Defcon School - Everybody Learns!

[Trident]

(if your lucky, you can use the same bomber's last fuel to scout inland in cover of the sub nukes.)

I often do this while launching a massive bomber attack, keep one or two from turning back and send them in for scouting, they pass through untouched as long as there are non fighters in the air. One thing i dislike about the bombers is that you have to select a target when putting it in nuke mode, you should be able to change modes the same as silos or subs.

[Radiant Caligula]

One thing i dislike about the bombers is that you have to select a target when putting it in nuke mode, you should be able to change modes the same as silos or subs.

????. Bombers have a drag down menu too. Do you always put bombers in nuke mode by targeting? Just right click and set them to SRBM launch.

[xander]

One thing i dislike about the bombers is that you have to select a target when putting it in nuke mode, you should be able to change modes the same as silos or subs.

Incorrect. Right-click on the bomber, select SRBM mode, hit space bar to deselect the bomber. Granted, it will automatically target the waypoint at which it was aimed before you changed it's mode, which is a PITA, but you don't have to select a target. I will generally launch my bombers in a large wave, and put them in SRBM mode immediately, and move them to a point way beyond the intended target, much as described above, but I don't use a city to do it.

xander

[Feud]

I wish I had one if it would help in games versus you, Feud, RC (which it doesn't)

Oh don't be dramatic, you beat me in game #2 the other night.

[Torp]

I like this idea.

I'm not sure if I fit into it, however. I'm not really a newbie (well, I probably am in the number of times I've played, but I'm a fairly fast learner, and not one to step in the pits many new players tend to step in (in fact, I think I was already noticing grave mistakes and giving tips to my opponents by the time I had the full version, which was after maybe half a dozen matches)), but neither am I at the level of the Emperor Radiant Caligula Gaius Julius Caesar Something (sorry, just had to. Can't remember what the last two initials stand for, though).

I am therefore coming with a suggestion for a sort of advanced class. This would be a two-fold curriculum. One part would consist of the teacher spectacting a game the student was playing in, or through the use of FRAPS or similar mediums watched the game, so as to comment on how the student played, what he did wrong and also what he did right. The other part would be the opposite: The student spectacting a game in which one or more of the teaching staff plays, to study their styles of play and pick up neat tricks.

[Xocrates]

I am therefore coming with a suggestion for a sort of advanced class. This would be a two-fold curriculum. One part would consist of the teacher spectacting a game the student was playing in, or through the use of FRAPS or similar mediums watched the game, so as to comment on how the student played, what he did wrong and also what he did right. The other part would be the opposite: The student spectacting a game in which one or more of the teaching staff plays, to study their styles of play and pick up neat tricks.

I have been conducting the first part on occasion. Either by randomly creating such a game or by request. So I can say I agree

The second part would be neat too, but harder to achieve. Try and spectate the issued challenges or any game you find with a well known veteran. And obviously, feel free to contact anyone in the teaching staff to set up such games.

[Hank Scorpio]

I would like to teach, however, I can teach only 1 method of game play. A method that has destroyed civilisations, pillaged womens, and rained hell on earth.

This method is called, Hanky Panky.


It can only be taught to the masters.

NO MORE QUESTIONS.

[luke02]

Sign me up please, as a student though, I don't think I'm that good

[Trident]

One thing i dislike about the bombers is that you have to select a target when putting it in nuke mode, you should be able to change modes the same as silos or subs.

Incorrect. Right-click on the bomber, select SRBM mode, hit space bar to deselect the bomber. Granted, it will automatically target the waypoint at which it was aimed before you changed it's mode, which is a PITA, but you don't have to select a target. I will generally launch my bombers in a large wave, and put them in SRBM mode immediately, and move them to a point way beyond the intended target, much as described above, but I don't use a city to do it.

xander

What i ment was that once you hit the space-bar it should not automatically target the waypoint at which it was aimed. It is a pain because if your not paying attention you could accidently nuke your own cities/ units.

[Montyphy]

It is a pain because if your not paying attention you could accidently nuke your own cities/ units.

That's why you should always pay attention

[Radiant Caligula]

It is a pain because if your not paying attention you could accidently nuke your own cities/ units.

That's why you should always pay attention

I'm suspecting you use left click to navigate your bombers after switching to nuke mode?

Right click, as with everything else.

[Torp]

Okay, I'd like a short little class from the masters on target priority. No need for a game, a post in here would be enough.

What units and structures do you put as your priority to destroy? In naval combat and when sending a nuclear strike.

In naval combat, I usually target the battleships first. I'm used to winning my naval combats, and unless I'm playing a good enemy, battleships will cause the most losses. Once I've taken out the battleships (using battleships, bombers and if the enemy does not send anti-sub with his battleships, subs (on passive sonar, with manual targeting), I mop up the rest. If the enemy is good, I'll try to go for his carriers if the opportunity shows itself (if I'm not winning the combat, I'd at least want to take out the enemy units that can actually cause me real damage).

When nuking, I generally ignore air bases and silos. My primary targets are usually any forward radars, followed by cities. I might send off a nuke or two against airbases in my line of travel, if using bombers, because that will often up their survivability, and a silo that decides to fire its missiles while my bombers are inbound can expect to attract one or two as well, just to get a hit and remove five nukes (the logic not being "those nukes could hit me" but "those nukes could hit something and give him more points than I want him to have").

Also, how is your bomber/fighter ratio during naval combats? That is, how many carriers do you use to send out bombers once the fleets clashes, and how many send out fighters?

[Ace Rimmer]

Okay, I'd like a short little class from the masters on target priority. No need for a game, a post in here would be enough.

Adjunct Professor Ace Rimmer Says:

What units and structures do you put as your priority to destroy? In naval combat and when sending a nuclear strike.

In naval combat, I usually target the battleships first. I'm used to winning my naval combats, and unless I'm playing a good enemy, battleships will cause the most losses. Once I've taken out the battleships (using battleships, bombers and if the enemy does not send anti-sub with his battleships, subs (on passive sonar, with manual targeting), I mop up the rest. If the enemy is good, I'll try to go for his carriers if the opportunity shows itself (if I'm not winning the combat, I'd at least want to take out the enemy units that can actually cause me real damage).

This type of strategy is exactly why I win so much, and presumably why the other "masters" do as well. (as you said yourself) Your target priority is all off. Most every game that I play I end up with no/very few battleships but all/nearly all my carriers and anyone who's worth their salt will (and already has) say that carriers are the most important naval unit. So please define what you mean by wining... If I manage to take out every carrier an enemy player has but leave all his battleships and he takes out only my battleships (even all of them) but no carriers, he by far has not won the naval fight. Target battleships first only if you see them first. Why not become a master too?

Short lesson...

Going on the offensive: Naval Target Priorities:

• If seen, Subs
• Carriers
• Bombers
• Battleships
• Fighters

Also remember: If you take out a enemy's carriers first, your subs can deal with the battleships relatively safely. As a bonus, even if he has tons of bombers up in the air but you eliminate his naval bases (carriers), he has to fly them home if he can and is now severely limited on what he can effectively target with those (now land based) bombers. It is almost always a bad idea to use subs in naval combat before they've unloaded their nukes. Even if you don't lose a single sub in naval combat, having them ready at the right time at the right place is far better. Subs are slow and need maximum time to get into position. A quick tip about subs: being able to (effectively) unload them early means for the rest of the game they can be on patrol while the other guy (who previously was using them in combat) is now trying to sneak around in passive mode.

Being Defensive. Presumably when your on the run and have limited resources. First, nimble fleets can scatter and stretch the opposing players forces to thin to do serious damage. I.e., dividing your fleet in opposite directions to regroup later when safe. Never get in a position that doesn't allow two paths of escape. If necessary, bait a player one direction (thus sacrificing the unit) whilst your main fleet escapes. Defensive Naval Target Priorities:

• Bombers, if you ships are threatened
• Fighters, if your bombers are threatened
• Carriers
• Battleships
• *Subs, last because your priority is salvaging you own fleet at the moment

*Always keep track of last known position and movement of enemy subs. They are slow enough to be caught later in most cases.

Destroying Naval Units 101:
While a swarm of a thousand fighters can destroy a fleet of any size, it's better to retain your fighters to use against bombers later. Many a game have I wished I had just a couple of more fighters to fend off that last minute bomber attack. Instead:

1. Use bombers against carriers/battleships in that order.
2. Use battleships to screen out fighters, thus protecting your bombers who should ALWAYS stay behind your battleships. I.e., never send your bombers directly at an enemy ship thus breaching the "front line".
3. As soon as you spot enemy bombers, scramble fighters to take them out, always manually targeting them to maximize the effect. One lone fighter can wreak havoc on a swarm of bombers if you do the targeting.

Also, how is your bomber/fighter ratio during naval combats? That is, how many carriers do you use to send out bombers once the fleets clashes, and how many send out fighters?

I think this is a player preference, but the more bombers you scramble the better odds you have of destroying enemy fleets at the risk of losing them. As far as fighter go, as I said before, one lone fighter can wreak havoc on a swarm of bombers. If you are targeting manually and he is not, use the minimum amount necessary. One fighter can take out several bombers, so keep a steady stream of them going as opposed to a huge swarm up in the air. Having 50 fighters airborne against 5/10+ bombers and some ships is a complete waste. Also remember to keep your carriers in a position to be reloaded with fighters from your bases as much as possible.

When nuking, I generally ignore air bases and silos. My primary targets are usually any forward radars, followed by cities. I might send off a nuke or two against airbases in my line of travel, if using bombers, because that will often up their survivability, and a silo that decides to fire its missiles while my bombers are inbound can expect to attract one or two as well, just to get a hit and remove five nukes (the logic not being "those nukes could hit me" but "those nukes could hit something and give him more points than I want him to have").

Here again you're off. There may be a bit of difference in land targeting amongst the "masters" but you don't have to hit many of the big cities to win. Most players leave the smaller/medium cities alone most all of the game focusing on the "big" points. If you can get there first, great! But don't get too caught up in that to miss out on other opportunities.

Land targeting 101: Assuming you've scouted and/or have the proper intel...

1. Radar
2. Bases
3. Silos
4. *Cities

Why in this order? Assuming you've scouted and/or have the proper intel...Well first, if he can't see your inbound bombers, he can't take them out. Scrambled fighters have limited radar. Second, if he has no bases to scramble fighters, he can't take out your bombers at all. Third, if he has no silos, nuke him into oblivion!. I've proven to myself over and over that waiting till the second wave to hit his radar will cost more nukes than sending 6/8 missiles at a radar to begin with (against those who cluster silos).. *In cases like NY, Moscow, Sao Paulo where it's more likely to be a concentration of silos, you can target those cites if you get close enough first.

Remember, leaving that one/two silo/s he has left in order to nuke only cites will end up costing you more points than you want. Having ALL your nukes land vs having 80% because of a couple of silos is far better. Especially if you take note of the population in each city and target appropriately. It only takes 6 to nuke a city. With no silos in the way, you can more effectively proportion your strike so as not to waste nukes on one small city while not hitting another large one.

Lastly, I've made it my specialty to come back from the brink of defeat to winning/second place at the end of the game. There are usually enough cities left with enough population in most every game to come back from (even a negative score) and win with just the scraps. This of course doesn't work to well against other great players who generally don't defend their cities.

Disclaimer: The lists above are in precise order. Failing to use the proper order will result in decreased results.

[xander]

--==<snip>==--

This is just my opinion, and it is more than likely that someone who is much better at the game than I will come along and correct me, but my priorities tend to run like this:

Naval Battles

1. Carriers. Carriers, in my opinion, the single most powerful mobile unit in the game. They carry six nukes (two loaded plus four extra), two bombers, and five fighters. They can inflict damage on any unit in the game, either by themselves or by launching against other units. If you see a carrier, take it out. It should be your highest priority. You should seek them out to destroy them. If you can take out a player's carriers, you have crippled them for the rest of the game. Carriers should be targeted by bombers.
2. Bombers. Bombers are very powerful against naval units. Bombers are very weak against fighters. If your opponent has bombers in the air, you need to take them out. Fighters work well. If your opponent gets close enough, battleships work well. If your ships start taking hits from an unknown source, it is most likely from bombers. Send some fighters off in the direction of the shots, or lead them a bit. It is very important that you get the bombers out of the air.
3. Subs. Subs are sneaky, can ruin your front line if you are not paying attention, and carry nukes if they get by. However, if you leave a couple of carriers near the front line in anti-sub mode, it should protect you from any front line subs. I wouldn't worry too much about them right off, but you do want them dead.
4. Battleships. Battleships are fairly useless. They are very good at taking out fighters and bombers, and can take out other naval units, but they are not very powerful, and they have little RADAR range. Ignore them if there are other units in the area.
5. Fighters. Fighters are dangerous to bombers, but not much else. Your battleships should be able to take them out without difficulty.

Ideally, this is how I would arrange my naval front line:

• Place battleships near the front line. While their RADAR is limited, it is useful. They are there to soak up damage, and to take out fighters that come your way. Expect them to die, and don't worry about it, and only target flying units with them.
• Throw two or three carriers into the front line mix. This will extend your front line RADAR a bit. Put those carriers in anti-sub mode. You may want to pull them back as your front line gets chewed.
• Keep the rest of your carriers back a bit. Launch fighters from about half of them. These fighters should be manually targeted, first against bombers, then against ships (which they are unlikely to shoot down, but it gives them something to do until more bombers are launched).
• Use the other half of the carriers to launch bombers. Do not fly your bombers straight at the enemy. Instead, try to stay just within range of visible units. Your bombers are very powerful, and very important to the game. You need to keep them alive. Use fighters and your battleships to extend your RADAR range into the enemy fleet, and keep your bombers back.
• Finally, if you are feeling brave, mix some subs into the front line. Keep them in passive mode, and target ships, carriers first.

Ground Units
You can't win without taking out civvies, so you have to target cities at some point. However, you will hit more cities if you take out your opponent's defenses first. Also, if you can take out their ability to attack, you hurt their ability to score. If you know where all of their units are, take out RADAR first, then silos, then airbases. However, in the end, you really want all of their silos and airbases destroyed. Remember, airbases can be used to launch fighters, which can take out your bombers; and bombers, which can take out your subs. If you opponent still has airbases, they can stop quite a few of your nukes. Silos can take out nukes, which means you want them dead, as well. You have tons of nukes, so take out infrastructure.

My general strategy is to take out infrastructure with bombers and subs, and not use my silos at all until the end game. That way, you know that your nukes will arrive, because there is nothing to defend against them. This works especially well in small games, but can work in larger games. Of course, you have to realize that your strategy will change depending upon game scoring mode. In genocide mode, it doesn't matter how much damage you take, so you may as well use your silos early, and not worry about targeting airbases as much. In survivor mode, you need to take out silos and airbases, but cities don't matter as much.

Anywho, there are my thoughts on the matter. Your milage may vary.

xander

[Feud]

When nuking, I generally ignore air bases and silos. My primary targets are usually any forward radars, followed by cities. I might send off a nuke or two against airbases in my line of travel, if using bombers, because that will often up their survivability, and a silo that decides to fire its missiles while my bombers are inbound can expect to attract one or two as well, just to get a hit and remove five nukes (the logic not being "those nukes could hit me" but "those nukes could hit something and give him more points than I want him to have").

Using default scoring:

I would disagree with your strategy here. IMO you should always target silos and airfields over cities. Once their forward radar is down your bombers should be rolling in to take out any infrastructure you can see. While silos are the most important, any visible airfields should not survive the opening wave (they will only launch fighters that will cripple your ability to mount a second wave).

The reason for this strategy is this:

Once their silos and airfileds are crippled you can attack their cities all you want. The goal of every should be to:
A) protect your ability to defend yourself and attack others
and
B) destroy your opponents ability to defend them self and attack you