Nukes and arc'ing through other territories.

[palehorse864]

I would like to see the choice of a northward or southward arc for the player, or a southward arc for the southern hemisphere if the first isn't possible. As it stands, you are sometimes locked into decisions rather than being able to make a strategic choice about which target you want to hit. You have to hit the target above you because that is the only way to get missiles to strike anything.

[Lazureus]

Yeah and noone likes to be africa, south asia, or south america because their northern neighbors shoot down their nukes. On top of that, people don't like being africa because of its odd, but long-ranged city spread.

[palehorse864]

I typically try to avoid getting picked as those countries for that exact reason. I believe South American nukes going to Africa must sometimes go past North American AA fire, past European AA fire before facing African AA fire.

You also can't always ally with the nations that are going to be shooting down your AA fire intended for another target.

[wwarnick]

To start, the arch was created purely for appearance and gameplay, not for realism, and I think it should stay that way. However, I understand the disadvantage that the southern territories have with the arch, and I can understand players' frustration with the fact that their missiles can be shot down by enemies they aren't targeting (especially when targeting Europe). However, I personally like these features and don't want them removed, but I can't see any harm or extra work for IV to add options to turn off the arches and fire from untargeted enemies. I think disabling either would remove a lot of the strategy unique to defcon, but I also think we shouldn't be upset with people who want to play it their way. It's a harmless request.

[gazz07]

The problem with southern cities seems to be aviodable by building your silos more to the south. africa to south america can avoid europe AA by building in the south west for example.

[palehorse864]

Only at the cost of losing a vital city in some cases, especially in Africa. Are you going to leave Cairo undefended?

Placement is not an option to save those nukes as there are certain placements you are more or less locked into.

This is something the players can not fix for the time being.

[gazz07]

use radar placement so your silo's will launch sooner for cairo. A silo at cairo will mostly likely just get wasted by bombers from europe and/russia/asia really fast anyways. But if you heavily defend cairo with silos, what about your south territories? A sub could wipe out millions down there. Or southern silos in south america could hit them easily as well. There is no answer. I usually leave cairo to die and still am able to win fairly often with africa.

If you insist on placeing your silo's up north, then ally with europe or attack them first. But then your south territories will be open for attack.

Its not a cut and dry situation. I havn't had any problem dealing with the southern countries lately. I did when I first started playing, but after practice and experimentation i've learned to adapt, and feel that the system is just fine. There's just a learning curve on the southern places. You can't use the tatics you used when playing the northern ones. You'll have to come up with new ones.

[dolus]

I would like to see the choice of a northward or southward arc for the player, or a southward arc for the southern hemisphere if the first isn't possible. As it stands, you are sometimes locked into decisions rather than being able to make a strategic choice about which target you want to hit. You have to hit the target above you because that is the only way to get missiles to strike anything.

My thoughts exactly. Handling it this way would still keep nukes traveling in arcs (which I never get tired of watching), and it wouldn't be a 'nerf'. It would actually add another strategic element to the game, and would actually make games more interesting.