Country genocide mode?

Ideas for expansions and improvements to Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

Xeon06
level1
level1
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:46 am

Country genocide mode?

Postby Xeon06 » Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:58 am

Hey all,

Am I the only one feeling restrained by Defcon's player limits? This has happened to me like 5 times in the past year: I go to a LAN party, and I suggest a game of Defcon. 8 persons want to play. However, we can only be 6. I think it would be very cool to have a mode that, instead of choosing continents, one chooses countries. Now of course there is no time to put all the countries into the game but I think 20 is a realistic amount. Or any other way to increase the player limit for that matter (Antartica and Australia anyone).

Well anyways, this probably won't happen but I had to try.

Thanks for reading.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Country genocide mode?

Postby xander » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:06 am

Why not play two games with four people each? Also, a six person game is already pretty taxing on a machine -- a 20 person game would probably bring many systems to their knees.

xander
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:44 am

Also, at a LAN party, you can always activate team switching, maybe also big world mode, and let two players manage the same superpower together. I stress the LAN party bit because with team switching, you have to rely on people not to switch to teams they're not supposed to see.
Xeon06
level1
level1
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:46 am

Postby Xeon06 » Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:45 pm

Well two games of four isnt the same thing as one game of eight! Imagine the action in a game of eight. Also, it would be a realistic mode because in real life, except for aliances, countries are making war, not whole continents. As for the machine thing, Defcon has not ever slowed down any machine even in games of 6 and we play at the same time as other games (office mode). Also, I don't like the idea of team switching, it's not as fun either. Oh well, thanks for the replies guys.
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:55 pm

Xeon06 wrote:Well two games of four isnt the same thing as one game of eight! Imagine the action in a game of eight. Also, it would be a realistic mode because in real life, except for aliances, countries are making war, not whole continents. As for the machine thing, Defcon has not ever slowed down any machine even in games of 6 and we play at the same time as other games (office mode). Also, I don't like the idea of team switching, it's not as fun either. Oh well, thanks for the replies guys.


Play for Russia. :) It is a country, not a countinent.
NMO
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:57 pm

Xeon06 wrote:Well two games of four isnt the same thing as one game of eight! Imagine the action in a game of eight.

And chess should be played with 30 people! Defcon was not designed to be an 8 player game. It was designed to be a six player game, at most. Other games have other limits -- Chess is limited to two players. Multiwinia is limited to four players. Starcraft is limited to eight players. In fact, if you really, really need an 8 player game, play that, instead.

Xeon06 wrote:Also, it would be a realistic mode because in real life, except for aliances, countries are making war, not whole continents.

As has been pointed out on these forums many times before, "because it would be more realistic" is not a good reason to propose a change. There are many changes that might make Defcon more realistic that would be good changes, but they would not be good changes because they would make the game more realistic -- they would be good changes because they balance gameplay, or add fun and interesting features without detracting from the simplicity of the game. Thus, this is an argument that should never be made.

Xeon06 wrote:As for the machine thing, Defcon has not ever slowed down any machine even in games of 6 and we play at the same time as other games (office mode).

I never said that a six player game would cause you problems. I said that six player games have caused other people problems, and that a 20 player game would probably kill just about any computer out there. Also, it is not the AI that is the problem (which is going to be the only thing going on if you are playing another game with Defcon minimized), it is the graphics.

xander
Xeon06
level1
level1
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:46 am

Postby Xeon06 » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:31 pm

Thanks for your reply.

xander wrote:And chess should be played with 30 people! Defcon was not designed to be an 8 player game. It was designed to be a six player game, at most. Other games have other limits -- Chess is limited to two players. Multiwinia is limited to four players. Starcraft is limited to eight players. In fact, if you really, really need an 8 player game, play that, instead.

But it's Defcon I want to play! It's so much better!

xander wrote:As has been pointed out on these forums many times before, "because it would be more realistic" is not a good reason to propose a change. There are many changes that might make Defcon more realistic that would be good changes, but they would not be good changes because they would make the game more realistic -- they would be good changes because they balance gameplay, or add fun and interesting features without detracting from the simplicity of the game. Thus, this is an argument that should never be made.

Of course this is opinion but not fact but more players would surely be fun for me, and I don't see it detracting from the simplicity of the game.

xander wrote:I never said that a six player game would cause you problems. I said that six player games have caused other people problems, and that a 20 player game would probably kill just about any computer out there. Also, it is not the AI that is the problem (which is going to be the only thing going on if you are playing another game with Defcon minimized), it is the graphics.

I don't really understand what you mean by AI, I never talked about AI. Also, I am assuming that the graphics aren't drawn so not calculated when the game is reduced. But that is not your point, you mean that a lot of nukes exploding makes lag, and I agree with you to a degree.

But you must also understand that what I am suggesting would be optional, as a gamemode, so not everyone is entitled to play it. I also understand that it won't happen because I am the only one wanting this and that Introversion is busy on other things, but I just had to put this idea out.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:24 pm

Xeon06 wrote:But it's Defcon I want to play! It's so much better!

And Defcon is designed to be, at most, a four player game.

Xeon06 wrote:Of course this is opinion but not fact but more players would surely be fun for me, and I don't see it detracting from the simplicity of the game.

You made the argument that it would be "more realistic." My reply addressed only that point. There may be other reasons for or against the change, but my reply only hit on that particular argument, which is a bad one.

Xeon06 wrote:But you must also understand that what I am suggesting would be optional, as a gamemode, so not everyone is entitled to play it. I also understand that it won't happen because I am the only one wanting this and that Introversion is busy on other things, but I just had to put this idea out.

And what you still don't understand is that a 20 player game would bring just about any system to its knees, unless you had several graphics cards installed. The fact that you can play other games now is pretty irrelevant.

xander
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:56 pm

Defcon is not realistic at all. And you wouldn't really want to play a realistic one and that's why:
1. There's not so many 'nuclear powers' and the real situation is totally unbalansed.
2. Every side has different delivery technologies. There are dozens (if not hundreds) types of missiles, there are different kinds of warheads.
3. You can't really stop a falling warhead (well, practically). And silos don't shoot at incoming warheads.
4. Carriers never use depth charges.
5. There are no battleships in the modern fleets.
6. 1 nuke is enough to destroy an airfield.
7. Bombers carry several nukes
+ about several thousand other differences.

What's the point in making the game 'a little bit more realistic' if it would never be such anyway and it's a wonderful game without all of that?

And Xander, Defcon is designed to be, at most, a SIX player game. :lol:
NMO
User avatar
Gulidar
level4
level4
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: Russia, Moscow
Contact:

Postby Gulidar » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:24 pm

5. There are no battleships in the modern fleets.


I doubt that.

But anyway, the summarized reason for defcon not to become realistic is that in real nuclear war there is nothing single man, even in charge of nuclear power, can do. It just happens and kills everything nukes were aimed for.
What is the death of one world in the cause of purity?
Why?
level5
level5
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:34 pm
Location: Verona

Postby Why? » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:46 pm

Gulidar wrote:
5. There are no battleships in the modern fleets.


I doubt that.


It's true. Technology has advanced so much that they can achieve the same fire support with smaller ships and aircraft. The U.S. Navy retired the last of their battleships in 2006.
User avatar
Gulidar
level4
level4
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: Russia, Moscow
Contact:

Postby Gulidar » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:54 pm

Why? wrote:
Gulidar wrote:
5. There are no battleships in the modern fleets.


I doubt that.


It's true. Technology has advanced so much that they can achieve the same fire support with smaller ships and aircraft. The U.S. Navy retired the last of their battleships in 2006.


Hm. Looks like i misunderstood the "battleship" term. To be honest, i still don't see any reason not to call some big ships battleships. They are big and they are made for battle, right?

Ah, what a vague term.

EDIT: Well, i hate wikipaedia, but its all i found about battleship term.

A battleship is a large, heavily armored warship with a main battery consisting of the largest calibre of guns.


Does that mean that battleship is a ship with only guns so ship with rockets/guns+rockets can't be battleship at all?
What is the death of one world in the cause of purity?
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:10 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship

Missile cruisers have replaced them.

They're too expensive and too big a target to miss.
Even aircraft carriers are surrounded by smaller ships which main purpose is to defend it while its aircraft deal with the big guys.

The only way to sink it is to fire a pack of cruise missiles that fly 5-6 machs and hope some of them would penetrate its anti-missile defenses.
NMO
Xeon06
level1
level1
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:46 am

Postby Xeon06 » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:03 am

Okay thanks for the replies, got it.
User avatar
Cnl_Death
level2
level2
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:06 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Postby Cnl_Death » Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:06 am

Don't worry your first post usually always gets you flammed..... :wink:
War Is Hell But Peace Is Boring

Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest