The beauty of DEFCON is it's simplicity.....however

[Mylo42]

I was looking for a game to play to fill the odd 1/2 or full hour of my day. DEFCON is that game. The beauty is it's simplicity. In MY OPINION, the following would make a good game that much better:


Aircraft

- Fighters that will return to a base (land/carrier) instead of chasing down a target, running out of fuel and dying. Having a bunch of fighters die because of running out of fuel is....annoying, especially when they belong to a carrier way out at sea. Surely the fighter jocks aren't THAT idiotic.
- Fighters being a finite asset like bombers. I don't care for the 'regenerate fighters' concept. It would make it a certain tactic to attempt to eliminate an opponent's air force....without it simply regenerating.
- Two rings for the aircraft. One showing max range, the other showing combat radius (max range out and back without running out of fuel.)
- Ability to assign fighters a Combat Air Patrol. Basically, the fighters will go out to a selected waypoint, return to base, repeat. Perhaps this assignment could be a simple shift/click. To keep it simple, just have the one waypoint. I hate having my cities attacked by bombers while my fighters sit on the ground at their base. I find micromanaging this facet to be a pain.
- Extend the combat radius of the fighters just a little, particularly if they are made to not regenerate. I find their role as a scout very limited ...IF...I want them to not run out of fuel. I never send my fighters on 'suicide scouting' missions as I find that 'gamey'. As a result, I find it very difficult to gather scouting intel.
- Eliminate the ability of the bomber to kill naval units. The bomber should be able to do one thing, and that is bomb. The figher should be the multi role aircraft capable of attacking airplanes and naval units.

Naval

- Rename the Battleship to Frigate. The Battleship went out with WWII. The Frigate should be an all around multi purpose naval vessel, much like the Battleship is in the game, except the Frigate should also have decent anti-sub abilities if put in that mode.
- The Aircraft carrier should be a mobile air base at sea. It should have no attack ability, and very limited AA defend capability (other than it's aircraft). Anti sub warfare should be the ability of the Frigate.
- Ability to assign vessels a patrol. Keep it simple, one waypoint and back, repeat.


Game Play

- Longer times between DEFCON levels. I find that pretty much everything happens in DEFCON 1. I would like to see more progression to that MAX level. Basically, once she hits 1, the missiles should start flying real soon. The DEFCON levels should give the player a real sense as to the likelihood of all out nuclear war.

- Have the ability to select how many units in the "Big World" game in terms of a default multiplier. Eg. Default setting (same number of units as in regular game), 150%, 175%, 200%. I would like the ability to play a Big World game with the same number of units as a regular game. I think it would make the idea of recon that much more important.....instead of a bigger world crammed with twice as many units...to micromanage.

- Ability to set silo AA effectiveness. I find the ability of the AA silos to shoot down incoming warheads a little too good. Perhaps an interesting way to address this would be that for an AA silo to be even remotely effective, it's target must be fairly close to the AA silo AND in the RADAR zone. If it isn't, the AA silo will not shoot and is basically useless. This would make the taking out of RADAR placements even more important, quite vital actually.

- Final stats in the way of graphs and charts. ....just something to show what happened in the game.


These things I mention are just minor tweaks to what I feel is a really great game. Again, it's the simple, yet surprisingly tactical nature of the game that I find appealing and I would not like to see that change.......much.

Thanks for hearing my opinions.

[Hyperion]

Besides bugs the game is already perfectly balanced.

'If it ain't broken....don't change it'

[Gen. Ripper]

im sure somone will step in, but alot of what you have said has already been said before I believe,

and besides, alot of the things you suggest would unbalance, take away player skill (in terms of micro'in) and
since "the beauty is it's simplicity", as you said, why complicate things?

[Mylo42]

I realize that others have expressed similar things they would like to see in the game. I guess I share some of the same beliefs as they have. As I attempted to emphasize, these thing I mention would improve MY enjoyment of the game, I don't expect the masses in general to agree. I simply expressed this so that readers might ponder with a;

".....hmm....yeah, that could be good."

or

"....naw, for me, I like it the way it is."


Just trying to provoke some thought and present my point of view.

I'm a believer in that good can be made great, and great can be made a timeless classic. For me, DEFCON is good...perhaps even pushing great, but needs some refinement to be a classic. .....my opinion of course.

I've never experienced a forum in which people are so quick to criticize others for what is their own opinion. *sheesh*. Ease up a bit fellas. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this Think Tank.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a continent to blow to smithereens.

[Hyperion]

You're right of course and what i said was my own opinion but i have to rally behind the 'conserve the game as we know it' movement incase the 'lets change everything so that we dont recognise the game movement' could become the majority.

Everybody would like to see new things, ideas, maybe a different game entirely would be a better idea. But if people put too many ideas in the IV staff's minds then they might change everything...and that...would affect everyone.

[Hyperion]

Oh...and 'Battleship' just sounds so much better powerful, devastating and destructive

[xander]

- Fighters that will return to a base (land/carrier) instead of chasing down a target, running out of fuel and dying. Having a bunch of fighters die because of running out of fuel is....annoying, especially when they belong to a carrier way out at sea. Surely the fighter jocks aren't THAT idiotic.

Better aircraft AI would be a good thing. I don't think that anyone here disagrees with that statement. In fact, I think this very thing has been suggested several times already.

- Fighters being a finite asset like bombers. I don't care for the 'regenerate fighters' concept. It would make it a certain tactic to attempt to eliminate an opponent's air force....without it simply regenerating.

This would have a huge effect on the balance of the game. I would prefer to see it remain as it is.

- Two rings for the aircraft. One showing max range, the other showing combat radius (max range out and back without running out of fuel.)

This has been suggested many, many times since Defcon came out, and is not really feasible for a number of reasons. First off, a fighter or bomber could potentially land at any of more than a dozen places (four airbases, twelve carriers). Their maximum combat range would be a very complicated, amorphous kind of shape. Also, it would require a great deal of additional coding for not that much payoff -- the current circle can be created with a very simple linear kind of equation -- the game does not take into account, for instance, how long it takes the aircraft to turn. The only part of the circle that is really accurate is the portion on the vector that the fighter is flying. The rest is horribly inaccurate. Again, I just don't think that such a circle would convey much useful information, and I don't think it is worth the effort of including.

- Ability to assign fighters a Combat Air Patrol. Basically, the fighters will go out to a selected waypoint, return to base, repeat. Perhaps this assignment could be a simple shift/click. To keep it simple, just have the one waypoint. I hate having my cities attacked by bombers while my fighters sit on the ground at their base. I find micromanaging this facet to be a pain.

You may find micro to be a pain, but it is part of the game. If you want to be good at Defcon, you have to learn to micro. Like many of your suggestions, this one has been discussed at great length in the past, and found wanting by most of the community.

- Extend the combat radius of the fighters just a little, particularly if they are made to not regenerate. I find their role as a scout very limited ...IF...I want them to not run out of fuel. I never send my fighters on 'suicide scouting' missions as I find that 'gamey'. As a result, I find it very difficult to gather scouting intel.

You can either use fighters to scout, or to shoot down bombers. You can't do both well. That is another of the tradeoffs in the game. Learn to live with it.

- Eliminate the ability of the bomber to kill naval units. The bomber should be able to do one thing, and that is bomb. The figher should be the multi role aircraft capable of attacking airplanes and naval units.

What?! Are you kidding? Every unit in the game has basically two powerful abilities (with the exception of battleships). Carriers can project force in the form of fighters and bombers, and drop depth charges to take out submerged subs. Subs can launch nukes, and are stealthy. Fighters can scout, and shoot down bombers. Silos can fire nukes, or shoot them down. If you eliminate the bombers' ability to hit naval units, you eliminate the need for carriers to choose between launching bombers or fighters in naval battles. You completely destroy the balance of naval battles.

- Rename the Battleship to Frigate. The Battleship went out with WWII. The Frigate should be an all around multi purpose naval vessel, much like the Battleship is in the game, except the Frigate should also have decent anti-sub abilities if put in that mode.

Yes, we know that. It has been brought up several times. So create a mod and rename the unit yourself. It is easily done. As to giving battleships depth charges, again, you upset the balance of the game. Bad idea.

- The Aircraft carrier should be a mobile air base at sea. It should have no attack ability, and very limited AA defend capability (other than it's aircraft). Anti sub warfare should be the ability of the Frigate.

choose to launch fighters (to defend against bombers), launch bombers (to take out naval units), or search for subs. You can't effectively do all three at the same time. If you give battleships (frigates, whatever) the ability to hunt subs, then it is easier to use carriers to launch fighters and bombers for naval battles. Like removing bombers' ability to take out naval units, this greatly upsets the balance of the game.

- Ability to assign vessels a patrol. Keep it simple, one waypoint and back, repeat.

Same objections as above.

- Longer times between DEFCON levels. I find that pretty much everything happens in DEFCON 1. I would like to see more progression to that MAX level. Basically, once she hits 1, the missiles should start flying real soon. The DEFCON levels should give the player a real sense as to the likelihood of all out nuclear war.

I actually find the balance right now to be pretty good. Defcons 5 and 4 are fine, as you can't do much of anything in them, other than place units. Defcon 3 and 2 give you time to take out any proximate navies, but not time to circle the globe. Again, this makes good sense in terms of gameplay. And, yes, most of the game does occur at Defcon 1. That is the point.

- Have the ability to select how many units in the "Big World" game in terms of a default multiplier. Eg. Default setting (same number of units as in regular game), 150%, 175%, 200%. I would like the ability to play a Big World game with the same number of units as a regular game. I think it would make the idea of recon that much more important.....instead of a bigger world crammed with twice as many units...to micromanage.

So, basically, you are asking for independent selectors for number of units and the size of the world? This is actually an interesting idea. The max number of units would have to be dependent on the size of the world (i.e. no more than 50% of default units on a small world, because the won't fit otherwise), but it could be an interesting mode. You may have actually had a good idea. Congratulations, you are doing better than par.

- Ability to set silo AA effectiveness. I find the ability of the AA silos to shoot down incoming warheads a little too good. Perhaps an interesting way to address this would be that for an AA silo to be even remotely effective, it's target must be fairly close to the AA silo AND in the RADAR zone. If it isn't, the AA silo will not shoot and is basically useless. This would make the taking out of RADAR placements even more important, quite vital actually.

If you think that AA is too good, you haven't come across an opponent who can actually sync a launch very well. A good player will hit your RADAR and silos with seven or eight tightly packed nukes, and take them out. AA won't seem very effective, then. If you think that AA is too effective because none of your nukes get through, I suggest you try syncing your launches a bit better.

- Final stats in the way of graphs and charts. ....just something to show what happened in the game.

Meh. I am totally indifferent to this suggestion. I don't think it much matters.

xander

[NeoThermic]

- Two rings for the aircraft. One showing max range, the other showing combat radius (max range out and back without running out of fuel.)

This has been suggested many, many times since Defcon came out, and is not really feasible for a number of reasons. First off, a fighter or bomber could potentially land at any of more than a dozen places (four airbases, twelve carriers). Their maximum combat range would be a very complicated, amorphous kind of shape. Also, it would require a great deal of additional coding for not that much payoff -- the current circle can be created with a very simple linear kind of equation -- the game does not take into account, for instance, how long it takes the aircraft to turn. The only part of the circle that is really accurate is the portion on the vector that the fighter is flying. The rest is horribly inaccurate. Again, I just don't think that such a circle would convey much useful information, and I don't think it is worth the effort of including.

I think you're horribly overcomplicating this one. It's simple, take the fuel range and half it, and draw the circle there. Thus you've got two lines, one for the maximum range, and one for the point of no return. Anything you do inside that line means, unless your aircraft gets killed, it'll always return.

NeoThermic

[shinygerbil]

Surely you have to account for turning circles and "pilot stupidity" (i.e. turning the wrong way) as well?

[NeoThermic]

Surely you have to account for turning circles and "pilot stupidity" (i.e. turning the wrong way) as well?

The normal range doesn't account for those either, yet you don't see people asking for uberly correct ranges

NeoThermic

[Gen. Ripper]

and thus the replys came forth, order was restored once more

[xander]

I think you're horribly overcomplicating this one. It's simple, take the fuel range and half it, and draw the circle there. Thus you've got two lines, one for the maximum range, and one for the point of no return. Anything you do inside that line means, unless your aircraft gets killed, it'll always return.

NeoThermic

You could do that, but that circle wouldn't really tell you anything, either. The big circle tells you how far you can go, more or less. If your options for landing are outside of that circle, the fighter dies. That should be fairly obvious...

xander

[Radiant Caligula]

I think you're horribly overcomplicating this one. It's simple, take the fuel range and half it, and draw the circle there. Thus you've got two lines, one for the maximum range, and one for the point of no return. Anything you do inside that line means, unless your aircraft gets killed, it'll always return.

NeoThermic

You could do that, but that circle wouldn't really tell you anything, either. The big circle tells you how far you can go, more or less. If your options for landing are outside of that circle, the fighter dies. That should be fairly obvious...

xander

When I started to play I thought a PONR marker would be good to have as well. Now I don't care (actually I care for not having it) and don't need it. Bombers can fly forever and giving them a return point for long, long range missions is now a breeze. I now know the rough distance a bomber can fly and safely return. If I need to go beyond the PONR I just rendez-vouz with a carrier within the bombers fuel range.

Mentioned above about fighters. Having waypoints for them is pointless as you usually dont have time to micro all of them anyway, but most important: chances are they will fall out of the sky before you even get to set a waypoint.

Managing bombers is a delight I find great pleasure in mastering. With waypoints it would not be fun anymore, thus unbalance the game since less skilled players could do less to compete with better opponents...

[NeoThermic]

I think you're horribly overcomplicating this one. It's simple, take the fuel range and half it, and draw the circle there. Thus you've got two lines, one for the maximum range, and one for the point of no return. Anything you do inside that line means, unless your aircraft gets killed, it'll always return.

NeoThermic

You could do that, but that circle wouldn't really tell you anything, either. The big circle tells you how far you can go, more or less. If your options for landing are outside of that circle, the fighter dies. That should be fairly obvious...

xander

I'm not advocating for the change, I'm just stating that if everyone wanted a PONR line, it could be done with a simple calculation, no need to make it as complicated as you did

NeoThermic