Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Zaghadka 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: References: 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)