These are just a few thing i think would make the game better, i know they wont all be able to be implemented but just wanted feedback on what you think would be good
1. Seperate Silos from missile defence- In reality the two wouldn't be the same. My suggestion would be to sererate the two, and instead of having the location of the silo displayed to all when there is a launch, just have a general message to all players saying that player X is launching missiles. This would encourage players to use a search and destroy tactic, having to locate the silos. In order to do this I would suggest making fighters have a slightly larger range. Such a change would balance the disadvantages of being Africa/South America, which are very hard to defend (it would allow large continents to hide solos more easily).
2. Spread out the cities more evenly. Africa is massive but they are spread out which makes africa the death continent to be. Russia on the other hand is massive, but all the cities are concentrate. It also has access to the Pacific and Atlantic easily, and combined with an alliance in Europe, it is almost impossible to defeat.
3. Subs should be weaker when hit by depth charges, but should have a much larger range when using torpedos on an enemy fleet. This would allow them to have a realistic multi purpose role, but at the moment a fleet combined with carriers can easily take out a fleet of subs (especially due to their slowness in comparison. Another Sub change could be to have 4 Short range missiles, but also 1 MRBM which would have a slightly longer range and would not show up on radar when fired. Fleetnuking can easily kill off all of a players subs when they fire nukes, this would counter that slightly by having at least 12 "stealth shots".
What do you think?
Some Improvements
Moderator: Defcon moderators
Hi, and welcome to the forums. I'd just like to say that many players who join the forums have a rash of 'pet hates' that they think are bugs or errors in the balance or mechanics of the game. This tends to rile regular forum members, who have heard these, and in many cases, think them to be nothing of the sort. Most features suggested by new members tend to either severely affect the balance or the intentional stark simplicity of the game(for example the introduction of conventional ground forces). However, I will attempt to deal with each of your suggestions objectively and fairly.
Although in real life, as you say, missile defence is separated from missile launch facilities, Defcon is not a simulation. Balance is a lot more important to the game, and as (arguably) silos are your most powerful weapon, some sort of trade-off is necessary to be able to use them; in this case, your silos are revealed, and you are unable to repel missiles. As for making Africa stronger, seeing as many people think that Africa is the best positioned superpower in the game, and often wins 6-player games outright by several hundred points, it seems entirely unnecessary.
You see, the cities in Defcon are based on real cities. Although as aforementioned, Defcon is not a simulation, it takes away from the ambience if Cairo is 500km south because it is 'more fair'. I have discovered that overall, most of the superpowers are equally matched (except USA imo; I hate playing as them
) And if you really want to mix things up a bit and make things possibly a bit more balanced then pick the TotallyRandom population setup from advanced server settings.
Although I don't really see anything particularly wrong with your proposals for subs (except for over-elaboration with 4 SRBMs and 1 MRBM - how do you switch from one to another?), I don't see the advantage at all - subs are fine as they are in my opinion, think of the confusion these changes would cause for regular players for what seesm to be very little gain.
There - I hope I have answered your question. (don't give up going to this forum because of the replies you get to this thread - we're nice really; we have just seen too many similar suggested 'improvements' to a game we love
)
Although in real life, as you say, missile defence is separated from missile launch facilities, Defcon is not a simulation. Balance is a lot more important to the game, and as (arguably) silos are your most powerful weapon, some sort of trade-off is necessary to be able to use them; in this case, your silos are revealed, and you are unable to repel missiles. As for making Africa stronger, seeing as many people think that Africa is the best positioned superpower in the game, and often wins 6-player games outright by several hundred points, it seems entirely unnecessary.
You see, the cities in Defcon are based on real cities. Although as aforementioned, Defcon is not a simulation, it takes away from the ambience if Cairo is 500km south because it is 'more fair'. I have discovered that overall, most of the superpowers are equally matched (except USA imo; I hate playing as them
) And if you really want to mix things up a bit and make things possibly a bit more balanced then pick the TotallyRandom population setup from advanced server settings.
Although I don't really see anything particularly wrong with your proposals for subs (except for over-elaboration with 4 SRBMs and 1 MRBM - how do you switch from one to another?), I don't see the advantage at all - subs are fine as they are in my opinion, think of the confusion these changes would cause for regular players for what seesm to be very little gain.
There - I hope I have answered your question. (don't give up going to this forum because of the replies you get to this thread - we're nice really; we have just seen too many similar suggested 'improvements' to a game we love
)
Re: Some Improvements
Adding my own two cents to what Chimaera said:
First off, there is no system in the world that can reliably knock down more than one or two ballistic missiles. This was even more true in the late 70s or early 80s, which is when Defcon is ostensibly set. So, the very fact that there is anti-missile system is a break from reality. To be consistent with the theme of "make it more realistic," you should be arguing to remove anti-missile systems all together.
Secondly, separating the anti-missile functionality from the ICBM launching functionality would severely change the balance of the game. Right now, you have to decided whether or not you are going to launch. If you wait to long to launch, your silos may be destroyed, and you may not have the resources to crush your opponents. If you launch too soon, you reveal your silo positions to the enemy. In either case, when you decide to launch, you are vulnerable to attack while you are launching. If you separated the functionality, every player would simply launch everything they had as soon as they possibly could. There is no risk in launching early, and nothing to be gained by delaying. Thus, it becomes a clickfest.
So, as it stands now, the offense/defense balance is pretty good with regards to silos.
You have several options here. You could make a mod that distributed the cities more evenly. You could use one of the other city settings (in the advanced server dialog), such as random cities. Or you could accept that the current layout of the cities really doesn't make that much difference if you are playing against someone that knows what they are doing. The fact of the matter is that the largest cities will be destroyed. It is not worth defending any of your cities. Instead, the goal should be to do as much damage to your opponents as possible. This is especially true in Default or Genocide scoring, but applies to Survivor scoring as well, especially if there aren't very many players.
Basically, it sounds like you need to manage your subs better. Yes, a fleet of carriers can take out a fleet of subs. That is the way it is supposed to be. Subs have (1) stealth and (2) the ability to launch nukes. You give up one to take advantage of the other. As it stands now, if you position your subs correctly, you can launch all of your nukes before bombers can get to them to take them out. You might subsequently lose your subs, but it won't matter at that point. The active sonar mode can be used to force carriers into anti-sub mode, making it easier to use bombers to take out carriers, or it can be used in combination with carriers and battleships to disrupt enemy fleets. No matter how you use them, if your subs are getting nuked or depth charged, you aren't managing them correctly.
xander
Ocelot.UK wrote:1. Seperate Silos from missile defence- In reality the two wouldn't be the same. My suggestion would be to sererate the two, and instead of having the location of the silo displayed to all when there is a launch, just have a general message to all players saying that player X is launching missiles. This would encourage players to use a search and destroy tactic, having to locate the silos. In order to do this I would suggest making fighters have a slightly larger range. Such a change would balance the disadvantages of being Africa/South America, which are very hard to defend (it would allow large continents to hide solos more easily).
First off, there is no system in the world that can reliably knock down more than one or two ballistic missiles. This was even more true in the late 70s or early 80s, which is when Defcon is ostensibly set. So, the very fact that there is anti-missile system is a break from reality. To be consistent with the theme of "make it more realistic," you should be arguing to remove anti-missile systems all together.
Secondly, separating the anti-missile functionality from the ICBM launching functionality would severely change the balance of the game. Right now, you have to decided whether or not you are going to launch. If you wait to long to launch, your silos may be destroyed, and you may not have the resources to crush your opponents. If you launch too soon, you reveal your silo positions to the enemy. In either case, when you decide to launch, you are vulnerable to attack while you are launching. If you separated the functionality, every player would simply launch everything they had as soon as they possibly could. There is no risk in launching early, and nothing to be gained by delaying. Thus, it becomes a clickfest.
So, as it stands now, the offense/defense balance is pretty good with regards to silos.
Ocelot.UK wrote:2. Spread out the cities more evenly. Africa is massive but they are spread out which makes africa the death continent to be. Russia on the other hand is massive, but all the cities are concentrate. It also has access to the Pacific and Atlantic easily, and combined with an alliance in Europe, it is almost impossible to defeat.
You have several options here. You could make a mod that distributed the cities more evenly. You could use one of the other city settings (in the advanced server dialog), such as random cities. Or you could accept that the current layout of the cities really doesn't make that much difference if you are playing against someone that knows what they are doing. The fact of the matter is that the largest cities will be destroyed. It is not worth defending any of your cities. Instead, the goal should be to do as much damage to your opponents as possible. This is especially true in Default or Genocide scoring, but applies to Survivor scoring as well, especially if there aren't very many players.
Ocelot.UK wrote:3. Subs should be weaker when hit by depth charges, but should have a much larger range when using torpedos on an enemy fleet. This would allow them to have a realistic multi purpose role, but at the moment a fleet combined with carriers can easily take out a fleet of subs (especially due to their slowness in comparison. Another Sub change could be to have 4 Short range missiles, but also 1 MRBM which would have a slightly longer range and would not show up on radar when fired. Fleetnuking can easily kill off all of a players subs when they fire nukes, this would counter that slightly by having at least 12 "stealth shots".
Basically, it sounds like you need to manage your subs better. Yes, a fleet of carriers can take out a fleet of subs. That is the way it is supposed to be. Subs have (1) stealth and (2) the ability to launch nukes. You give up one to take advantage of the other. As it stands now, if you position your subs correctly, you can launch all of your nukes before bombers can get to them to take them out. You might subsequently lose your subs, but it won't matter at that point. The active sonar mode can be used to force carriers into anti-sub mode, making it easier to use bombers to take out carriers, or it can be used in combination with carriers and battleships to disrupt enemy fleets. No matter how you use them, if your subs are getting nuked or depth charged, you aren't managing them correctly.
xander
Ocelot.UK wrote:I disagree with your last part. Even with passive sonar on, subs can't get anywhere near close enough to the coast of a continent if carriers have anti-sub on (which they normally do). This serverly limits their usage, especially on the West Coast of the USA and North of Russia.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the trick here is that if your subs are under attack by enemy carriers, you simply surface them (switch them to launch mode), and the carriers won't be able to touch them unless they launch aircraft, which takes time...
Granted, it's more or less a last ditch, but if you're good you can manage to get your subs out of there and to a safer spot.
Some people also either have a surface escort to clear the way (battleships or a bomber or two), or leave one sub in active mode.
The main thing is to remember what the range is of enemy radar and not to park subs too close to the coasts. Once you get the hang of it it's easier than you ever thought it would be.
-Rog
Ocelot.UK wrote:I disagree with your last part. Even with passive sonar on, subs can't get anywhere near close enough to the coast of a continent if carriers have anti-sub on (which they normally do). This serverly limits their usage, especially on the West Coast of the USA and North of Russia.
Why are you putting your subs out in front in the first place, then? Clear the path with some battleships, carriers, or bombers. Again, poor sub management.
xander
Ocelot.UK wrote:not really, if you lose a naval battle then what? inevitably an attcking fleet will be at a disadvantage due to attack from enemy air defence. and this cant be helped by the fact that some countries have ridiculous naval deployment zones. You said the game is balanced...it really isn't...
If the game is unbalanced, please tell me which country you think is the worst, and which is the best. Then, we can play a game, me with the worst country, and you with the best, and we shall see who wins. The game is fairly well balanced. That does not mean that all of the countries start with the same advantages and disadvantages, but that each country starts with the same sum of advantages and disadvantages.
Again, if you are losing your entire fleet, so you have nothing to protect your subs, you are managing your fleets poorly, or the other player is hugely superior, and your subs wouldn't make any difference, anyway.
xander
-
bert_the_turtle
- level5
- Posts: 4795
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
Penis length errr post count has nothing to do with you being (mostly) wrong 
To get into detail on your ballancing issues:
Subs already are a powerful offensive weapon. Yeah, you lose many of them if you're not careful, but then either live with that and take the risk or be more careful.
You say an EU/Russia alliance is hard to beat. That is wrong. Russia is very vulnerable for attacks from the Indian, especially with subs. In a six player game, an EU/Russian alliance is my favorite target for ICBMs from NA or SA because in all likelyhood, London and Leningrad will still be alive when my nukes hit, maybe even Moscow, contrary to what usually happens when the two battle it out.
You say Africa and South America are hard to defend. That's wrong for Africa, you can defend the southern bits pretty well. And who cares about defense? Both are well positioned to hit others.
Your silo idea would simply turn the game into a clickfest, as xander said. This may be more fun for a beginning player, but would get old in, say, two minutes.
To get into detail on your ballancing issues:
Subs already are a powerful offensive weapon. Yeah, you lose many of them if you're not careful, but then either live with that and take the risk or be more careful.
You say an EU/Russia alliance is hard to beat. That is wrong. Russia is very vulnerable for attacks from the Indian, especially with subs. In a six player game, an EU/Russian alliance is my favorite target for ICBMs from NA or SA because in all likelyhood, London and Leningrad will still be alive when my nukes hit, maybe even Moscow, contrary to what usually happens when the two battle it out.
You say Africa and South America are hard to defend. That's wrong for Africa, you can defend the southern bits pretty well. And who cares about defense? Both are well positioned to hit others.
Your silo idea would simply turn the game into a clickfest, as xander said. This may be more fun for a beginning player, but would get old in, say, two minutes.
-
world idiot
- level4
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:37 pm
- Location: losing miserably (as always)
Ocelot.UK wrote:The idea of this section is to suggest ideas that would make the game more fun...i know you people with your 5000 post count obviously dont want it to change because its the only thing you do in your life and your used to it, but im just suggesting how to make it fun for new players
Yes, all of my decisions are made based upon the fact that I have a high post count. You have shattered my delusions of normal social function, and have revealed that I spend my entire life playing and discussing Defcon. It is impossible that I could judge effectively how subs are balanced. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have not yet learned the mechanics of fleet management, and would rather change the game, instead. All problems you have with me are based on the fact that I do nothing but play Defcon.
xander
xander wrote:Yes, all of my decisions are made based upon the fact that I have a high post count. You have shattered my delusions of normal social function, and have revealed that I spend my entire life playing and discussing Defcon. It is impossible that I could judge effectively how subs are balanced. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have not yet learned the mechanics of fleet management, and would rather change the game, instead. All problems you have with me are based on the fact that I do nothing but play Defcon.
xander
That sounds like a confession to me!
xander wrote:Ocelot.UK wrote:The idea of this section is to suggest ideas that would make the game more fun...i know you people with your 5000 post count obviously dont want it to change because its the only thing you do in your life and your used to it, but im just suggesting how to make it fun for new players
Yes, all of my decisions are made based upon the fact that I have a high post count. You have shattered my delusions of normal social function, and have revealed that I spend my entire life playing and discussing Defcon. It is impossible that I could judge effectively how subs are balanced. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have not yet learned the mechanics of fleet management, and would rather change the game, instead. All problems you have with me are based on the fact that I do nothing but play Defcon.
xander
5.64 posts a day?!?!?!?! Get a friggin' life already!!
Montyphy wrote:5.64 posts a day?!?!?!?! Get a friggin' life already!!
I know. It's crazy, isn't it? At an average of three minutes per post, that is a quarter of an hour every day wasted on these forums! Not to mention an additional 30-45 minutes every day reading new posts! My life is wasted! I think I shall go mix myself a cocktail of vicadin and vodka!
xander
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests