SpitJock wrote:OK - I'm not normally a pedantic person, but I feel that it's best to sort this out so no-one new to Defcon gets confused:
What OpenFlow is talking about is NOT a mod - it's a recompilation (with changes/additions) of the game code which alters the mechanics and adds features. I know other games behave differently, but in Defcon a mod is a set of graphical, sound, text and positional data changes which change how the game looks and feels. A Defcon mod makes no alterations to game mechanics whatsoever.
In essence, a mod is a transformation you apply to your normal everyday Defcon installation. What OpenFlow offers is a different Defcon installation. (Bert called his version minicom - how about maxicom for yours, OF?) [/Pedantry]
On the subject of roll-up of features itself, might I make a suggestion?
The best way is for it all be rolled into one re-compile of the game code when the coding's all done, and then modified by text-based config file (the way minicom does it) at run-time. Perhaps even just add some options to the "Advanced Setup" dialog in game... That way, if you want long-range sub launches, but no MIRVs or doomsday weapon, just switch one on and others off... simples. Much more simple than having 16 different versions of the game installed (and that's just for the various combos of the 4 new features that were already discussed).
I am sort of curious about something too, OpenFlow. With the addition of MIRVs, doomsday weapons, fire-n-forget certain-kill anti-shipping missiles, long-reach sub launches and reduced AA efficacy.... How does anyone actually win the game? We play 1v1, you fire your weapons and I fire mine, no-one survives - a draw! Most people play a game like Defcon because they want to win - is there some feature you've not told us about yet that still makes that possible? Right now, it looks like the only way anyone could actually be beaten is if they go to the toilet before Defcon 1 and don't return until they've lost all their weapons platforms... It would change the tag-line of the game.
No longer: "Everybody loses, but who loses least?"
But now: "Everybody shits, but some people do it at personally inconvenient times and take a long time over it..."
And if the aim is just to watch the world consumed in nuclear fire (let's face it, we all want that) - why bother re-coding at all? Fill the map with CPU enemies, use CheatEngine to spam up a ton of silos that never run out of ICBMs and drop 30 warheads on every enemy city and installation on the map...
SJ
The best way is for it all be rolled into one re-compile of the game code when the coding's all done, and then modified by text-based config file (the way minicom does it) at run-time. Perhaps even just add some options to the "Advanced Setup" dialog in game... That way, if you want long-range sub launches, but no MIRVs or doomsday weapon, just switch one on and others off... simples. Much more simple than having 16 different versions of the game installed (and that's just for the various combos of the 4 new features that were already discussed).
Code: Select all
This definitely isn't out of the question. I've thought about this myself. Granular control of gaming dynamics with individual adjustments to values in the setup menu and/or applying "preset" themes... good idea since there would only need to be one such Defcon install and everyone's different mods or versions or flavors can fit into it... and whoever hosts the game gets to retain control of what version or flavor of Defcon they want everyone to play. But at this point I haven't implemented enough features and things I want to do to warrant spending time on something like this.
I am sort of curious about something too, OpenFlow. With the addition of MIRVs, doomsday weapons, fire-n-forget certain-kill anti-shipping missiles, long-reach sub launches and reduced AA efficacy.... How does anyone actually win the game? We play 1v1, you fire your weapons and I fire mine, no-one survives - a draw! Most people play a game like Defcon because they want to win - is there some feature you've not told us about yet that still makes that possible? Right now, it looks like the only way anyone could actually be beaten is if they go to the toilet before Defcon 1 and don't return until they've lost all their weapons platforms... It would change the tag-line of the game.
Code: Select all
It is all about maintaining a balance of power to strike a sweetspot in gameplay. I understand what you are trying to convey and I agree you are correct... However I'm making these changes first and foremost for my own personal enjoyment and satisfaction with the game. I understand my tastes may not reflect the taste of the general gaming community at large, and that is perfectly okay with me. Regardless of whether or not the defcon community adapts (my wishful thinking) or even approves of what I am doing, I'm doing this with the primary intent of satisfying my own amusement and everything else is secondary. If someone else wants to use parts of the code or likes a certain idea or functionality or feature, then great. But if not, that's okay too. In a nutshell, to me the whole point of nuclear warfare is credible deterrence and even some element of asymmetric warfare. The sort of tweaks that I'm making will morph Defcon into a game that noobies will have deterrence over elites. I concede that most people do not find this fascinating but I think the maintenance of a stable power dynamic is more fun to watch than "nukes flying around all over the place". A nuclear warfare game doesn't necessarily have to have a lot of "nuclear" action to be entertaining. But that's just me. You might beg to differ.
No longer: "Everybody loses, but who loses least?"
But now: "Everybody shits, but some people do it at personally inconvenient times and take a long time over it..."
Code: Select all
Sorry... I don't understand what you mean by this? Your "toilet" analogy is precluding the possibility of the implementation of a "Deadhead" for when an opponent team does a first strike while you are away from the computer... such a feature will automatically retaliate in kind and perhaps with some sort of preset limited or major attack options (focusing on population or units, etc) and of course, all else fails, the doomsday weapon could be made to be underground and impenetrable and basically an always available, instant-on, option. And besides, its really hard to "lose all your weapons platforms" when subs have unlimited striking range and carry MIRVs. Now that subs can be anywhere in the world and strike anyplace in the world and two mirvs can take out 80% of an entire continent's population, your concern isn't really founded.
And if the aim is just to watch the world consumed in nuclear fire (let's face it, we all want that) - why bother re-coding at all? Fill the map with CPU enemies, use CheatEngine to spam up a ton of silos that never run out of ICBMs and drop 30 warheads on every enemy city and installation on the map...
Code: Select all
Again I think you've misunderstood my intent. It is NOT about watching the world consumed in nuclear fire, on the contrary if I do it right, no nukes will ever go off. My interest in Defcon as a game is to use it to explore (however unrealistically - yes I know it is an arcade game) the "credible deterrence" and "asymmetric" aspect of nuclear warfare. The CPU/AI simply isn't smart enough to understand the sort of nuances and depths that only humans can portray. Hence why Defcon is largely a multiplayer game and diplomacy is only available in online mode.