vs. 5 allied CPUs - New Ongoing Tournament

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
Rogviler
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 3:38 am
Location: Here

vs. 5 allied CPUs - New Ongoing Tournament

Postby Rogviler » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:09 pm

I think it was Ace that posted a picture and debrief of a game versus five allied CPUs, though for some reason I can't seem to find it. Appologies if it's right in front of my face, I really meant to leave this under that topic.

Anyway, I wanted to try it for myself and it was surprisingly easy. There's a couple of tips I thought I would share if anyone wants to try it. I could see it turning into a contest of who can get more points...

1) Don't worry about placing your silos for defence. This should be obvious, but you have five players fighting for all of your points, so you're going to be left with nothing no matter what. The point is to get as many kills as you can to reverse this loss of points and eventually win. Place them as far away from coastlines and borders as you can. Otherwise you won't get a chance to fire them.

2) You need to fire as soon as Defcon 1 hits, because the CPUs are going to do the same with their subs, followed closely by bombers. So there's a good chance they'll be targeting your silos in the second or third wave, depending on if they discovered them immediately or had to wait until you fired them. A little trick is that the CPU always fires on radar like it's a bad recording of the Macarena. So, if you put your radar along coast and borders where it's visible, it'll buy you a few extra minutes while the CPU wastes nukes on them instead of your silos.

3) I HIGHLY suggest raising the percentage of nukes left for the victory timer to start. The first game I played I was sitting there for 4+ hours of in-game time, nothing left, waiting for the timer to start. I finally just quit. I think the CPU won't fire any more nukes once city populations reach a certain deadness (each CPU seemed to have anywhere from 50 to 100 nukes left at the end of the game). So I used 40 as the setting and the victory timer did start the next time I played. For that matter, you might want to lower the timer count, since once it starts you should be pretty thoroughly out of everything anyway, and the CPU will stop firing soon after. This is all just if you're impatient.

4) Try to hide your carriers if you can. Don't bother trying to fight naval battles or scan for subs with them. The CPUs collectively have enough nukes to kill you several times over, and the number of enemy ships will seem infinite, so it doesn't matter anyway. You're better off preserving them for bomber launches at cities. This can be hard, I've found, since carriers seem to have a mind of their own once they see other ships and start launching fighters. I tell them to go hide, they follow my orders for a couple seconds, then change course back towards the battle.

Normally I don't mind as much, but in this style of battle it's just frustrating. Frankly, I wish it would be changed. I hate it when I'm trying to launch waves of aircraft from the Atlantic to the Pacific across Panama, for instance, and the stupid carriers keep insisting on trying to go around the bottom of South America.

5) When you do launch, resist the temptation to take out silos or airbases. Like I said, there's so much collective nukage aimed at you that you'll never be able to soften the blow. What you need is points, so aim for cities.

6) Generally it seems like the CPUs launch their subs and bombers within a minute or two of Defcon 1, while silos launch at about 45:00. Keep this in mind and try to get your subs in place where they can hit some big cities when the silos start launching. You'll easily get 30% of your points this way if you're careful about not surfacing too close to the coast. Of course if you get your silos started the second Defcon 1 hits then your nukes will probably land when the CPU silos are firing, and that's always good.

7) Don't pick Europe. At least if you want big points. Trying to "hide" anything in Europe is pretty much like trying not to get run over in a Wal Mart parking lot. I'm sure someone will have a different opinion just for the sake of having it, so...

Anyone who wants to contribute tips or changes, feel free. This is just what I've observed for an easy 350-400 point win. I've heard tales of more points to be had, so there must be something I missed, though it could just be because some players are a lot better at coordination than I.

When all was said and done, I actually found it easier than 1v1 against the CPU because you know what's going to happen and you don't have to bother with defense. You just have to be quick and do a lot of mulitasking in a short amount of time, but it's pretty much a guaranteed win. The question is how big can YOU win?

-Rog
Last edited by Rogviler on Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: vs. 5 allied CPUs

Postby Xocrates » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:14 pm

Rogviler wrote:I think the CPU won't fire any more nukes once city populations reach a certain deadness (each CPU seemed to have anywhere from 50 to 100 nukes left at the end of the game).


Yes, I noticed that the CPU won't fire at cities with less than 1m in them. This might not be the exact value though.
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Re: vs. 5 allied CPUs

Postby Montyphy » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:24 pm

Rogviler wrote:I could see it turning into a contest of who can get more points...


I could see that being quite interesting.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.
Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
User avatar
Rogviler
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 3:38 am
Location: Here

Re: vs. 5 allied CPUs

Postby Rogviler » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:27 pm

Montyphy wrote:
Rogviler wrote:I could see it turning into a contest of who can get more points...


I could see that being quite interesting.


Perhaps that could be a new King of the Hill-type ongoing tournament? Since it would be single-player, the obvious #1 rule is that there would have to be at least one well-known person spectating. Having a screenshot as proof just goes without saying...

-Rog
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Re: vs. 5 allied CPUs

Postby Montyphy » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:32 pm

Rogviler wrote:
Montyphy wrote:
Rogviler wrote:I could see it turning into a contest of who can get more points...


I could see that being quite interesting.


Perhaps that could be a new King of the Hill-type ongoing tournament?


Could even have divisions/subcategories, one for each continent.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.

Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
User avatar
Rogviler
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 3:38 am
Location: Here

Re: vs. 5 allied CPUs

Postby Rogviler » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:01 am

Montyphy wrote:
Could even have divisions/subcategories, one for each continent.


Ah yes, I like it!

A basic outline would be: Default Scoring, Default Game Mode, all default settings except change the Victory Timer trigger to at least 35 so the game will actually end. Pick any continent, make sure someone's spectating that we all know and trust (a referee of sorts), or even have them host so they can be sure of the game settings. Then post your score (with screenshot) if it tops the previous record for that continent.

I vote there be no attention paid to the scores of the CPUs, as it's largely going to come out the same anyway. It's about how many points YOU can get.

Anything else?

-Rog

EDIT: Would anyone agree that you don't have to have a spectator if you're well-known yourself? Also, I would like to say that I'm almost always available so I'd be happy to volunteer as a ref.
Last edited by Rogviler on Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
snwcrsh
level2
level2
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:00 pm

Postby snwcrsh » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:11 am

if you guys trust me already, i'm happy to be a ref. sounds like much fun... but i suck too bad in MM .. need more practice yet :)
User avatar
Rogviler
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 3:38 am
Location: Here

Postby Rogviler » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:39 am

Since we're most likely going to go pointage by continent, I just did a test to make sure that it's not totally hopeless to play as Europe, and it isn't, but I only got 298 points (granted, I loathe playing Europe). Still a win, but I have a feeling that's going to be the most challenging continent and the record is going to creep up only by a handfull of points each time.

I have no problem with snwcrsh being a ref. I'm just concerned about new people or those we know aren't trustworthy coming along with a photoshopped screenshot and a buddy spectating to come vouch for their fake points.

No need to go overboard though. Just a little security is advisable since it's single-player.

-Rog
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:43 am

1. I said it here.

2. I've been running Defcon at work now since 10:20pm GMT Friday (its still running). Just launched my silos and waited for the CPU onslaught. Hid my navy above Russia and put it on real time. Alas, just logged into work and couldn't get it come back up from minimized to tray and realized I've got it running 1.3 Beta 3, which is still when the boss mode didn't work correctly. D'oh! Now I'll never know what the CPU did (if anything) to my fully stocked navy. When I stopped, the CPU had killed all my silos and radar but left two airbases which I used to restock my carriers with fighters. I was playing as Russia.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Rogviler
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 3:38 am
Location: Here

Postby Rogviler » Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:28 am

Thanks, Ace. I thought it was a seperate post, that's why I couldn't find it. Anyway, this is taking an interresting path, so I'm glad it got its own thread.

I've been experimenting with different modes... I defnitely think Default is best. Although I had some fun just now with changing some of the settings around. I managed 1995 points before a CPU sub snuck in and I ended up with 1826 (yes, I did a little creative experimentation - ten points to whoever guesses the settings/gameplay). This is definitely NOT an official entry into the highscores list, and I strongly vote in favor of Default because I was reaching the theoretical limit of 2000 points. There's no possible way to get any more. And that would be no fun.

I'll probably be hanging around tonight if anyone wants to have a go at the first high score.

-Rog
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:32 am

Single city, 200 population,default scoring, all on the same team until you are ready to strike?
User avatar
Rogviler
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 3:38 am
Location: Here

Postby Rogviler » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:17 am

Feud wrote:Single city, 200 population,default scoring, all on the same team until you are ready to strike?


Ten points to Gryffindor!

Although I'll add that I did a little "neutering of the cat", as it were, before I defected. Must've missed a couple subs though...

But prior to that I did a 1v5 from the start using the same rules and got about 1850, so I still think default is better.

-Rog
User avatar
DueAccident
level3
level3
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:30 am

Postby DueAccident » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:22 pm

Technically 1 v 5 is the way, if it stays at 1 v 5 the entire match, you have the most chance of winning, which seems odd at first glance, but it's true.
The 5 will only have a potential 200 points between all of them, no doubt they will all scramble for the points, thus everyone gets a smaller share than desired.
You on the other hand have 1000 points potentially, if you can striker first, or while they are launching, you will win the game easily.

It's odd how Defcon has been constructed that the larger the number against you, the less chance you have of surviving, but the more chance you have of winning.
torig
level5
level5
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Postby torig » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:58 am

DueAccident wrote:It's odd how Defcon has been constructed that the larger the number against you, the less chance you have of surviving, but the more chance you have of winning.


Only depends on your definition of winning.
In the game setting, obviously scoring more equals to winning.

But if you are 4th (based on score), have 150 million survivors, and all others are left with only 35-55 million survivors, who truly won?

But these points have been discussed over these boards pretty exhaustively in the past IIRC ;)
Last edited by torig on Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16868
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:28 am

torig wrote:But if you are 4th (based on score), have 150 million survivors, and all others are left with only 35-55 million survivors, [who] truly won?

Um... the guy in first. If you are playing Genocide or Default, you have to get kills to score points. If you don't, then you don't win. If you want to claim a victory based on the number of survivors that you have, then you should be playing with survivor scoring.

xander

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests