Nova Bacia Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Can someone explain me why everyone is so furious about the change?In general, defcon doesn't even have a significant meaning other then "bluf". "Hey, watch it, I'm at defcon 1!" Defcon 5=1.. LOL, I never loose a battle at defcon 5.. This topic isn't even relevant. What's there to discuss? I suggest defcon gets a real purpose. you have obviously never fought a proper battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastr0ce Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) you have obviously never fought a proper battle. I rest my case. Edited November 16, 2007 by lastr0ce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDave Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 If a country was bombed by terrorists they would go straight to defcon one / black special. This change makes CN less like real life... But then CN doesn't have to be like real life. Larger nations can sit somewhere mid range without too much of a hit on income Time will tell how effective this is. Two levels change at a time might be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Lee Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 This has made DEFCONS 1-4 useless. People will not wait 5 days to switch and will just fight in DEFCON5 is my bet. at least thats what i will do, terrible change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I don't like this at all. This will tip everyone off as to a war coming...furthermore, coordinating this at an alliance level (when people don't log on everyday), isn't fair to the people that collect once or twice a week and are then expected to fight with the rest of the alliance at a lower defcon level. Was that quote you pulled in the OP from the Game Update Log, Slayer99? I ask because it's not there atm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auto98 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 screw it, im havin my alliance spy me to DEFCON 1 Quoted, cos it would become easier to have an ally spy you to defcon1 than to do it yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) I rest my case. 185,871 Attacking + 10,220 Defending = 196,091 Casualties. You have obviously never been in an even conflict where your enemy is prepared to fight just like you are. Preying on rogues and tech raiding is easy to do in Defcon 5. Fighting an alliance war against 4 or 6 nations at a time is a whole different story. Please learn something before coming back to post here again. I rest my case. EDIT: your nation is obviously a remake nation now that I look closer, so I have no historical facts to draw from. But going from the information I currently have... Also, how the hell did your nation get 6000 miles of land, 1500 tech, 5000 infra, and 200,000 casualties in 24 days? Edited November 16, 2007 by Willaim Kreiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 185,871 Attacking + 10,220 Defending = 196,091 Casualties.You have obviously never been in an even conflict where your enemy is prepared to fight just like you are. Preying on rogues and tech raiding is easy to do in Defcon 5. Fighting an alliance war against 4 or 6 nations at a time is a whole different story. Please learn something before coming back to post here again. I rest my case. EDIT: your nation is obviously a remake nation now that I look closer, so I have no historical facts to draw from. But going from the information I currently have... Also, how the hell did your nation get 6000 miles of land, 1500 tech, 5000 infra, and 200,000 casualties in 24 days? How about diskord? He has 1.3 million attacking and 940,000 defending casualties and he proposed this change. See his defense of it here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=7670 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) I liked this change. Make the pacifist "nation builders" suffer militarily if they want to make as much money as possible in defcon 5. Edited November 16, 2007 by der_ko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastr0ce Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 185,871 Attacking + 10,220 Defending = 196,091 Casualties.You have obviously never been in an even conflict where your enemy is prepared to fight just like you are. Preying on rogues and tech raiding is easy to do in Defcon 5. Fighting an alliance war against 4 or 6 nations at a time is a whole different story. Please learn something before coming back to post here again. I rest my case. EDIT: your nation is obviously a remake nation now that I look closer, so I have no historical facts to draw from. But going from the information I currently have... Also, how the hell did your nation get 6000 miles of land, 1500 tech, 5000 infra, and 200,000 casualties in 24 days? Casualties mean nothing man. I've been in quite a few "real fights", I even restarted twice, so I know something about the warsystem. I've been tripled several times, so once again, I know stuff. all I was pointing out was that defcon isn't such a big deal. It mainly indicates your getting ready for the threat coming. It's not hard switching from defcon 5 to 1.. It requires no strategy, hence why I said it's irrelevant in a war. So I may rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 How about diskord? He has 1.3 million attacking and 940,000 defending casualties and he proposed this change. See his defense of it here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=7670 He doesn't defend it there, he proposes a compromise, which I agree with more than the change, but still would rather see nothing happen at all then see any change. Casualties mean nothing man.I've been in quite a few "real fights", I even restarted twice, so I know something about the warsystem. I've been tripled several times, so once again, I know stuff. all I was pointing out was that defcon isn't such a big deal. It mainly indicates your getting ready for the threat coming. It's not hard switching from defcon 5 to 1.. It requires no strategy, hence why I said it's irrelevant in a war. So I may rest my case. As per my edit I recognized that you were a restarted nation after I posted. Casualties do mean something if it is your original nation and you only have a very small amount, it means you have little war experience and don't know what your talking about from first hand experience. As you have re-made your nation the argument doesn't apply to you per se. Defcon 1 and Defcon 5 require little strategy yes, but they do matter in war quite a bit. I still wanna know how you go so much in 24 days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Lastr0ce is a bold raider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mobius Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Pretty much every point I've come up with has been said, but I'll go on the record to say this is a horrible idea. BTW, I liked the idea of bumping defcon with spies. That's just ridiculous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucullus Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 This idea is crap. 'Nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Terrible... 'nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestro Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) I agree with admin. Sure it will suck for me, but this is a more realistic change (I think)and it affects everyone so it's fair. Also, I doubt any smart player uses the DEFCON levels 2-4 frequently. However I would like to suggest that for a nation who is attacked, to be able to change their DEFOCN levels faster. Edited November 16, 2007 by thedestro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I agree with admin. Sure it will suck for me, but this is a more realistic change (I think) It's only realistic if you believe everything you see in the movies (remember, folks, people who watch those movies like drama llamas as much as we do). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Gadarene Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I'd rather not. Sorry, Admin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I really dislike this change. Like mentioned before, it'll slow down alliances that are preparing for war and that spies option to change the Defcon back to 5 could really screw a nation up. Also, unexpected attacks from a rogue could really hurt a nation and having to wait a couple days for defcon 1 to come would probably be too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark2600 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Horrid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I really dislike this change. Like mentioned before, it'll slow down alliances that are preparing for war and that spies option to change the Defcon back to 5 could really screw a nation up. Also, unexpected attacks from a rogue could really hurt a nation and having to wait a couple days for defcon 1 to come would probably be too late. Spais is a problem, true, but I don't see any other problem. This might shock you (aswell as many others), but staying in defcon 5 all the time might not be optimal. Maybe if you stayed in defcon 3 instead you would solve the problems you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitauts Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 I no longer see this in the Admin's (the Almighty!) update logs.. its possible that all our prayers reached him on high and he decided to think about it some more. Thank you admin, great is your wisdom! King Vitauts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyne Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 I hope this change is implimented. No one uses Defcon 2, 3, and 4. Why should they? There is no reason to even have them in the game at this point unless some system is in place.How is it realistic to have your troops instantly at readiness? It takes days to go from Defcon 5 to Defcon 1. You have to recall troops and cancel leaves, you need to repair your equipment for an increased tempo of operations, and you have to deploy troops to staging areas to move onto the battlefield for max effectiveness (Please note nuclear weapons can do this, I am talking about conventional forces maximum readiness). You can't simply snap your fingers and make it happen like in CN. Would this change war and warfighting strategy, sure. However it would add a little bit more realism and make Defcon 2, 3, and 4 something you might actually see. Blitzes and quad attacks would still take place. You just have to make sure funds are stored prior to the conflict as your ability to collect during a war has been reduced. This is a minor change that I hope will be adopted. You've had how much RL military experience? I'd wager none. You people who support this change as realistic never heard of SAC or NORAD (just to use an example). In all branches of the service, equipment and weapons are kept in tip-top shape. And how long does it take to change DEFCON? One phone call. Bad idea for gameplay for all the reasons previously stated. I would add more, but I would probably get a warning so I'll stop now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Horrible, horrible addition. this is also my veiw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiden_666 Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 (edited) this idea ruins my life also, it goes a little something like this, even if the spies are change to +/- defcon level, THAT DOESN'T HELP, it makes defcon even more irrelevant because you will be always stuck at Dlvl 5, you have 2 spy slots, you rasie an eemys Dlvl +2, then you can only change back -1, your breaking an already fixed system. also, if spies arnt changed, it goes like this (i use GPA cause they are independant and have no allies to spy change thier Dcon lvl) NPO mass spies NpO into a lower defcon NpO mass spies NPO into a lower defcon NP/pO smash a D5 GPA who now have no chance every update NP/pO fill each other spy slots so GPA cant try change NP/pO's defcon everytime GPA gets near D1, along comes the mass spies, wham back to D5. Edited November 17, 2007 by kaiden_666 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.