a bunch of bombers and sub nukes at the USSR, who had a score of 70-something to my 0. I tried to kick him from the alliance, but Europe declined, so I took out his silos. He didn't even leave the alliance at that point, but made some comment about my taking collateral damage (funnily enough, I only took 1.9 megadeaths worth of collateral damage). I then left the alliance and nuked the hell out of Leningrad and Moscow, and hit SF and LA with subs. My last nukes arrived with about five minutes on the clock. In the last 30 minutes of the game, I went from last place, with -4 points, to first with 150 points.

Elimination mode would make that style of play impossible. It would also mean that the stronget player might be eliminated first, because they are more concerned with winning the naval battle. This isn't a bad thing, but it wouldn't suite my style. In that regard, Genocide also does not suite my style much, either. :)

In conclusion, Elimination Mode good; xander won't play it. Thank you.

xander

[bigwig]

How about it just shakes the screen and is more of a humilation thing to do waiting for the victory timer than anything else?

[DueAccident]

I think the elimination mode would be a great addition. Kicking the lowest scoring player, or killing them and sending them to spec, and then giving their territory etc. to the highest scoring player would be great, as they'd have to defend 2 areas, though have more nukes and resources, and would force people to ally against the player.

And I mean, it can't hurt, as long as it is a new gametype added like diplomacy and bigworld, instead of changing a current one or something similar. I mean more gametypes can only be a good thing right?

[wwarnick]

Nice idea - I like it.

Would you imagine the players units spontaniously exploding when he is eliminated? Or would they be taken over by an AI? Or would they just lay dormant?

One fascinating possibility would be to give all the players units to the player who did them the most damage!

Nice work, shinygerbil. If Chris likes it, it might be in a future patch.
Spontaneous explosion would look pretty cool and would be pretty satisfying, and laying dormant would add to the eeriness of the game.
But taken over by AI? Nope.
But giving the units to the player who did the most damage, that has some potential. I don't know about giving all the nukes to him because that would unbalance the game too much. And I don't know about him adopting the cities. Who wants more people to defend? It's only more points to lose. And besides, all the defenses would probably be gone by then, and the cities would be pretty nuked out.
But at least some nukes to make the winnings more attractive and to make up for the nukes that the winner sacrificed.
As soon as the countdown starts most players would nuke whoever's already in last place or a generally accepted threat. They'd all nuke the same territory, so after the cities are pretty much nuked out, all subsequent missiles would be pretty much sacrificed just to get those last few points of damage. Everyone would want to ally with the newbie, so they have an advantage when the countdown starts.
Then there'd be the few players who pass up the opportunity and instead exploit the attacking territories' moment of weakness. They may not get the extra units and nukes, but they'll sure rack up the points when they send a volley of nukes to each territory's largest city without resistance.

All in all, elimination mode, whichever way it's implemented, would really add to the tension in the game. And that's what the game's about, right?

wwarnick

[thindigital]

As warnick says why not remove the eliminated player to spec, as regards his units, I suppose the explosion would be ok and his cities could just be removed from the map, to prevent inevitable gold rush by remaining players.

To prevent the long game players getting eliminated couldnt the scoring be done on assets remaining+population, tht way it gives a fair chance to the naval fighters to keep up with the early launchers...

Not to hijack but some small ideas for adding detail to the airforce: (edit:some of these have been suggested already but not with these specs.)
(edit2. yes there are new units but nothing much to change existing combat dynamics)
-------------
Refueling tankers ... with unlimited onboard fuel and able to refuel fighters and bombers on contact (2 per player)

AWACS ... again with unlimited fuel and large radar range (2 per player)

Combat bonus for fighters operating under friendly surface units/AWACS radar
-------------
this would of course be a modification, in the spirit of expanding and improving the game

[palehorse864]

A balance might have to be struck between number of nukes and points scored. This way, those who win naval battles early on will have a better chance of remaining in the game than those who lose their nuclear ships.

Of course, this should be offset by score, so if someone decides to take first strike and actually makes good use of their nukes, they should be in the lead. However, if they fire off all their nukes from their silos, trying to get a few megadeaths to keep them in the top until elimination time kicks in, but most of their nukes get shot down, the amount of nukes they spent might actually put them in the red. This would make it so that sloppy throwing of nukes just to stay in the early game wouldn't work. Efficient use of nukes would be rewarded heavily though.

Either we could do that, or reward someone somehow for taking out valuable military targets such as ships. Battleships would count less than subs and carriers since they have no nukes. The issue is finding out how to reward players for not just nuking,but everything they do valuable. In a regular game, you are rewarded later when you nuke your opponent, but that opponent can't nuke you as effectively, so your score climbs higher. With players getting eliminatede early on, some other system would have to be devised to reward them.

Of course, maybe i'm over thinking this and we could have some specific rule that eliminates a player. Bunkers seem like they would be too easy to just obliterate. The round based system where the lowest player gets eliminated sounds best, but there are issues as listed above.