scoring and play modes

[AzaLiN00]

I want to see an adjustment in the standard scoring mode.

I'm going to argue that the standard scoring mode does 5 things: 1) it encourages the sacrifice of your own population to get kills, 2) it guarantees backstabbing as the best choice, 3) it puts the advantage in a 2v1 in the hands of the 1, 4) when the united states and russia launch nukes at eachother, starting a war, it is for some reason in the united states best interest to also nuke south america, europe, southeast asia and africa. Also, when the united states starts a war with russia, it is in africa's best interest to nuke south america, southeast asia, russia, the USA, even canada. 5) in an alliance it discourages targetting silos or airfields for competition over cities.

I can elaborate a little bit more if you would like;

1 and 3) suppose that you are playing as europe when the USSR and Africa ally to destroy you. That's fine. As the bombs fly, the populations decrease, but europe has twice the population to tap for points as the alliance, and thus having twice the possible number of points. further, it is almost guaranteed that europe will become a desolate, doomed wasteland, and could lose easily 90% of its population and all of its military installations. however, despite 90m civillian deaths, if europe sacrificed those people to cause 70m deaths between the USSR and Africa, the alliance members have 90 points each, on average, unless one player sacrificed his score to hit only silos (see 5), but eurpoe has 140, the clear winner despite a ravaged country.

2 and 4) The game names a single winner. A player who backstabs an ally has an easy target to bomb and thereby increase his score. it even allows a first strike without breaking the alliance against the silos and airfields and radar, as targetting allied groundspace does not alert the ally even after the bombs hit. There is also reason to blow up the poor people of south africa because of a russian nuclear attack against south america. Unless the sole goal of the ruler of the superpower is to be remembered for the number of deaths he causes, he ought to rethink his approach. It could be wiser to provoke to regional enemies to do the killing for him, for example; a world power likely has got into war with another world power, and for some reason the whole world is in a big free for all. ===note, in survivor it seems the goal is to end the game with a commanding lead in population with which to dominate post-war earth, which makes sense, but doesnt reward you for russian deaths.

5)russia and africa attack europe; those cities wont remain populous for long. though it makes more sense to hit airfields, and radars, and silos to reduce resistance, and counterattack ability, the 2 allies compete with each other for the right to kill european civilians, making the attack less successful, as silos, airfields, and radar are ignored for the race for the first missile to london.

=======================

A designated enemy mode could possibly be interesting, one where players are paired up randomly as nemesis and get points for killing their civilians only; you could make alliances with other superpowers to help with silos in exchange for help with navies, or clearing the airspace. scoring could look something similar to

-2 points for a dead civilian
+2 points for a dead enemy civilian, killed by you
+1 points for a dead enemy civilian, killed by somebody else

Thus, you kill the country that you are at war with, try to save the lives of your own people; i would like -2 for a dead civilian, except this will begin to look too much like survival, with different countries bombing eachotehr to have the most people, and no reason to backstab except for the small gain of slightly lowering their score, which is reasonable, but might put their enemy above yourself! far less profitable than hitting your own enemy.

=========================

an example for standard could look like

+1 point for an enemy killed by an ally who you remain allied to
+2 point for an enemy death
-2 point for a death of your own

[Chimaera]

Welcome to the forum. Everythng above the first line of equal signs is true, and that is what makes defcon good, in my opinion. This is a nulaer war, and the more murdering civilians, betraying allies, and general mass-destruction there is, the better.

[bert_the_turtle]

I fail to see the problem with 2 vs 1 being an advantageous situation for the one. Just don't ally in a three player game, then Unless, of course, if you're planning to backstab.

The alternative scoring mode could be interesting, but everyone still has enough nukes to kill several countries; so, say I'm Asia, my nemesis is Africa, and NA and Russia are also designated enemies. I'd still try to kill Russia's population (beside killing Africa, of course) to take points away from NA, and I'd definitely not kill Russia's silos. Which is just about what people do in default games. So, unless you'll give me negative score for killing anyone who is not my nemesis, nothing much changes.