Realpolitik.

[Chimaera]

This is my suggestion for a version of diplomacy mode called Realpolitik. In real life this is defined as political decisions being made on a practical rather than an ideological basis.
My idea is the following: 6 players with one colour, a la vanilla diplomacy. Points scoring is Survivor mode. RADAR sharing is optional To save the mess that AI players could make on this delicate political minefield, players have the option to sign an unconditional surrender - all nuclear weapons are disarmed, all ships are scuttled, all installations are decommissioned, all cities are now independent non-belligerents with no points value with immediate effect. This happens automatically to any player who drops/ragequits As suggested in various other think tank ideas, the defcon level is based on player actions and decisions rather than an arbitrary time limit being reached. My idea is that each nation has it's own Defcon level, determined by themselves. Before anyone says "Zerg Rush kekekekekekekekeke!" consider what would happen if you were in game, and it suddenly blazed onto the screen that player X had escalated to defcon 3. Player X would not last very long at all. Accepting that no player can possibly take on 5 players at the same time, the game is suddenly spiced with diplomacy and intrigue. A player would need a valid reason/excuse to escalate their level without being punished by the rest of the players - "I only changed levels because he is moving his battleships towards me..." "They are 'on exercise', honest!" I think that this would increase the level of paranoia and intrigue that really makes Defcon the unique game that it is. Private agreements and 'non-aggression pacts' would flood the chat channels, making political debate as important as the actual fighting.
Another idea that is not entirely related and is possibly quite silly, but could be given new context in 'Realpolitik' mode. At rare and entirely random times, players recieve 'intelligence' - ie, they see a brief snatch of private chat between players. Of course, if the player was not doing anything particularly dastardly at the time they were pinged, nothing will happen to the international situation, but if you happened to be saying 'I don't really trust that player X...' you could be screwed. And of course, intelligence can be fabricated as another reason for war...

[torig]

While you demonstrate to have searched, I fail to get the point.
It seems like your "realpolitik" mode is some rehash of the "make defcon levels depend on actions taken by players" while just adding survivor scoring and a big diplomacy without radar sharing?

I'm not shooting down the idea ; just trying to make sense of "the novelty" here.

Edit: Oh, what seems novel (to me) AND I love is the random intel sharing (private chats). Now THAT could be very interesting and lead to nice situations as you'd never know what intel was shared

[palehorse864]

I didn't get a sense from the original post but, would the defcon levels be player set or would they be taken from some action, like firing on a ship. Player setting and broadcasting it to everyone might be best as you have to really consider whether or not you want to make yourself appear a threat. If you do, you might get hit by everyone. If you don't, it might be too late when nukes are flying in.

[torig]

Palehorse, check http://forums.introversion.co.uk/defcon ... php?t=4802

That gives the "original" description of the adaptive defcon modes and might help clear things up. But I personally (and probably a lot with me) think you should stick to one global defcon level.

[torq]

This is my suggestion for a version of diplomacy mode called Realpolitik. In real life this is defined as political decisions being made on a practical rather than an ideological basis.
My idea is the following: 6 players with one colour, a la vanilla diplomacy. Points scoring is Survivor mode. RADAR sharing is optional To save the mess that AI players could make on this delicate political minefield, players have the option to sign an unconditional surrender - all nuclear weapons are disarmed, all ships are scuttled, all installations are decommissioned, all cities are now independent non-belligerents with no points value with immediate effect.

Why so? When it's a turmoil in a nuclear state - it's weapons fall under control of the radical extremists who are very aggressive towards other states.
The chaos they create helps to find an excuse to drop a nuke or two onto your neighbor

This happens automatically to any player who drops/ragequits

What will happen if he rejoins?

Before anyone says "Zerg Rush kekekekekekekekeke!" consider what would happen if you were in game, and it suddenly blazed onto the screen that player X had escalated to defcon 3. Player X would not last very long at all.

Quite the contraty he may find allies and in fact last rather long to eliminate one or several players.

Accepting that no player can possibly take on 5 players at the same time

You can, if you're lucky

A player would need a valid reason/excuse to escalate their level without being punished by the rest of the players

You're missing the point here. ALL players want to escalate their level. And always will. Because it's a game about nuclear war, not diplomacy. If I wanted to play diplomacy I'd pick another game. In Defcon I want to launch nukes. That's what it's all about. NUKES! Everyone wants to do war, not just chat. In the game you propose, there always will be 2-3 players who'd quit the alliance and begin a war. Besides, I don't need a valid reason/excuse - If my neighbor has more population than I do that would be a perfectly valid excuse to attack him in survivor mode.

"They are 'on exercise', honest!" I think that this would increase the level of paranoia and intrigue that really makes Defcon the unique game that it is. Private agreements and 'non-aggression pacts' would flood the chat channels, making political debate as important as the actual fighting.

You can play like this in the Diplomacy mode now. Just don't look at the defcon number, after Defcon 1 sounds you don't absolutely have to launch immediately. You can stay peaceful (if you can)

[Chimaera]

This is my suggestion for a version of diplomacy mode called Realpolitik. In real life this is defined as political decisions being made on a practical rather than an ideological basis.
My idea is the following: 6 players with one colour, a la vanilla diplomacy. Points scoring is Survivor mode. RADAR sharing is optional To save the mess that AI players could make on this delicate political minefield, players have the option to sign an unconditional surrender - all nuclear weapons are disarmed, all ships are scuttled, all installations are decommissioned, all cities are now independent non-belligerents with no points value with immediate effect.

Why so? When it's a turmoil in a nuclear state - it's weapons fall under control of the radical extremists who are very aggressive towards other states.
The chaos they create helps to find an excuse to drop a nuke or two onto your neighbor

This happens automatically to any player who drops/ragequits

What will happen if he rejoins?

Before anyone says "Zerg Rush kekekekekekekekeke!" consider what would happen if you were in game, and it suddenly blazed onto the screen that player X had escalated to defcon 3. Player X would not last very long at all.

Quite the contraty he may find allies and in fact last rather long to eliminate one or several players.

Accepting that no player can possibly take on 5 players at the same time

You can, if you're lucky

A player would need a valid reason/excuse to escalate their level without being punished by the rest of the players

You're missing the point here. ALL players want to escalate their level. And always will. Because it's a game about nuclear war, not diplomacy. If I wanted to play diplomacy I'd pick another game. In Defcon I want to launch nukes. That's what it's all about. NUKES! Everyone wants to do war, not just chat. In the game you propose, there always will be 2-3 players who'd quit the alliance and begin a war. Besides, I don't need a valid reason/excuse - If my neighbor has more population than I do that would be a perfectly valid excuse to attack him in survivor mode.

"They are 'on exercise', honest!" I think that this would increase the level of paranoia and intrigue that really makes Defcon the unique game that it is. Private agreements and 'non-aggression pacts' would flood the chat channels, making political debate as important as the actual fighting.

You can play like this in the Diplomacy mode now. Just don't look at the defcon number, after Defcon 1 sounds you don't absolutely have to launch immediately. You can stay peaceful (if you can)

a) I just don't like AIs; they would ruin what the mode is intended for.

b) He is given say a sixty second chance to rejoin, during which his units simply aren't being controlled, as if he was AFK

c) Exactly, but you will be forced to find allies before you make your move, thus stopping the invincible Zerg rush that is anticipated - finding allies for an early start is fine.

d) But the idea is that you won't win; there are advantages and disadvantages to early escalation, and if you are skilled enough to take on 5 nations then I don't think that it will be a problem; you deserve victory.

e)Of course the thing everyone wants to do is nuke one another into small lumps of glass. This is the point of defcon. The idea of my little gamemode is that diplomatic wrangling can help you lose the least. Do you think real politicians state their true intentions? Of course not. World War 1 wasn't started becuase someone shot a duke, it was because everyone hated each others guts. You don't have to come up with an excuse for escalating, it just may be a good idea, as you can make someone else rather than you the scape goat. And groups of 2/3 territories splitting off into factions is exactly what is intended - peace may die very early on, or last until near the end.

f) Yep. Realpolitik is just my spin on Diplomacy, giving players rather than a descending time limit the decision of when hostilities start and who loses the least. Put simply, while you may enjoy the pure warfare aspects of the game, I enjoy diplomatic wheeling and dealing just as much, and this game mode is aimed to cater for gamers such as myself. You don't have to play the UN if you don't want to - start as a overly belligerent militant dictatorship, they certainly exist in the real world, although thankfully they don't have such a big nuclear arsenal.

[torq]

b) He is given say a sixty second chance to rejoin, during which his units simply aren't being controlled, as if he was AFK

I dont know, sometimes it takes me up to 10 minutes for rejoining. The whole procedure is rather slow. Leaving the units uncontrolled for such a long period will be the same than is to lose them altogether. AI is not the best choice but still is better than nothing.

c) Exactly, but you will be forced to find allies before you make your move, thus stopping the invincible Zerg rush that is anticipated - finding allies for an early start is fine.

I can bully my way through. Imagine I say - I'm going to launch. I don't care if I lose, I'll take some of you with me. Join me in obliteration of xxxxxx (take a pick). Well, of course I will lose against 5 players in survivor mode, but there's only one winner and everyone risks being nuked by me.

d) But the idea is that you won't win; there are advantages and disadvantages to early escalation, and if you are skilled enough to take on 5 nations then I don't think that it will be a problem; you deserve victory.

Skill has nothing to do with that. Even luck won't help you. Only divine intervention could Nobody would win against 5 players in survivor mode.

Everything you'd described can be done in the current version of Defcon (you just need to draw some additional rules which players are agreed to follow to). Moreover - the game will lose its dynamics. You can emulate the game you'd described by using a simple IRC channel (you don't need Defcon to play politics, because it would be just a decoration). I hate to wait for Defcon 4, then 3 when real action begins. The game would become slow and boring. Of course there will be a few fans of that mode, but I don't think it will be very popular.

f) Yep. Realpolitik is just my spin on Diplomacy, giving players rather than a descending time limit the decision of when hostilities start and who loses the least.

If there were no limitaions, hostilities would start as soon as everyone pressed ready Timers are just a fuse, a delay that gives players time to deploy their units and agree upon the alliances. Once Defcon 1 sounds you cannot resit - you just start using nukes There's no point in putting any additional limitations on the main feature of the game - the nukes.

[Chimaera]

Fair enough, we will just agree to disagree, as I can't force my opinion upon you. I've no idea of the number of poeple who would like/play this mode, but I would . (I'm just waiting for xander's seal of disapproval that he gives to all new ideas. I did use the search function though

[Gen. Ripper]

you could try roleplaying, no moding is required

create a fictional "flash point" and start from there, just need the people to make the numbers up

[Ace Rimmer]

Fair enough, we will just agree to disagree, as I can't force my opinion upon you. I've no idea of the number of poeple who would like/play this mode, but I would . (I'm just waiting for xander's seal of disapproval that he gives to all "new" ideas that are really just reposts of old ideas that have been discussed eight ways from Sunday. I did use the search function though

Fix'd