Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Subject: Re: Defcon: Most horrifying game ever?
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 14:35:40 -0600
Organization: E. Nygma & Sons, LLC
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <p5tdnjhekudc9dvpve5t75hb3ti4tskgg9@4ax.com>
References: <vl6odp$3feds$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: zaghadka@hotmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 21:35:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae9848cdb9bbaa298cfad53919b92200";
	logging-data="3687247"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pue5C6el5CuRwviX/iyeAiXb6N5UTOQw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BS7lJMGceMVLebmwwXF8ll6PSNw=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
Bytes: 7268

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:11:52 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote: 

>Well something popped up on my feed about this recently and I thought 
>yeh it's horrific. So the basic game, almost twenty years old now, is 
>all out nuclear war but what takes it above that, at least for me, is 
>the way it's presented. It is a strategy game but everything is quite 
>abstract and minimalist from its Wargames (the film) graphics, to its 
>haunting sounds and basic units of fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers, 
>destroyers, battleships, radar units, SAM sites, airfields and of course 
>ICBM silos which can also serve to shot down incoming nukes. No 
>research, no resource gathering just you all get the same units to 
>deploy as you wish.
>
>You start at Defcon five and as the timer ticks down that level is 
>raised meaning you get to place more units and eventually start actual 
>conventional combat. Once it reaches Defcon one all hell breaks lose and 
>it's a question of who is going to launch nukes first with an 
>accompanying siren noise. See a city hit and all that's shown is a white 
>flash and in big letters the death toll in millions. This happens over 
>and over again until the world is filled with the glow of nuclear 
>strikes and the timer reaches zero. The winner is then announced based 
>on casualties for and against.
>
>The part I found really horrific is that it's only after you've played 
>several games that it dawns on you that you're detached from what you're 
>doing (you cannot die) and are taking enjoyment in counting the death 
>toll you're causing while not overly caring of the death toll in your 
>continent. The finally part is when the results are shown as raw figures.
>
>As the game says everybody dies. You don't win, instead you just don't 
>do as badly as everyone else.

At the risk of being conceited, and long-winded, this is the preamble to
a game I wrote in the early 90s called "Friendly Fire." It was a game of
bluffing, double-bluffing, strategy, and dumb luck.

>Welcome to 2624 A.D. We understand that Timelift disorientation may have 
>scrambled your brains a little, so I'll try and make this brief. Then you 
>can see the lab boys in memory reconstitution so that you can remember who 
>you are.
>
>Our planet is still torn by war. As you may have guessed, methods of 
>killing have progressed phenomenally, but this has presented our armies 
>with a major problem.
>
>In the 27th century, our methods of destruction are quite rapid and 
>effective; perhaps, too rapid. We have been working on the perfection of 
>Artificial Intelligence WAr Computers (AIWACs) with little success.  
>They do not work properly. Of course, our politicians, who wouldn't come 
>within a hundred miles of a combat zone, believe that they are working 
>just fine. They continue to fund bigger and better weapons instead of 
>the much needed AIWACplus project. You have been called to the future to 
>serve the planet and assume the identity of these computers. Hopefully, 
>no one will notice the difference. Our own soldiers are inadequate for 
>the job because most of them couldn't care less who lives or dies any more.
>
>Let me explain that last statement... Our soldiers' despondent attitudes come 
>from the fact that no one can determine who the enemy forces are fast enough
>to kill them before those who simply fire away have shot everything dead as 
>a doornail. Therefore, "Shoot first, shoot last, dammit, shoot, shoot, shoot,
>and ask questions after the fallout clears" has been the policy that has 
>dominated modern warfare for the past century. The AIWACs, which were installed 
>about ten years ago, were supposed to be able to identify enemies fast enough 
>to remedy this problem. However, they have now concurred that the hundred year 
>old "Preemptive Annihilation" technique is the only logical strategy. The 
>leadership of the Armed Forces believes that perhaps it is the lack of good 
>family values that has permeated our culture, and subsequently been programmed 
>into the computers, that is responsible for this dead-end in warfare.
>
>From our Army Corp of Historians archive files, we have determined that people 
>of your time have the maximum in compassion for human life while possessing 
>the minimum in technological skill to understand our warfare. Therefore, you 
>are the ideal choice for replacement of the AIWAC system. We know that it is 
>possible to identify the enemy quickly enough to fire at only the enemy, but 
>it is impossible to make the AIWACs understand the difference between 
>"friendly" troops and enemy troops. They continue to calculate the minimum 
>number of human deaths to achieve victory in a given battle, often winning, 
>but also often killing more "friendlies" than enemies. Your job is to win 
>battles, but to make sure that more enemy troops die than "friendlies" and 
>that as few "friendlies" die as is possible. If you fail to achieve this 
>mission, you will be shot and replaced.  We must guarantee the lives of good 
>men over those of the enemy.
>
>Here is what you will face. All troops are accounted for and identified by the 
>Master War Computer (MAWARC). All AIWACs are granted equal and complete access
>by the terms of the Universal Disclosure Agreement (UDA), established at the 
>Geneva convention of 2623. Because of the UDA, it is impossible to keep 
>transponder codes a secret (these codes are used to identify troops), for they 
>are all stored in MAWARC. Due to this, AIWACs have designed a technique known 
>as "lying." What this means is that at any given time, 20 - 50% of what MAWARC 
>tells you are your own troops are actually enemies with a forged transponder 
>code. This creates what is known as the "friendly fire" problem. It is up to 
>you to solve it. You have vast weaponry at your fingertips. You have the 
>compassion and the values to determine the good from the bad. Solve our problem. 
>If you do not, you will be promptly executed. Good luck, and enjoy the 
>return of your memories.

For some reason, your story about Defcon reminded me of it.

-- 
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)