Not sure; I didn't think about that dimension. I suppose that in a real nuclear war, you wouldn't just shout BANG, you'd actually choose a target before launching. So I suppose the natural extension is along the lines of:
each player shouting BANG has to somehow indicate their target player
a player may only validly shout BANG up to two seconds after they are first targeted, after which they are dead and can no longer launch attacks
any player left alive at the end of the exchange wins.
The two-player case is obviously contained in this form as a special case, in which target selection is implicit because there is only one possible choice.
Of course, this means that in a multi-player game it all comes down to alliances and enmities between the players, which I think is a fair reflection of the reality. Not so convinced it'd make a good game though.
Depends whether it's a game for kids inna car or students inna pub.
I quite like the idea of a missile defence system too. Something like this.
1) Targeting is performed by holding up a number of fingers behind your back. Holding up no fingers means a feint, no missiles are fired. This allows up to 10 players if you're normal, or 1023 if you're geeks.
2) Game starts when a player shouts BANG. Some players may be able to see who if anyone is targeted, other players won't, or the initiator can arrange themself so nobody can see.
3) Players have two seconds to respond either BANG (must be targeted) or SPLAT (untargeted missile defence).
4) Every person shouting BANG scores a point unless their target has an active missile defence. Every person targeted by a BANG loses a point unless they have an active missile defence. A player targeted by two BANGS only loses one point, and each of the attackers scores half a point - reduce equivalently for three or more targeting the same player.
5) Any player setting off their missile defence while *not* targeted loses a point. The initiating player scores a point for every player thus affected.
This works quite well for two players, as the outcomes are:
With more than two, it becomes complex and tactical. Do you assume you're under attack and throw up a missile shield - it'll cost you if you've misjudged it. Do you retaliate against the attacker - guaranteed hit but you'll probably have to share with other players. Do you attack someone else and try and pick up a crafty point on the side while others respond to the initial threat - you stay undefended though, and your own attack may be blocked? Do you initiate your own attack - you'll pick up points from *everyone* that wasted their missile defence, and maybe your chosen target too, but you'll almost certainly be attacked yourself in return.
Might have to tweak it to give a bit more incentive to launch an initial attack if there are more than two players, though - maybe the initiating player scores *two* points if their attack isn't blocked.
Might have to tweak it to give a bit more incentive to launch an initial attack if there are more than two players, though - maybe the initiating player scores *two* points if their attack isn't blocked.
Probably not, really - I've been ignoring the whole point of your version, which is that the attacks are rare enough that people don't respond in time - so a perfectly good incentive to attack at some point however many players there are.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The two-player case is obviously contained in this form as a special case, in which target selection is implicit because there is only one possible choice.
Of course, this means that in a multi-player game it all comes down to alliances and enmities between the players, which I think is a fair reflection of the reality. Not so convinced it'd make a good game though.
I quite like the idea of a missile defence system too. Something like this.
1) Targeting is performed by holding up a number of fingers behind your back. Holding up no fingers means a feint, no missiles are fired. This allows up to 10 players if you're normal, or 1023 if you're geeks.
2) Game starts when a player shouts BANG. Some players may be able to see who if anyone is targeted, other players won't, or the initiator can arrange themself so nobody can see.
3) Players have two seconds to respond either BANG (must be targeted) or SPLAT (untargeted missile defence).
4) Every person shouting BANG scores a point unless their target has an active missile defence. Every person targeted by a BANG loses a point unless they have an active missile defence. A player targeted by two BANGS only loses one point, and each of the attackers scores half a point - reduce equivalently for three or more targeting the same player.
5) Any player setting off their missile defence while *not* targeted loses a point. The initiating player scores a point for every player thus affected.
This works quite well for two players, as the outcomes are:
Initiator bluffs, responder blocks - initiator wins
Initiator bluffs, responder attacks - initiator loses
Initiator attacks, responder blocks - draw
Initiator attacks, responder attacks - "draw" (both lose)
With more than two, it becomes complex and tactical. Do you assume you're under attack and throw up a missile shield - it'll cost you if you've misjudged it. Do you retaliate against the attacker - guaranteed hit but you'll probably have to share with other players. Do you attack someone else and try and pick up a crafty point on the side while others respond to the initial threat - you stay undefended though, and your own attack may be blocked? Do you initiate your own attack - you'll pick up points from *everyone* that wasted their missile defence, and maybe your chosen target too, but you'll almost certainly be attacked yourself in return.
Might have to tweak it to give a bit more incentive to launch an initial attack if there are more than two players, though - maybe the initiating player scores *two* points if their attack isn't blocked.
Probably not, really - I've been ignoring the whole point of your version, which is that the attacks are rare enough that people don't respond in time - so a perfectly good incentive to attack at some point however many players there are.