New Scoring Mode

[Smiling Buddha]

I'm beginning to see a trend in silo placement and general strategy - people are abandoning cities to a grim nuclear fate, hoping that they can offset their losses through an attacking play style.

I think that this may well be down to the scoring system - with 2 points for a megakill (if that is the term), and only -1 point for a megadeath, it is logical to maximize kills rather than minize deaths.

However, this I find that this limits tactics to simply uber-targeting large cities - there is little need to win naval battles, protect coastlines, target firing silos, or intercept bombers - your cities will be obliterated. I think that this mind set also does not capitalize on Defcon's potential for tension - games simply become nuke-fests rather than diplomatic, tactical, thought out encounters.

Therefore, I am proposing a new scoring system of 1 point for a megakill, and -1 for a megadeath. I think that this would eliminate all of the problems above, and I can't imagine it would be very hard for Introversion to include.

What does everyone else think?[/i]

[xander]

--==<snip>==--

Why not just play Survivor mode? It penalizes population loss. It encourages you to protect your cities. I would say that gives you everything you want, no?

xander

[Smiling Buddha]

--==<snip>==--

Why not just play Survivor mode? It penalizes population loss. It encourages you to protect your cities. I would say that gives you everything you want, no?

xander

I don't like the way that you are foced to target specific people (the ones with more points than you) to gain anything from attacking.

Also, if at one point you are attacked simultaneously, it is very hard to get back in the game, since it involves doing serious damage to several different people.

[Ace Rimmer]

I completely disagree.

I am a heavily offensive style player and don't even defend my cities in survivor mode or Diplomacy. Yet I can think of many different tactics and strategies that would allow me to win that involve a lot more that just "hitting the guy with more points than me".

[Feud]

<snip>

As one of the pioneers of the "abandon your population" strategy, I would have to disagree with you. This method requires greater use of bombers and navy if done correctly.

The key is not just to attack your opponents cities, but to attack their ability to attack you. This requires full military force to hit them with, so that you cripple their war making ability while allowing you to have enough nukes to off set the losses you will be taking.

I suspect that if you have seen this strategy being used with out heavy dependence on navy and bombers, then you have not yet seen it done properly by those experienced in the art.

[Ace Rimmer]

<snip>

As one of the pioneers of the "abandon your population" strategy, I would have to disagree with you. This method requires greater use of bombers and navy if done correctly.

The key is not just to attack your opponents cities, but to attack their ability to attack you. This requires full military force to hit them with, so that you cripple their war making ability while allowing you to have enough nukes to off set the losses you will be taking.

I suspect that if you have seen this strategy being used with out heavy dependence on navy and bombers, then you have not yet seen it done properly by those experienced in the art.

Exactly.

[Smiling Buddha]

When I said "there is little need to win naval battles, protect coastlines, target firing silos, or intercept bombers", I meant that there is little need for players not employing the 'abandon your population' strategy to do these things, since attempting to defend when multiple people are using this strategy is generally impossible, meaning players are forced to use that play style.

[Feud]

When I said "there is little need to win naval battles, protect coastlines, target firing silos, or intercept bombers", I meant that there is little need for players not employing the 'abandon your population' strategy to do these things, since attempting to defend when multiple people are using this strategy is generally impossible, meaning players are forced to use that play style.

That is exactly what I thought you meant. Part of destroying their ability to make war is also protecting your ability to make war. All of that protection is just as important, except you are focusing on defending your silos, airfields, subs, and carriers instead of your cities. Shooting all your silos does no good if the enemy bombs them into dust with 9 missiles left in the silo.

As for those who are not using this style, they must rely on skill also. Since the enemy (if they have any idea what they are doing) will br protecting thier silos, and targeting yours, it is vital to protect yourself from the enemy. Any player who flings their missles willy nilly into the heart of a continent is asking to get tehm shot down (and playing the game like it was their first day). So, they will want to find your silos and airfields in order to hit them with bombers and subs first. Since their stratagy relys on killing, if they want to have any chance they must first remove your ability to defend yourself.

So, I would again argue that having at least one player playing this style makes navy, scouting, defense, and tactical launching more important. To illustrate this point, let me direct your attention to the first duel that Ace and I played. In both games we both played this style (it is, in fact, the style I have used almost exclusivly for teh last five months). The game involved a massive naval battle, and extensive bomber attacks long before the silos ever opened. It finally ended with us opening our silos, and my subs sneaking in a strike to his silos and Cairo.

I'm not saying it is the best meathod, but I find it totally legitamate, and to a certain extent, more realistic.

[Feud]

For a couple good examples of the stratagy and tactics involved with advanced "abandon" play, check out these two AAR's:

http://forums.introversion.co.uk/defcon/viewtopic.php?t=4158

http://forums.introversion.co.uk/defcon/viewtopic.php?p=45110#45110

As for the scoring mode, I wouldn't be opposed to having it in there. More options are always welcome.

[pac]

Hi,
had the same idea as smilin buddha recently. I think different scoremodes like "survivor" and "default" bring in different strategies and are thus not comparable to each other. I would simply like to see how people play when defensive and offensive score is equal. And i think it would not be a lot of work to implent it in the game,

so why not ?
Pacifier