Scoring

[mugabe]

Each player should set out their objectives for their own continent.

The game should be scored as to how closely they met those objectives.

eg if you set out to get 90% of your population killed the enemy could only defeat you by NOT nuking you.

What a twist trying to guess each other's objectives.

[torq]

It has some merit but hard to implement.

[torig]

It has some merit but hard to implement.

True. Besides, there'd be little point in "winning" if for you declared your objective was not to shoot a single nuke.
Then just walk away and go do something else, or don't even bother placing units. The latter is better as if you drop out, the CPU will definitely not allow you to meet that objective

[torq]

That's absurd, or course, but a war is won not when all your enemies are killed but when you achieve your objectinve in this war.
There can be a fixed list of normal objectives to accomplish (most survivors, enemy has no nukes, most kills, Tokyo has been nuked, Cairo is intact and so on, enemy silos are destroyed, and so on).

[Chimaera]

Cairo intact? Africa loses, every time. Although conventional warfare has such objectives, the strategy of nuclear war is completely different: inflict unacceptable civilian losses, and prevent the enemy from doing so to you. Simple as. The reward is in the action.

[ynbniar]

Cairo intact? Africa loses, every time.

It depends who is playing as Africa.

There are a number of winning strategies if you are Africa - it's not my fave territory but some players like it because of the numerous attacking options - easy access to EU, USSR, Asia.

Cairo always gets nuked but if players are playing properly so does every other major city.

[Chimaera]

Cairo intact? Africa loses, every time.

It depends who is playing as Africa.

There are a number of winning strategies if you are Africa - it's not my fave territory but some players like it because of the numerous attacking options - easy access to EU, USSR, Asia.

Cairo always gets nuked but if players are playing properly so does every other major city.

Exactly my point. If Africa has to defend Cairo to win, you are severely unbalancing the different nations. In the default scoring mode, defence is not so much an issue - do we want to see more turtling?

[ynbniar]

[quote="ChimaeraExactly my point. If Africa has to defend Cairo to win, you are severely unbalancing the different nations. In the default scoring mode, defence is not so much an issue - do we want to see more turtling?[/quote]

Sorry Chimaera...I misunderstood your first post...

...makes sense now.

[Tripper]

Exactly my point. If Africa has to defend Cairo to win, you are severely unbalancing the different nations. In the default scoring mode, defence is not so much an issue - do we want to see more turtling?

Sorry Chimaera...I misunderstood your first post...

...makes sense now.

I think I understand Chimaera's first post but disagree with it. The objectives of each nation in global thermonuclear war are depedent on each nation's government. Keeping one's own population alive by disabling other nations offensive capability without inflicting civilian casulaties (aka survivor scoring - diplomacy mode) - or killing as many infidels as possible while disregarding civilian casualties (aka genocide mode).

Other conditions are equally plausible - for example using the minimum force necessary (*) - reducing miliary as well as civilian casualties - only wishing to kill infidels of one particular country (nuke the USA anyone?) - or keeping one particular city alive for political/cultural reasons (save the pyramids in the Cairo version just mentioned)

Each country could then be assigned a scoring system at random at the beginning of the game to represent the goals of their government.

Consider a 1v1 where one player is using survivor scoring and the other is using genocide scoring. The victory condition will then be to destroy 50% of the survivor civilian population. This would be an interesting game in its own right, particularly if niether side knows the others victory condition. It would get more interesting as the number of players increase and victory conditions get more subtle.

A 6 player game would be a Risk like scenario where no-one knows each others objectives. Defending Cairo could be quite possible in such circumstances (turtle silos/airbases around it) and the other players might not bother attacking it, e.g. if they could score easy points by nuking the rest of Africa. Obviously the scores of all players would also be secret.

The victory conditions and/or scores could be published when the victory timer starts - or just kept secret til the end.

I'm liking this idea more and more. Very good for Diplomacy.

Cheers Tripper


(*) this could be easily scored by adding points for each nuke unused - or gain additional points for units not deployed in the first place (risky!)

[torq]

Cairo intact? Africa loses, every time.

It depends who is playing as Africa.

There are a number of winning strategies if you are Africa - it's not my fave territory but some players like it because of the numerous attacking options - easy access to EU, USSR, Asia.

Cairo always gets nuked but if players are playing properly so does every other major city.

Exactly my point. If Africa has to defend Cairo to win, you are severely unbalancing the different nations. In the default scoring mode, defence is not so much an issue - do we want to see more turtling?

Africa is my favourite territory. It's in the middle of action. It can do war with South America, North America, Europe, Asia and even Russia. The center of the world. And I seldom see a game where NY, Moscow, London, Tokyo or Mexico hadn't been hit at least once. Cairo just comes first in this list for some reason So, there's no unbalancing.

What would you say about these objectives:
"Save at least 25% (50%, 75%) of your total initial population"
"Kill as many as 75%, (80%, 95%) or enemy population"
"Destroy all enemy combat units" (silos, airbases, ships, subs)
"Find and kill all enemy subs"
"Hit New York/London/Cairo/Tokyo/Moscow/Mexico first"
"Kill as many as 10 enemy silos" (in games with more than 2 players)
"Sink 20 enemy ships"
"Shoot 50 enemy bombers"
"Whoever would use all of his nukes first wins"
"The one who has the most nukes left wins"
etc.

[Chimaera]

Now you explain it like this, it does sound quite promising. It would always be more of a curiosity rather than a regularly used feature, but I think there is a place in the game for modes such as this.

[torig]

Indeed. Only the list of options should be somewhat fixed and tailored per territory (in "defend city X").

[Pater]

Cairo intact? Africa loses, every time.

What the hell? Africa is like the easiest continent to win with, with Asia.

[Chimaera]

Lots of people seem to have repeatedly misunderstood that post.

If the person playing as Africa had to keep Cairo intact to win, then they would lose every time. I haven't yet been in a game where Cairo has survived.

[Radiant Caligula]

I haven't yet been in a game where Cairo has survived.

Recently I played a game with JESUS as EU and I was Africa. We placed our silos circling Cairo to protect it "once and for all". And it worked. Perhaps because we also were allied with Russia in a 3v3 def off, but nonetheless. Cairo IS defendable. Only if you are allied with 2 of your neighbours, but still...