You guys might be sick of talking about this but...

[Artificial]

Yeah, I gotta talk about DEFCON again. But not actually about its gameplay features in comparison to this game... As you know of course, DEFCON was developed not just as a nuclear strategy game, but as a way to send a horrifying message. To make people feel the full awful weight of such skirmishes. And it was ridiculously effective at this.

So I guess my question is, do you guys wish this game to go in a different and much more tactical gameplay-focused direction or do you also wish to convey that sense of dread and horror as well that DEFCON gave and be a sort of remake of it?

Don't worry, I'm not looking for any right answer to this or anything. I see both directions of development as perfectly valid for different reasons. On one hand, you guys may not want to rehash old ground, and further, try to one-up something that has already been done perfectly well. But on the other hand, DEFCON is getting to be quite old, and the game is seriously beginning to fail to even run on modern systems. Plus, it may be good to have a spiritual successor to it to remind everyone anew of the sanctity of human life.

[Ufnv]

Hi!

I am not trying to specifically reproduce the dark atmosphere of DEFCON, instead ICBM is more focused on different strategic doctrines.

In DEFCON you definitely get this depressing feel and the general understanding of the nuclear war implications, but one question remains unanswered. Like "ok, I see that a nuclear war cannot be won against the equal nuclear power, but WHAT IF I am smart enough to get some advantage before starting it?"

So in ICBM you can be that smart a$$ and try to implement your own strategy to disable enemy possibility to respond, thus breaking the MAD principle.

And the game tries to show that any strategy will still result in MAD, even if you lose less than your enemy. Unless you play 1v1 against a novice player, any war is extremely bloody and all sides suffer a lot.

[Artificial]

Originally posted by Ufnv:

Hi!

I am not trying to specifically reproduce the dark atmosphere of DEFCON, instead ICBM is more focused on different strategic doctrines.

In DEFCON you definitely get this depressing feel and the general understanding of the nuclear war implications, but one question remains unanswered. Like "ok, I see that a nuclear war cannot be won against the equal nuclear power, but WHAT IF I am smart enough to get some advantage before starting it?"

So in ICBM you can be that smart a$$ and try to implement your own strategy to disable enemy possibility to respond, thus breaking the MAD principle.

And the game tries to show that any strategy will still result in MAD, even if you lose less than your enemy. Unless you play 1v1 against a novice player, any war is extremely bloody and all sides suffer a lot.

Fair enough! One more question. Do you guys plan to at least have full feature parity with DEFCON then or will some features not make it in but we'll also have new features instead in their place?

[Ufnv]

Well, I believe ICBM is much richer feature-wise.

One thing ICBM does not have is the timed switch between unit modes (silo <-> sam, etc).
Also no DEFCON stages - you can use everything from the very beginning of the match

What are the specific features you are interested in?

[Artificial]

Originally posted by Ufnv:

Well, I believe ICBM is much reacher feature-wise.

One thing ICBM does not have is the timed switch between unit modes (silo <-> sam, etc).
Also no DEFCON stages - you can use everything from the very beginning of the match

What are the specific features you are interested in?

Nice! I guess I was most curious about the diplomacy and server features in particular.

[Ufnv]

Diplomacy works in the same way as in DEFCON - vote based.

You can join alliance, leave alliance, kick someone off.
Also you can share radar and espionage info, share the info on your nuclear assets, share research.

You can select what faction you want to spy on.

Server configuration values:
- amount of points to distribute
- Time control pool
- unit auto-deployment time
- Full warhead production efficiency time
- Contamination speed
- Countdown trigger
- Countdown timer
- Min rating to join the game
- Scoring mode
- [switch] rated match
- [switch] allow spectators
- [switch] Auto slowdown
- [switch] Equalize population
- [switch] GDP affected by losses
- [switch] Random Region
- [switch] Diplomacy enabled
- [switch] Start in alliance
- [switch] Build on allied territory
- [switch] Predefined Teams
- Server password
- Map to use
- Enabled technologies (you can disable any tech)

[Artificial]

Nice. How many spectators will be allowed per game? I also remember DEFCON had an issue where if a spectator joined mid-game, it could take a long time to sync the spectator to the server.

Oh, also, don't forget real-time mode. Or "Office" mode as it's called in DEFCON.

[Ufnv]

Total maximum of the players is 10, players + spectators = 14 - it's the limitation of the network server. So it could be 2 players + 12 spectators or 8 players + 6 spectators.

Re-connect is nearly instant in-game. As is the server migration if the player who hosts the server "rage quit" or has some problems with Internet. So you can join and leave the game at any time - until there is at least one player there it does not create a problem and it is very fast.

The game is paced differently, so there is just no that kind of mode. Typical game length is about 1h.

For DEFCON the "real-time" mode is important because first of all it is extremely heavy in micro-management and second the speed of different units are very close to each other. I.e the speed of a ballistic missile is marginally more that the speed of bomber that is marginally more than the speed of a carrier.

In ICBM you usually have less micro-management (much more automation is available) and the speeds are much more different. So if you want to have a real "real-time" mode with a nuke flying for 20 minutes from NA to EU, then you'll have a carrier crossing an ocean in more than a day.

Another difference is the game time speed "voting" mechanics. In DEFCON the game uses the slowest of the requested game speeds. In ICBM if you request the time speed slower than average (or pause the game), then your "Time Control Pool" goes down. When it is becomes zero, the speed of the game automatically restores to the average requested and you need to replenish your Time Pool to pause or slow down again.

[Saides]

Originally posted by Artificial:

Originally posted by Ufnv:

Hi!

.... Do you guys plan to at least have full feature parity with DEFCON then or will some features not make it in but we'll also have new features instead in their place?

ICBM has far surpassed Defcon imho
What do you say has Defcon got [besides the harrowing soundtrack/background music] over ICBM - Do tell ?

[Artificial]

Originally posted by Saides:

ICBM has far surpassed Defcon imho
What do you say has Defcon got [besides the harrowing soundtrack/background music] over ICBM - Do tell ?

Your quotes are mixed up. Who are you asking?

[Saides]

asking Artificial

[Artificial]

Originally posted by Saides:

asking Artificial

As you pointed out, DEFCON has a very distinct and awesome atmosphere, not as concerned really with being a full complete strategy game experience as it is with being immersive. It sucks you in and it stabs you emotionally.

But although DEFCON was definitely unique when it came out, in comparison to ICBM now, it's sort of a one-trick pony. ICBM is concerned with what DEFCON wasn't really. Being a full complete strategy game experience. It's not going for the immersion of DEFCON.

So, which is better? Neither of them. They both are aiming at and excel at different things. In my opinion, one should play DEFCON first, and once they've experienced that atmosphere and message that DEFCON is going for, they can play ICBM if, as the devs say, they wanna be a smartass and get a real strategic and fun challenge.

[Saides]

Kk thats fair eough