Simultaneous Orders (order queue, synchronised attacks, etc)

[Pyroguy]

This idea stems from a multitude of different "needs" people have expressed for Defcon, and has been sort of an amalgamated solution to my number one problem with the game; micro management is too tedious for faster play speeds. Mostly this goes for nukes, but it can also be for ship combat, fighter launching, and the rest.

The idea itself is this; every player can create order "timers". Each timer simply counts down to whatever time a player indicated when it was created, and then performs the orders within it all at once.

I imagine that a system could be created where any timer could be selected, and then orders added to it. Adding orders could be handled just as they are now in real time, by selecting units and attacking or whatnot (except that the units would not immediately perform the orders). Obviously there would also need to be a system to remove particular orders from a timer, to see the details of an order (especially which unit will perform it). And perhaps there could also be a system to remove entire timers altogether, or increase/decrease the activation time on demand, as a player sees fit.

The advantages of this are obvious; more easily coordinated attacks, especially in faster paced games. It should also help eliminate the "attack time grind", where a player will slow the game down, perform orders, and then resume normal speed; often not at the same time as other players, meaning many games get played on the slowest speed for sometimes as much as 25% of the virtual game time. This leads to pacing Defcon itself faster, so that all games can take less time, and ultimately less requiring on time for spectators and players. Everybody wins! (and then dies).

[xander]

--==<snip>==--

There is a better solution to your "problem": realtime. Defcon was designed with the ability to play in realtime. If things are happening too quickly for you to handle, slow it down.

One of the major strengths of Defcon is that it is really a very simple game. There are only 12 unit types in the game, no upgrades or tech trees, no resources to gather, a fairly simple rule set, and a minimalistic interfaces that is easy to learn and easy to use. Your proposal would serve only to increase the complexity of the game, and I don't see how it actually helps. It is a solution in search of a problem.

xander

[Feud]

This wouldn't really make it any faster. You would still need to slow things down in order to properly queue things, and the moment something unexpected emerges from the fog you would have to slow things down and issue new orders anyway, thus negating any time saving.

[pinback]

There are only 12 unit types in the game

What a load of horseshit! Check it out:

SUB
CARRIER
BATTLESHIP
NUKE
RADAR
AIRBASE
SILO
FIGHTER
BOMBER

Sure looks like nine to me. How do you get 12 from this?

Are you counting the silo as two -- launch silo and air defense? That makes ten.

Are you counting the carrier as two -- airstrip and sub-hunter? That makes eleven.

Or are you counting SRBM, MRBM, and ICBM as three separate units? Which is weak.

EXPLAIN YOURSELF, SIR!!

[pinback]

And I'm being generous by including "NUKE" on that list. One generally doesn't include ammo in a "unit type count".

[xander]

I multiplied three times three (three each on land, air, and water -- nukes do count as per the Defcon manual), and came up with twelve. Clearly I was using base 6 arithmetic.

On the other hand, my point was that there are very few units types, and, as 9 < 12, you have only served to reinforced my point. Thank you very much.

xander

[pinback]

Your point was excellent, yes.

[enola gay]

got to agree with xander here...

...mostly...

....BUT some type of waypoint system for directing bombers would be handy sometimes

it's sort of queueing orders, but not really timers - move here, then more here, thus avoiding enemy radar, battleships etc

[xander]

....BUT some type of waypoint system for directing bombers would be handy sometimes

It might be handy. It might make the game easier. But it would also add a level of abstraction and complexity to the game that is, quite frankly, unnecessary, and, in the end, probably not that helpful. If you play the game at all well (and I suck, so recognize that when I say "at all well," I mean that a chimpanzee might do as well), you are managing all of your units all of the time in order to counter actions from your opponents. Any timers or waypoints that you might set up would probably be useless, as the game will change before your units get there.

xander

[Why?]

way point is a neat idea, but i think xander is right. It wouldn't help you much. fighters don't live long enough for that. bombers can, but it would prolly increase your chances of getting shot down. It doesn't save you any clicks, either. You just do it ahead of time and you''ll end up running into trouble. Ships already do it, kinda. When you direct them around land, they choose their own route.

Timers would add more time in the end, and for no gain. I hate the timers on the bases and ships, as it is.

[enola gay]

yeah, in retrospect, you're probably right, and i hereby withdraw the waypoint suggestion

i guess nothing beats good old paying attention and micro-ing every single unit - waypoints and timers are just for lazy losers i guess

@Why?: what did u mean about timers on bases and ships - do you mean the way it takes a carrier a certain amount of time to switch from bomber launch to anti-sub, or silos to toggle from launch mode to missile defence? surely this is part of what makes the game great! if u could instantly switch modes you would certainly lose half the fun, tension and drama! i don't think they are related to the timers mentioned in original post (that i didn't really understand anyway!)

[Synapse]

The game doesn't change at all if you use your bombers right they shouldnt be detected until they're launching nukes! Waypoints WOULD be useful in doing those long route-rounds for example routing bombers across russia to asia you could make a curve with waypoints to perfectly stay out of radar range. I think waypoints would work great, and personally am sick of hearing "speed plz" while I continually reroute a group of bombers.

[bert_the_turtle]

There's a perfect solution for you then: close the chat window

[xander]

The game doesn't change at all if you use your bombers right they shouldnt be detected until they're launching nukes! Waypoints WOULD be useful in doing those long route-rounds for example routing bombers across russia to asia you could make a curve with waypoints to perfectly stay out of radar range. I think waypoints would work great, and personally am sick of hearing "speed plz" while I continually reroute a group of bombers.

And a good player is using their bombers or fighters to patrol their airspace, out beyond the borders of their radar range -- how else do you think they spot subs and incoming bombers? Waypoints might give a very slight advantage to a novice player, but once you reach a certain level (and, more importantly, once your opponent reaches a certain level), they will get you killed. You are asking that an extra level of complexity* be added in order to aid only novice players, who are going to be using the simplest aspects of the game anyway. What is the point?

You know, I really do think that most of the people that come onto the boards and suggest waypoints (and there have been a lot of them over the last two years) have not played Defcon very much, or have only played against other newbs. Play the game more. Get used to the way it works. Use realtime and 5x more. Watch some of the games between the expert players. Learn to play the game well before you complain about lacking features.

xander

* And please note that the core of my argument is that Defcon is a very simple game, and that extra levels of complexity should not be added.