Hey all. I'm very new to this game but my friends and I have already come up with a few suggestions I'd like to share. The first of all being Infantry/Armor units and invading countries. We (my friends and I) thought it'd be fun to be able to invade a country. You would make battalions of infantry and armor and roll on into enemy territory (You could invade cross Ocean enemies by the use of Troop Transport ships). I'm sure it'd been suggested before and I know it could work very well. I'd also like to elaborate on Invasions. Here's a scenario: You are in the middle of the end of the world. You want to ally with a neighboring country, but they reject you. So what do you do? You invade. By taking over a predetermined 'Capital' city, you then control the region. You have full control of the regions silos, airbases, etc. I also think that 'Special Abilities' would be sick. For instance, South East Asia would have control of the Oil Fields. This would result in their Air Force having longer range. I haven't really thought of all of them yet, but you get my drift. Lastly, I think maps of single continents would be cool. The ability to wage war only in Europe or Asia or Africa or wherever. Where instead of regions being divvied up, it would be countrys or alliances. Those are just some of my ideas that I thought were cool. Feel free to comment. Thanks!
boost
Infantry/Armor/Invasions/Continent Maps/Special Abilities
Moderator: Defcon moderators
Infantry/Armor/Invasions/Continent Maps/Special Abilities
Semper Vigilans.
-
palehorse864
- level2
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:54 am
Actually I don't think just this idea would "Make it command and conquer", it's too far removed for that. Although I think your idea has no chance, the best way it could be implemented is to somehow focus on the continental warfare and basically create land icons for the sea units. The battleship becomes a tank, etc.
While I am not sure land battle would work, I do think it could be interesting if we could take the war down to a single continent. IKf it would require land units though, it would be best to make them operate like the sea units. It would add a little variety though to change up the map. I mean, there isn't much you can do to change maps in a game based on the earth.
Edit: Alternatively, someone suggested allowing us to make maps. I suppose there are areas of the world where you could potentially confine naval warfare to a bay or gulf and increase the size of a land war.
While I am not sure land battle would work, I do think it could be interesting if we could take the war down to a single continent. IKf it would require land units though, it would be best to make them operate like the sea units. It would add a little variety though to change up the map. I mean, there isn't much you can do to change maps in a game based on the earth.
Edit: Alternatively, someone suggested allowing us to make maps. I suppose there are areas of the world where you could potentially confine naval warfare to a bay or gulf and increase the size of a land war.
I'd like to see the DEFCON levels linked to your or enemy action...
Send the tanks over the border, it goes to DEFCON 3.
However, I think any ground combat should be highly abstracted - to avoid over-running a contry, and given the time-scale of the game - tanks wouldn't advance very far in a single day.... not that a ship can sale the length of the Atlantic the same time a missile can reach the USSR from the USA, but hey!
Send the tanks over the border, it goes to DEFCON 3.
However, I think any ground combat should be highly abstracted - to avoid over-running a contry, and given the time-scale of the game - tanks wouldn't advance very far in a single day.... not that a ship can sale the length of the Atlantic the same time a missile can reach the USSR from the USA, but hey!
Tanks, soldiers, battlemechs, and fluffy puppies mean absolutely NOTHING in a situation where nukes are being used.
In a game where the use of nukes was unlikely, your ideas would be good. But in this game, it always turns into a nuke fest.
Conventional weapons have no chance of effecting the outcome in nuclear war.
In a game where the use of nukes was unlikely, your ideas would be good. But in this game, it always turns into a nuke fest.
Conventional weapons have no chance of effecting the outcome in nuclear war.
I have only one exception for my stance against no ground units, that being some sort of special forces unit.
I named them "Subs on land" to link them to an existing unit. My idea was basically to have them as a small (assumed to be mechanised/airborne) unit which has no amphibious capability and moved like a submarine on the land. They could disrupt radar or nuclear missile operations, but never destroy or damage anything. Detected by other SpecOps units. Or perhaps they could just patch into the enemy radar for a moment.
Major problems: Well, it's not terribly realistic to have them cross countries in the time we're talking, but then again DEFCON isn't 100% simulation. Arguably, they're not terribly useful. Finally, they'd probably take too much work to put into the game; work likely to be beyond simple modding.
Invasions wouldn't work at all, play Civilisation IV if you're into that. I would hate it if I was playing and suddenly I was invaded and totally removed from playing. Getting nuked into oblivion I can understand; I might still have control at the end of it, but being totally removed makes no sense. Tanks and troops would make the game too complex, but if it ever was done I'd suggest they were just merged as one unit: Mechanised Infantry. Perhaps they could attack only radar sites and enemy land units, or act as mobile AA.
At DEFCON1 they'd become totally useless except as AA defence, but in saying that I suppose battleships are also useless except as AA unless enemy fleets still exist.
In any event, it'd add too much to a game that is supposed to be simple, and the vast majority of the community seems to be opposed to it. Personally I'd be interested if it was at MOST only two units that couldn't destroy silos or do anything significant (like attack cities, say maximum they could hit radar sites), but anything other than that I wouldn't bother with.
I named them "Subs on land" to link them to an existing unit. My idea was basically to have them as a small (assumed to be mechanised/airborne) unit which has no amphibious capability and moved like a submarine on the land. They could disrupt radar or nuclear missile operations, but never destroy or damage anything. Detected by other SpecOps units. Or perhaps they could just patch into the enemy radar for a moment.
Major problems: Well, it's not terribly realistic to have them cross countries in the time we're talking, but then again DEFCON isn't 100% simulation. Arguably, they're not terribly useful. Finally, they'd probably take too much work to put into the game; work likely to be beyond simple modding.
Invasions wouldn't work at all, play Civilisation IV if you're into that. I would hate it if I was playing and suddenly I was invaded and totally removed from playing. Getting nuked into oblivion I can understand; I might still have control at the end of it, but being totally removed makes no sense. Tanks and troops would make the game too complex, but if it ever was done I'd suggest they were just merged as one unit: Mechanised Infantry. Perhaps they could attack only radar sites and enemy land units, or act as mobile AA.
At DEFCON1 they'd become totally useless except as AA defence, but in saying that I suppose battleships are also useless except as AA unless enemy fleets still exist.
In any event, it'd add too much to a game that is supposed to be simple, and the vast majority of the community seems to be opposed to it. Personally I'd be interested if it was at MOST only two units that couldn't destroy silos or do anything significant (like attack cities, say maximum they could hit radar sites), but anything other than that I wouldn't bother with.
gazz07 wrote:Conventional weapons have no chance of effecting the outcome in nuclear war.
This is not strictly true... well, not in the realworld anyway.
Russia is very worried about that very prospect. Ever since the 1999 Kosovo Air-War, and the fact that NATO member states are creeping closer and closer to Russia, the main fear in the Kremlin is a conventional strike against their strategic weapons.
New US bunker busters and other smart munitions could be employed in a strike against Russian Strategic weapons... a large chunk of their land based ICBMs and bombers could be destroyed.
Now, since National Missile Defence could never defend against a full Russian Nuclear strike - it may be effective against a depleted Russian strike following a surprise conventional attack by NATO air assets.
Furthermore... even though Russia may be able to get a handful of nukes or SLBMs into the USA, they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US will reply in kind - and probably ten fold, since the US could use their subs and ICBM's to mop up the remnants of the Russian rocket forces, and/or hit Russian cities...
Thus, after a conventional strike - Russia may be in a situation where they are forced to surrender because they cannot use their nukes in sufficent number to deter the US, or force the US to back down.
We can see this by the fact the Russians still operate mobile SS-27 Topol M missiles, they have hardened silos, and in their exercises they tend to start them with a large airstrike from the enemy, culimating in nuclear missile launch - the message being, that a conventional attack on their nuclear weapons, will be considered a first strike in stategic terms, which will get a nuclear reply...
As a legacy of the Soveit WW2 experience, the Kremlin always plays in worse case scenerios... so talk of a war with the west does not mean that the Russians welcome that prospect or that it is around the corner, just that the worse case scenerio for the Kremlin is a war with the west, and so they ought to prepare themselves, so that they are never caught out again like there were in 1941.
Also, do a youtube serach for the Topol M... some cool Russian films.
-
blackwhitehawk
- level2
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:21 pm
-
Mighty Santa
- level2
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:10 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
palehorse864 wrote:Edit: Alternatively, someone suggested allowing us to make maps. I suppose there are areas of the world where you could potentially confine naval warfare to a bay or gulf and increase the size of a land war.
That would have been me.
--
Map Making is an immense aspect to this game few are considering.
*must post more on this tomorrow !
4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42
-
Dr. Strangelove
- level1
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:05 am
- Location: Denial (Canada)
- Contact:
Lol wow how do you find all that stuff out. Did you do a paper over it or something?
seems we have quite a few cold war historians here... perhaps someone would like to discuss the current geo-political crisis with me?
How I learned to stop worrying and love The Bomb.
tired of your old music? tell me about it! ill find you something new, or my parents didn't name me for a truckers life!
tired of your old music? tell me about it! ill find you something new, or my parents didn't name me for a truckers life!
Mclucky wrote:Problem with land units, what happens if it's a 1v1 game and you're playing Europe and the enemy is playing America?
They'd be pretty flipping useless.
what about a 2vs2 game?
NorthAmerica allied with Europe or Russia or Asia....
so lets say North America and Russia vs Europe and Asia.... Europe and Asia could attack Russia from both sides with full power while North America must send the ground units long time over water
Did you know that some ideas are bad?
Did you even bother to read other topics similar to yours?
Did you even bother to read anything before you posted your ideas?
Or did you just come to the forums to propose this thinking it hasn't been asked before?
(Serioulsy folks, how many people just don't read the fourms before posting? Is it still considered flaming when the OP isn't thoughtful enough to seek out the answers on his own?)
Did you even bother to read other topics similar to yours?
Did you even bother to read anything before you posted your ideas?
Or did you just come to the forums to propose this thinking it hasn't been asked before?
(Serioulsy folks, how many people just don't read the fourms before posting? Is it still considered flaming when the OP isn't thoughtful enough to seek out the answers on his own?)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests