Things: Kamikazes and Naval Nukes

[Ace Rimmer]

It's not an exploit, no. It's not cheating, no. Particularly if the devs haven't come down against it yet. But it can still be against the spirit of the game, and let my explain what I mean by this.

If you take every other element of the game besides naval nuking, you get a certain feel from the game. A style to it, a type of gameplay. Naval nukes go against the grain of that style. They feel entirely different.

This is of course, just your opinion and as such just as valid as everyone else's.

While carpet bombing/naval nuking might feel different to you and not within the "spirit" of the game, it certainly has its counter-moves. Every strong move has it's weakness in Defcon, there is no such thing as an unbeatable player, no such thing as unbeatable move, and no such thing as "ultimate" anything. Even carpet bombing has effective counter measures and moves. Blind carpet bombing is a big risk and large "waste" of resources, as KingAl already said, that can be used to your advantage if you have enough experience/skill. Perhaps you just need to be less predictable.

[KingAl]

I've never personally had an issue with this technique. And while I agree that a game should essentially be fun*, you can't expect to be at some giddy heights for your entire experience. Having your cities bombed equally isn't 'fun'.

Any tactic which you don't expect may put you off your footing temporarily, but once it's acknowledged as an aspect of the game, essentially stating that you 'weren't prepared' for a certain approach as in C/Airman_Curtis's case seems to me to be fairly silly.

*Though this, even, is a fairly narrow view - to quote IV's manifesto, 'The common assumption "Above all else, a game must be fun" is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED'

[torq]

backstabbing is also 'isn't fun' when you are the one who'd been backstabbed. I want the possibility of backstabbilng be banned from the game as well. It doesn't feel 'right' somehow. I disagree with the notion that naval bombings go against the spirit of the game. Thermonuclear conflict is a 'game' when the stakes are extremely high. Anything is permitted here. ANYTHING! Every plan, every action every everything you do in this game can be ruined in a moment. That's why this game is so interesting. If you start to lay restrictions on players, deciding what they can do and what they cannot do in a thermonuclear war 'the feeling of the game' would be gone.

[Xocrates]

backstabbing is also 'isn't fun' when you are the one who'd been backstabbed. I want the possibility of backstabbilng be banned from the game as well. It doesn't feel 'right' somehow. I disagree with the notion that naval bombings go against the spirit of the game. Thermonuclear conflict is a 'game' when the stakes are extremely high. Anything is permitted here. ANYTHING! Every plan, every action every everything you do in this game can be ruined in a moment. That's why this game is so interesting. If you start to lay restrictions on players, deciding what they can do and what they cannot do in a thermonuclear war 'the feeling of the game' would be gone.

Your argument would be a lot more convincing if that possibility wasn't in game


That said, and to anyone complaining about fleet nuking: Like it or not, fleet nuking is a valid tactic. What that means is that you should expect to find it.

Saying it doesn't feel right is a personal opinion and so holds very little weight. The tactic, contrary to what you are trying to imply, is not imbalanced (personally I only use it in last resort, because in most cases the ships manage to dodge).

There is not much we can (or for that matter, want) to do about fleet nuking. The best we can tell you is advise you on tactics and how to counter it. Small fleets help considerably since you gain a lot of mobility, and having fighters ready and your eyes open are also very useful.

Maybe you just need a bit of practice?

[Eat_The_Path]

backstabbing is also 'isn't fun' when you are the one who'd been backstabbed. I want the possibility of backstabbilng be banned from the game as well. It doesn't feel 'right' somehow.

Though your statement is obviously in jest, it allows me to make a point. Avatar terminus and I don't like backstabing, and we have the option of removing it from our games. Simply set 'allow defection' to 'no' in game options. And that's what I've been asking for, an option.

And yes, this is all opinion. I'm well aware that there are people that don't want to see naval nuking go, and that's their opinion. I'm sorry if I suggested that I had the One True Answer on the subject, that was not my intention.

[Avatar Terminus]

One of the most popular Defcon gamemades has defection on. The game's all about the backstabbing and the sneak attacking and the shady deals and the fast alliances. But defection can be turned off for team games, and indeed the game plays quite differently. Instead of a mad rush for the maximum advantage and the maximum points, it becomes a much more plodding, deliberate affair that centers on forcing advantaged engagements and stripping your opponents of their fleets and their defenses.

Simply put, the Defcon gameplay fundamentally changes when you turn off defection. A lot of the elements of the standard multiplayer game are still there, but the pacing is different.

An option to disable the free targeting of bombers and silos would similarly change the gameplay, and I'd argue that it would expand it. In a game where you didn't fear a last ditch lunge at your victorious fleet, or continual strikes on active mode subs, you could use entirely different tactics. Should you want to, you could deploy a tightly packed fleet, or deploy your subs to pursue an enemy fleet to their shoreline. Not everybody would want it, and so they could leave it on.

Just some thoughts.

Also - the simultaneous deaths thing is kind of silly. A crashing bomber taking out a submerged sub? Some rethinking of this would be nice.

[torq]

backstabbing is also 'isn't fun' when you are the one who'd been backstabbed. I want the possibility of backstabbilng be banned from the game as well. It doesn't feel 'right' somehow.

Though your statement is obviously in jest, it allows me to make a point. Avatar terminus and I don't like backstabing, and we have the option of removing it from our games. Simply set 'allow defection' to 'no' in game options. And that's what I've been asking for, an option.

Well, we could draw a poll here to see how many players would agree to play with free bomber targeting turned off...

[Xocrates]

An option to disable the free targeting of bombers and silos would similarly change the gameplay, and I'd argue that it would expand it. In a game where you didn't fear a last ditch lunge at your victorious fleet, or continual strikes on active mode subs, you could use entirely different tactics. Should you want to, you could deploy a tightly packed fleet, or deploy your subs to pursue an enemy fleet to their shoreline. Not everybody would want it, and so they could leave it on.

I'll give you a moment to analyse this.


...


Done?

Are you really telling us you don't want them to be able counter you because you're winning? Are you honestly telling us that you hate the tactic because it does not allow you to turtle with your fleet? Because it gives them a chance?

Are you seriously telling that the true reason you hate the tactic is because it causes you to lose?


I refuse to continue this discussion. I think I made my point.

[ynbniar]

Where will it end...

An option to reduce the naval combat range of bombers because my fleet keeps getting roasted
An option to limit bomber groupings so players can't swarm me
An option to prevent tight silo groupings so all my opponents nukes don't land on my silos at the same time
An option to stop my opponents from locating their silos away from their population and my radar range

...madness...

If its not a cheat or an exploit it's a valid tactic. It might be a low down, dirty, vile, rotten old crispy bacon smelling tactic but if it's not a cheat or an exploit its valid.

[Radiant Caligula]

Are you really telling us you don't want them to be able counter you because you're winning? Are you honestly telling us that you hate the tactic because it does not allow you to turtle with your fleet? Because it gives them a chance?

Are you seriously telling that the true reason you hate the tactic is because it causes you to lose?


I refuse to continue this discussion. I think I made my point.

what X said.


Turning off free bomber targeting would indeed change the game dynamics. It would make it less complex, thus make it an easier game to master. Fleet nuking adds another level of skill, because you know what might come and you have to prepare for that. Defcon without fleet nuking would make a boring (well not boring, but less exciting) game. It will not ever happen so discussion is over. For me at least.

I'd like to preserve my right to spell "EAT MY SHORTS" with bomber nukes on the sea. If you don't like it you can do just that.

[kentuckyfried]

Fleet nuking seems like a cheap tactic to me.

[torq]

Fleet nuking seems like a cheap tactic to me.

I'd called it a rather expensive tactic. Considering the amount of nukes you drop to impress the fish. But then, fish is easily impressed anyway.

[Radiant Caligula]

It might be a low down, dirty, vile, rotten old crispy bacon smelling tactic but if it's not a cheat or an exploit its valid.

I'm proud that you honour the legend of bacon to all that is vile and nasty.

[shinygerbil]

It might be a low down, dirty, vile, rotten old crispy bacon smelling tactic but if it's not a cheat or an exploit its valid.

This sounds familiar...

[Ace Rimmer]

Fleet nuking seems like a cheap tactic to me.

I'd called it a rather expensive tactic. Considering the amount of nukes you drop to impress the fish. But then, fish is easily impressed anyway.

Depends on how you look at it. If you manage to take out a superior naval force, or any naval force for that matter, that might have prevented x number of future nukes from making it to land (via bombers), then it's not so expensive. However, if you use it to excess and/or are ineffective at it, then it's highly expensive.

Also, the fact that it can hold off an invading/approaching navy can be as much or more of a use than actually killing ships.