Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION III > Civ3 - Creation & Customization > Civ3 - Completed Scenarios > The Cold War Deluxe; 1950-1991 PDA View Full Version : The Cold War Deluxe; 1950-1991 Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 KlydenSep 28, 2005, 11:06 PMI don't expect the espionage screen to be the stand alone, but being used in conjunction with the available units, I think it does ok for the intended purpose of "sabotage". Bombing/destroying enemy improvement tiles is already not that hard and with the limited worker pool and AI weakness against that strategy, it is not a good thing to expand it further. AnthropoidSep 29, 2005, 06:59 AMI don't expect the espionage screen to be the stand alone, but being used in conjunction with the available units, I think it does ok for the intended purpose of "sabotage". Bombing/destroying enemy improvement tiles is already not that hard and with the limited worker pool and AI weakness against that strategy, it is not a good thing to expand it further. Yeah I agree. The pillage function probably should be left off any of the Spec Ops, with the exceptions of those that already have it. But keep in mind, at present they only way to sabotage structures in cities without declaring war is with the espionage screen, i.e., by having lots of cash flow. I would only recommending giving Precision Bomb+HN = "sabotage" to two units: Navy SEALS which can only be built in the last age by US, and should never count more than about 5 units total in the game, even at the very end; and Soviet Saboteurs. If you wanted to have only one unit, then definitely should give to the Soviets not US. The espionage screen is more fitting with US style than Soviet style covert action. The set I'm recommending and the "covert war abilities" they possess is summarized as follows: 1. Spetsnaz: HN, Stealth, A=17 (instead of 15) otherwise identical 2. Royal Marine Commando: Stealth (otherwise identical) 3. Ranger: no change, though it would not be totally without precedent to give it stealth. For both Spetsnaz & Royal Marine, Stealth (IMHO) should only be effective at the Postwar infantry, and airplanes of developing nations, as well as workers, leaders, and corps. Not jet planes from 1958 onwards, and not any modern units, or ships. 4. VDV Advisor: HN, appears to be a VDV airborne, but has bombard 25 HP-1, and cannot capture, autogenerated by Cominform HQ 1 every 30 turns. Could make it obsolete with advanced espionage (which would nicely represent the decline in Soviet morale/economy in the 1980s) allowing it a life of ~90 turns to generate only THREE of these guys assuming maximum Tech pace. 5. Saboteur, an "air unit" with "Precision Strike" that moves around like a ground unit, has modest attack and defense, and HN, and a range of only '1.' Like the VDV Advisor, it should have a limited shelf life, and only ever amount to about 3 in game. 6. Navy SEAL (which I see El Justo put into the build queue! :goodjob: ) Given the limitation on 999 as the max shield cost, again, probably should be auto-produced by a late age small wonder (pre-existing one if a good one that is US specific exists). Combines the abilities of most of the other SpecOps units, except is an "Air Unit" with Precision Strike and HN, and again, limited in number. That would give us a total of two unit types, and a grand total of ~SIX units that have the "sabotage" ability (i.e., the ability already existing in the espionage screen to take out city improvements and buildings). Given the point I've made about how the operating parameters are VERY different for using a covert unit vs. the spy screen, I do not think that this would unbalance things, and I think it would add a lot of spice and intrigue to the game, particularly for MP games. Anyway, just ideas! :p I agree that it would unbalance the game to have a "bazillion" of these jokers running around, but I think the possibility of having 3 or 4 is not a problem, and it would add a strategic element that is sorely lacking given the current focus on building huge arsenals that act as a deterrent by their presence, but---to be true to the actual history---should NOT be used in a full-scale East vs. West war. IMHO, there is too much focus on building and then USING massive arsenals in massive wars, and while this possibility should not be eliminated, the current slant toward it being the only way to play the game is not reflective of actual history. As such, I think opportunities to engage in conflict, gain territory, and hurt the enemy WITHOUT declaring war are a good addition to the mod. Just ideas! westonOct 02, 2005, 05:25 PMhey thanks for the mod but i havent been able to use it yet. i keep getting... Missing entry in "text\Pedialcons.txt":ICON_BLDG_Theater i have no idea what that means but i am running whatever the newest patch for conquest is, so im not really sure whats up. thanks so much El JustoOct 03, 2005, 07:32 AMhey thanks for the mod but i havent been able to use it yet. i keep getting... Missing entry in "text\Pedialcons.txt":ICON_BLDG_Theater i have no idea what that means but i am running whatever the newest patch for conquest is, so im not really sure whats up. thanks so much hi weston. i think that your problem is related to the extraction of the large TCW file. i would either re-DL it and try to extract it again or simply try to extract the large, existing zip file again. also, as another user had noted, once the file is extracted, you need to 'cut' the large file out from the subfolder and 'paste' it into the Civilization III/Conquests/Scenarios path. AnthropoidOct 05, 2005, 06:55 PMMy VDV Advisor didn't work the way I hoped. In order to have standoff bombard, a unit must be either air or artillery, and if it is artillery it can't airdrop. If it is air it can't airdrop :( Crappy fricking game engine *grumble, grumble, grumble* Still the best mod I've ever seen for C3C El Justo! El JustoOct 07, 2005, 08:10 AMMy VDV Advisor didn't work the way I hoped. In order to have standoff bombard, a unit must be either air or artillery, and if it is artillery it can't airdrop. If it is air it can't airdrop :( Crappy fricking game engine *grumble, grumble, grumble* Still the best mod I've ever seen for C3C El Justo! thanks dude and hello again! i think we're better off to just keep the SF units pretty much the same (except for the HN flag maybe). warmwafflesOct 07, 2005, 02:42 PMSo El Justo.....whats up? I haven't been here in a long ass time... Are you working on a new version or are you callin it quits lol...? El JustoOct 07, 2005, 03:05 PMSo El Justo.....whats up? I haven't been here in a long ass time... Are you working on a new version or are you callin it quits lol...? no quitin' here little buddy. 1.6 will be released w/ a few modifications as well as a big-ass gfx patch to fill in some of the 'place holders'. RocotehOct 07, 2005, 03:05 PMSo El Justo.....whats up? I haven't been here in a long ass time... Are you working on a new version or are you callin it quits lol...? Drivebymaster, This is Dark October for all scenarios. Posting at Completed Scenarios is down 70% the first week of October. Rocoteh El JustoOct 07, 2005, 03:14 PMDrivebymaster, This is Dark October for all scenarios. Posting at Completed Scenarios is down 70% the first week of October. Rocoteh fear not my dear friend...El Justo ain't done yet! http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130695 RocotehOct 07, 2005, 03:20 PMfear not my dear friend...El Justo ain't done yet! http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130695 El Justo, For sure, I did not think that. However the general drop in interest for CIV III related scenarios and mods is larger than one could expect. Rocoteh El JustoOct 07, 2005, 03:34 PMEl Justo, For sure, I did not think that. However the general drop in interest for CIV III related scenarios and mods is larger than one could expect. Rocoteh Rocoteh, oh no...i knew you weren't implying that i was through...but yes, i agree and notice the same thing. the TCW thread was quiet for several days. PriestOfDiscordOct 08, 2005, 12:44 AMRocoteh, oh no...i knew you weren't implying that i was through...but yes, i agree and notice the same thing. the TCW thread was quiet for several days.Busy nuking China, too busy to reply. :p Adler17Oct 08, 2005, 12:49 AMThe interest might have a certain kind of renaissance after civ IV was released an played. Because of the lack of scenarios the player will come back- for a while until for civ IV are enough good scenarios. We must see how good the game is. If it is as good as promised I don´t see any reasons why not to switch. However the lack of new units will be critical in the first month. But in the hope of blockades and so on a waiting could be good. In the meanwhile we should go on with this scenarios to complete them at least. I mean there will be always an interest as some people play civ II even today. And for my person: I am in the final phase before my exams next year and so I can´t be that big help any more for a few months. I am sorry but I am sure you understand. Adler Red DoorOct 08, 2005, 08:43 AMBut people won't start making epic scenarios for Civ 4 until the expansion comes out. That could be 2-3 years from now. warmwafflesOct 08, 2005, 11:32 AMWow I started a fire storm...lol Well anyhow if any one needs a multiplayer map tested I can do it I have an LAN at home....but only 2 comps have it so....it would only be 1vs1 vs the comp vingrjoeOct 08, 2005, 12:10 PMI myself am going through a unit making roadblock. I am possibly going to change part of my unit making process, which will take longer, but may possibly yield better quality units. The TCW would be a beneficiary, pending continual approval by El Justo of any of my TCW relevant units for inclusion in this scenario. I would like people to check out my thread if you will and give me your honest input, I would greatly appreciate it. Sorry for spamming here El Justo, I apologize for going off topic, and plugging my own thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130601 krazydudeOct 08, 2005, 01:17 PMRocoteh and El Justo: It's normal a drop in interest with CIV4 coming. I will buy Civ4 but I won't leave Civ3 and my scenarios alone! I'm looking forward to SOE, Anno Domini and a few others! :) warmwafflesOct 08, 2005, 01:55 PMWell when Civ4 comes out I am going to learn how to mod it...Since .XML editing is very simple it shant be hard... And if I like the game engine and graphics I will think about switching over to it....other wise Civ 3 is still my favorite friend RocotehOct 09, 2005, 04:15 AMRocoteh and El Justo: It's normal a drop in interest with CIV4 coming. I will buy Civ4 but I won't leave Civ3 and my scenarios alone! I'm looking forward to SOE, Anno Domini and a few others! :) krazydude, Yes I agree. The next 3-4 months will tell if there are a future for CIV 3 scenarios or if they will become dead ducks. Anyway Its possible that I and Sarevok will convert Barbarossa to CIV 4. Rocoteh VericitasOct 09, 2005, 06:46 AMHi i´m new here and i wanted to say that i really love your scenario though i have to report a problem. i always get the error message: "entry not found:Art/Units/Palestinian_Guerilla/ Palestinian_Guerilla.INI the game will now exit..." and then the game turns to the desktop. can somebody help me to fix that problem. thanks (sorry for my bad english) El JustoOct 09, 2005, 10:44 AMI myself am going through a unit making roadblock. I am possibly going to change part of my unit making process, which will take longer, but may possibly yield better quality units. The TCW would be a beneficiary, pending continual approval by El Justo of any of my TCW relevant units for inclusion in this scenario. I would like people to check out my thread if you will and give me your honest input, I would greatly appreciate it. Sorry for spamming here El Justo, I apologize for going off topic, and plugging my own thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130601 vingrjoe, :lol: you don't need my approval :lol: i'm likin' the new style...and it's never spamming dude. post to your heart's delight! El JustoOct 09, 2005, 10:48 AMkrazydude, Yes I agree. The next 3-4 months will tell if there are a future for CIV 3 scenarios or if they will become dead ducks. Anyway Its possible that I and Sarevok will convert Barbarossa to CIV 4. Rocoteh howdy Rocoteh. i agree about the 3-4 month window. however, i do believe that civ3 scenarios will have a future. granted, not like what we've known in the past but the better ones like yours will definitely get some action still. i would consider converting TCW over considering i had the resources to do so though it'll probably take a 'dog's age' but we shall see... El JustoOct 09, 2005, 10:51 AMHi i´m new here and i wanted to say that i really love your scenario though i have to report a problem. i always get the error message: "entry not found:Art/Units/Palestinian_Guerilla/ Palestinian_Guerilla.INI the game will now exit..." and then the game turns to the desktop. can somebody help me to fix that problem. thanks (sorry for my bad english) hi Vericitas. thanks for reporting that. it seems that there is an error within the files which causes this problem but it has been fixed but not posted yet. i tried doing a quick and easy fix on it but it won't work w/ the current v1.51 so what i could do is to ship you a fixed biq if you wish (by email preferably). please advise. VericitasOct 09, 2005, 06:57 PMCool this would be very nice. this is my e-mail:amaler@gmx.de thank you Blue BoyOct 10, 2005, 07:58 AMHi everyone, Thought I'd share my current game with you all. I'm China and its July 1956. I've kicked the SE Asians off the Korean Peninsular and disposed of the pesky North Vietnamese. "Uncle Joe" has come knocking twice since the start of the game. Both times I had to buy him off to get peace as he was threatening to overrun my northeren cities whilst I was trying to "liberate" South Korea. I did manage to hold onto all the cities thou. I now have a large standing army mostly made up of PLA Infantry and 12mm Artillery. Had to put a lot of these in to try and limit WP influence if they attacked again before I could concentrate on doing any attacking of my own. I have a few tanks and APC's. Even fewer Mig 13's. I have not built any naval units at this stage. I am now contemplating my next move. My options seem to be to try and take out the remaining SE Asian cities on the continent, take on India or have a crack at Japan. It would seem Japan is out of the question as I dont have a navy or an airforce to protect them in any case. So India or SE Asisa, either way it will be a long campaign. Obviously, the problem with attacking the SE Asian's is the Americans. They kill me with their air attacks. China dosent seem to be able to build any decent air defences or fighters. Does this change later on? I'm almost at the end of the the first stage of the tech tree but this hasnt changed my build options. Do I just have to build Flacks till there going out of fashion? India, brings its own logistical problems. Those mountains will need to have roads built accross to get my armour and artillery accross but again they will be exposed to air attacks. Not sure of India's air capabilities. Maybe, Ill try and sign a rop with them and build some infastructure at their end. Oh by the way, is their a list anywhere of which units can be built by which nations. Its sometimes difficult to try and guess which of the smaller countres (ie outside of the WP & Nato) can build which units. El JustoOct 10, 2005, 10:28 AMHi everyone, Thought I'd share my current game with you all. I'm China and its July 1956. I've kicked the SE Asians off the Korean Peninsular and disposed of the pesky North Vietnamese. "Uncle Joe" has come knocking twice since the start of the game. Both times I had to buy him off to get peace as he was threatening to overrun my northeren cities whilst I was trying to "liberate" South Korea. I did manage to hold onto all the cities thou. I now have a large standing army mostly made up of PLA Infantry and 12mm Artillery. Had to put a lot of these in to try and limit WP influence if they attacked again before I could concentrate on doing any attacking of my own. I have a few tanks and APC's. Even fewer Mig 13's. I have not built any naval units at this stage. I am now contemplating my next move. My options seem to be to try and take out the remaining SE Asian cities on the continent, take on India or have a crack at Japan. It would seem Japan is out of the question as I dont have a navy or an airforce to protect them in any case. So India or SE Asisa, either way it will be a long campaign. Obviously, the problem with attacking the SE Asian's is the Americans. They kill me with their air attacks. China dosent seem to be able to build any decent air defences or fighters. Does this change later on? I'm almost at the end of the the first stage of the tech tree but this hasnt changed my build options. Do I just have to build Flacks till there going out of fashion? India, brings its own logistical problems. Those mountains will need to have roads built accross to get my armour and artillery accross but again they will be exposed to air attacks. Not sure of India's air capabilities. Maybe, Ill try and sign a rop with them and build some infastructure at their end. Oh by the way, is their a list anywhere of which units can be built by which nations. Its sometimes difficult to try and guess which of the smaller countres (ie outside of the WP & Nato) can build which units. hi Blue Boy. the chinese position is tough. first off, they have a true lack of quality in their units, at least in the beginning. their naval capabilities are limited, especially at the start. however, they can build some sea-worthy units by mid-game and onwards. here's a link to a DL that i posted some time ago w/ all of the units for v1.5. i don't think the list says exactly which units are chinese, etc. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2983151&postcount=1638 however, off the top of my head, the chinese can build the following: air J-7 J-11 Q-5 mech type 59 mbt type 69 mbt type 96 mbt type 63 apc type 85 apc warmwafflesOct 10, 2005, 05:45 PMYa....china not my best choice....lol usually its either America, Germany, Or WP I_batmanOct 10, 2005, 06:50 PMHi everyone, I am now contemplating my next move. My options seem to be to try and take out the remaining SE Asian cities on the continent, take on India or have a crack at Japan. It would seem Japan is out of the question as I dont have a navy or an airforce to protect them in any case. So India or SE Asisa, either way it will be a long campaign. Obviously, the problem with attacking the SE Asian's is the Americans. They kill me with their air attacks. China dosent seem to be able to build any decent air defences or fighters. Does this change later on? I'm almost at the end of the the first stage of the tech tree but this hasnt changed my build options. Do I just have to build Flacks till there going out of fashion? India, brings its own logistical problems. Those mountains will need to have roads built accross to get my armour and artillery accross but again they will be exposed to air attacks. Not sure of India's air capabilities. Maybe, Ill try and sign a rop with them and build some infastructure at their end. Hi Blue Boy, I have been playing this scenario for a long long time (ask El Justo). You have picked a tough, tough civ to be aggressive with. Congrats on your progress so far. My recommendation would be go after India first. It will be a long ugly battle. But taking on SE Asia brings down the wrath of NATO, which you are in no position presently to handle. If I were you, I would start building roads to India, or whatever access you can sort out (ROP with WP is very very dangerous), and at the same time build up a good size force that will stay behind to protect your coastal cities from unwelcome visitors. Like I said, you are in for a long, long battle protecting your civ, let alone expanding, but it should be really fun. Keep in mind that the AI is basically a coward, and goes after the weakest border cities so as long as you keep them well-defended, you should be able to keep the Russian Bear from coming after you, at least until it has picked off all the other weaker civ's on the continent. Enjoy. Blue BoyOct 10, 2005, 10:36 PMHi Blue Boy, I have been playing this scenario for a long long time (ask El Justo). You have picked a tough, tough civ to be aggressive with. Congrats on your progress so far. My recommendation would be go after India first. It will be a long ugly battle. But taking on SE Asia brings down the wrath of NATO, which you are in no position presently to handle. If I were you, I would start building roads to India, or whatever access you can sort out (ROP with WP is very very dangerous), and at the same time build up a good size force that will stay behind to protect your coastal cities from unwelcome visitors. Like I said, you are in for a long, long battle protecting your civ, let alone expanding, but it should be really fun. Keep in mind that the AI is basically a coward, and goes after the weakest border cities so as long as you keep them well-defended, you should be able to keep the Russian Bear from coming after you, at least until it has picked off all the other weaker civ's on the continent. Enjoy. Hi I Batman, Thanks for your advice. You're right China is a tough position to play. Although I am only playing on Emperer so that might explain some of my limited success. You're spot on in youre judgement of WP. After the second time they attacked I really loaded up those Northern cities with infantry units (and some APC's) so that I'd be ready to repel them if they tried again. Since then I havent heard a peek out of them. They even stopped demanding tributes....so far........I have tried to trade with them as much as possible as well and the attitude has changed from Furious to Annoyed to Polite. I know I am sucking up to them at the moment but I'm determined to bide my time. Hopefully, later in the game Stalin will regret his shoddy treatment of China Your probably right with India but I worry that the line of attack is too small. In an ideal world if I could get rid of the SE Asians in the Thai, Laos, Cambodia region then my attacking options for India would be far greater. Anyway, I'll have a think about it and report back with progress when I've made my decision. If I can make a quick kill with SE Asia, then make peace with the rest of Nato then it might be an option. The other thing to consider is Iran as they can attack my Northern flank if Nato is mobilised and it would just be that WP could get intertested at that point too. Blue BoyOct 10, 2005, 10:46 PMhi Blue Boy. the chinese position is tough. first off, they have a true lack of quality in their units, at least in the beginning. their naval capabilities are limited, especially at the start. however, they can build some sea-worthy units by mid-game and onwards. here's a link to a DL that i posted some time ago w/ all of the units for v1.5. i don't think the list says exactly which units are chinese, etc. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2983151&postcount=1638 however, off the top of my head, the chinese can build the following: air J-7 J-11 Q-5 mech type 59 mbt type 69 mbt type 96 mbt type 63 apc type 85 apc Hi El Justo, Firstly, thanks for a great scenario. It must have taken you ages to put together. A fantastic effort. The attention to detail is unbelievable. Thanks for the list. I dont have MS works but I've resaved as an exel spreadsheet. Havent had time to go through it fully yet but it looks extremely useful. I'll endevour to keep you updated with my progress with China. Has anyone actually won playing China? I would think the biggest problem will be the time factor. It looks like its going to take ages to catch up anywhere near to WP or Nato. Anyway I'll keep going using my salami tactics. Slice by slice. WinnerOct 11, 2005, 03:52 AMI've noticed that on my computer the game tends to be much slower (long AI turns) when the Russians have too much units. So I am provoking a world war always when I am fed up with the game speed :D El JustoOct 11, 2005, 09:51 AMHi El Justo, Firstly, thanks for a great scenario. It must have taken you ages to put together. A fantastic effort. The attention to detail is unbelievable. Thanks for the list. I dont have MS works but I've resaved as an exel spreadsheet. Havent had time to go through it fully yet but it looks extremely useful. I'll endevour to keep you updated with my progress with China. Has anyone actually won playing China? I would think the biggest problem will be the time factor. It looks like its going to take ages to catch up anywhere near to WP or Nato. Anyway I'll keep going using my salami tactics. Slice by slice. hi again Blue Boy. thanks man. it did take quite a while to put together...many, many, months to be exact. you can always ask questions in the thread here if you want info on particular hardware. i researched each one a even drew up the civilopedia entries for them so i have intimate knowledge that i really like to share if asked. china is nearly impossible to win with simply b/c they don't have enough VP spots that they are able to hold. sure, there are some in SE Asia and in vietnam, and the S.U., and even in Japan. however, they are non-alligned and do not 'share' the VP pts w/ allies like the WP and the nato civis do. as such, it's tremendously hard to win w/ china. impossible? nahh...just really 'friggin hard to win by VP. we look forward to reading your reports and it seems you're taking the right approach by moving slowly. you'll get some decent hardware as you progress. i promise :D El JustoOct 11, 2005, 09:59 AMI've noticed that on my computer the game tends to be much slower (long AI turns) when the Russians have too much units. So I am provoking a world war always when I am fed up with the game speed :D howdy Winner. what yr are you in? i ask b/c turn times shouldn't be too bad until there are lots and lots of units on the map. PC specs do have something to do w/ it though. however, you comp needs to be a really turd for the scenario to not run smooth. and yes, starting wars always seems to chop the turn times down some. WinnerOct 12, 2005, 04:08 AMhowdy Winner. what yr are you in? i ask b/c turn times shouldn't be too bad until there are lots and lots of units on the map. PC specs do have something to do w/ it though. however, you comp needs to be a really turd for the scenario to not run smooth. Early 60's. Well, I have 512 RAM and 1.6 GHz Sempron 2600+ processor. It takes about a minute or two between turns later in the game. and yes, starting wars always seems to chop the turn times down some. That's why I decided to wage a neverending Orwellian-style war ;) Anyway, it is a great scenario, the best I've ever seen :goodjob: You should think about a sequel, Post Cold War Deluxe :D BTW, here is something what almost killed me: http://www.volny.cz/vicdvorak/!screen1.jpg Nasty Scandinavians :lol: Maybe they like a bit warmer climate? :mischief: El JustoOct 12, 2005, 07:32 AMwow Winner. the Scandinavians must've wanted some good beach front property :lol: a few minutes between turns in the 60s is about right...especially compared to what turn times used to be... i thought about doing a follow up to this mod. Rocoteh and i even discussed doing one together (WW3 Global) but i think that one's on hold for now. i do plan to release a v1.6 of TCW soon though. it has a few changes and additions but nothing major. there's also a gfx patch in the works as well. have you ever tried the MP version of TCW by Kly? that's a barrell of fun. WinnerOct 12, 2005, 09:01 AMwow Winner. the Scandinavians must've wanted some good beach front property :lol: a few minutes between turns in the 60s is about right...especially compared to what turn times used to be... Then it's OK. I've pushed the Russians across the Ural mountains and destroyed few waves of Chinese expeditionary forces, so the game is now much faster ;) i thought about doing a follow up to this mod. Rocoteh and i even discussed doing one together (WW3 Global) but i think that one's on hold for now. i do plan to release a v1.6 of TCW soon though. it has a few changes and additions but nothing major. there's also a gfx patch in the works as well. have you ever tried the MP version of TCW by Kly? that's a barrell of fun. I'll definitely try it. WinnerOct 13, 2005, 02:29 PMBTW I have few suggestions for the next version of TCW: - The Soviet city in Crimea should be named Sevastopol. - Dresden could be renamed to Prague. I think there is a plenty of German cities on the map, and Dresden is located exactly where Prague is. - Tallinn should be renamed to Riga - Riga is AFAIK much bigger and more important port city. - Central Africa shouldn't be a part of the Communist Alliance. They were more a battleground between the West and East, but oficially they were unalligned. - South American nations, Yugoslavia and Indonesia should also be independent. - France should have the Algeria - as the North Africans, you can "liberate" it ;) von_ClausewitzOct 13, 2005, 10:41 PMbetter yet have yugoslavia alligned with china. that could open a whole barrel of worms. silver 2039Oct 14, 2005, 08:31 AMRe: A question I asked few pages ago regarding helicopters. Has anyone tunred helicopters into ground attack/close air support units that actually attack other units? If so what stats did you give the various helicopter units? El JustoOct 14, 2005, 08:57 AMBTW I have few suggestions for the next version of TCW: - The Soviet city in Crimea should be named Sevastopol. - Dresden could be renamed to Prague. I think there is a plenty of German cities on the map, and Dresden is located exactly where Prague is. - Tallinn should be renamed to Riga - Riga is AFAIK much bigger and more important port city. - Central Africa shouldn't be a part of the Communist Alliance. They were more a battleground between the West and East, but oficially they were unalligned. - South American nations, Yugoslavia and Indonesia should also be independent. - France should have the Algeria - as the North Africans, you can "liberate" it ;) thanks Winner. notes taken. the alliances are pretty much going to stay the same. i know some of them are a little "off" but there is good reason for this. "un-alligning" certain civis results in very undesirable results. for example, if yugoslavia was to be removed from the nato-like alliance, everyone would gang up on her and i guarantee (as per play-testing this exact thing) the folks in yugoslavia will be wiped out...either by their fellow europeans or the ruskies. Arg/Chile/Bol is already unalligned. the other 2 s american civis are alligned to nato. C Africa is w/ the commies so that nato and the like don't have a punching bag to practice against before they engage the Reds. it's solely for gameplay purposes i'm afraid (yet another in a line of 'compromises' i s'pose) re the french in n africa i thought of it...really...i did. however, i wanted to avoid the so-called 'colonialism' aspect as it was pretty much broken up world-wide by the 70s and i didn't want this to play any real part in the scenario; ie indo-china, n africa, central africa. however, for the TCW Huge biq, i did incorporate this aspect of 'liberating' certain areas of the world like in n africa/algeria and indochina. this one is called "TCW Huge Fifties" and it's linked up on the 1st pg of the thread. we really haven't tested it too much but the map is massive and allows for all kinds of extra stuff. @von_C same thing goes here where if the yugo position were to be alligned w/ china, it'd be a certain early exit for them b/c their euro neighbors would be chomping at the bit to kill them off. i know this is how we did it for the MP version but for the SP version, it's a little more murky. it's an unfortunate trade-off that we had to do in order to not skew the gameplay balance. @silver must be the booze b/c i thought i answered that for you already :p we kept the helos as air units but for this next version we're releasing, we added another mvmt point to them. this gives them more value as air transports and on bombing runs. as for what kind of stats i'd give them if i were to make them ground units...probably high A, med D, and definitely minus HP (at least 1, probably 2 for a total of 2 HP as a 'Regular' unit). i would test it before implementing it though. Red DoorOct 14, 2005, 09:34 PMI eliminate the 'Slavs with the Ruskies in World War 3 anyway so it doesn't matter to me if they are unalligned. Actually change of opinion, keep them where they are. I love taking a scenic route to Germany. Adler17Oct 15, 2005, 02:10 AMEl Justo, the helos should still be air units. In World 2004 it was tried to use them not as air units but this didn´t work with some of the other civ versions, including the German one. Adler El JustoOct 15, 2005, 06:44 AMi'm not a big fan of 'helos as land units' so worry not... man o' warOct 15, 2005, 07:05 AMHopefully on Civ IV things will be more flexable - it's really very hard to represent helis well on civ 3 El JustoOct 15, 2005, 07:29 AMHopefully on Civ IV things will be more flexable - it's really very hard to represent helis well on civ 3 yes, i agree w/ that. i guess our point is for the next version is to try and make helos more "useful". i often found them pretty useless in most cases. the high-end ones like the apache are nice but others leave something to be desired. i think that by giving all helos another mvmt pt (from 1 to 2) that we'll be able to find them more helpful and deployable. i think the 'transport' aspect is specifically what needs to be addressed...at least for the human player b/c the AI won't really use them like we want them to. KlydenOct 15, 2005, 08:56 AMAnother aspect we have tried to incorporate into the helos is that while they may not be the "best" bombing unit, they are excellent for how much they cost. man o' warOct 15, 2005, 09:51 AMAnother aspect we have tried to incorporate into the helos is that while they may not be the "best" bombing unit, they are excellent for how much they cost. I agree, and when I have played smaller nations in the past, they are often useful as a cheap bomber used as long-range arty or close cover for my ground troops - blowing out enemy fortifications, etc. The only other time I have properly used them was in a large assult as Israel over the Suez canal (used as transports, that is). I know this may not be the most effective thing to do, but I wanted to see if it was possible, and try to use all units to some extent. (needless to say, I was blown to peices on that particular attempt :p) warmwafflesOct 16, 2005, 01:51 AMHopefully on Civ IV things will be more flexable - it's really very hard to represent helis well on civ 3 Fear not my friend because in Civ 4 you can edit the game in .xml format... and you can basically make the game into something completely different...like get rid of everything civ except of course the civ logo... ya you can mod it that much...and I am gonna go buy it and see if I can get an anti missile unit workin....but I have to wait till it comes out man o' warOct 16, 2005, 03:15 AMFear not my friend because in Civ 4 you can edit the game in .xml format... and you can basically make the game into something completely different...like get rid of everything civ except of course the civ logo... ya you can mod it that much...and I am gonna go buy it and see if I can get an anti missile unit workin....but I have to wait till it comes out That would be really cool! Does this only work for units, or could you do things like, for example. different types of forteress: anti-air bunker, nuke bunker, MG bunker... ...assuming you know what you're doing, that is! NesaviOct 17, 2005, 03:59 PMHello Just downloaded this scenario, but an error message comes up when I try to start the game: missing file \text\pedialcons.txt. Has anyone else encountered this problem? man o' warOct 17, 2005, 04:02 PMIs the file actually there? If not, re-download and put it there :crazyeye: Tommy1234567890Oct 17, 2005, 05:32 PMsup i just downloaded your scenario and the post-war america infantry looks like queen victoria king unit. Can you tell the number that it is supposed to be?? El JustoOct 17, 2005, 09:04 PMsup i just downloaded your scenario and the post-war america infantry looks like queen victoria king unit. Can you tell the number that it is supposed to be?? Tommy1234567890, this shouldn't be b/c there's a custom made units_32 pcx that comes w/ the latest DL. according to a peek into the editor, the US Inf - PW unit should have the icon # of 117. i'd open up the biq file and see if this # matches what you have (it should). El JustoOct 18, 2005, 09:31 PMa bump up in AA values. specifically, they were raised an avg of about x2+ Las Malvinas are now a UK city instead of an airbase. a few city name changes/corrections. the WG/LL position has undergone a little of a facelift. gone are the M4 Shermans, both the pre-placed ones and the ability to build them. instead, they have 3 pre-placed "Veteran" Panther mbt divisions. they can't build them though. added in for the Dutch was a carrier (Karl Doorman?). they have a few new subs, too (see below). opened up the land-locked area around the Dardenelles in Turkey. WP now has access to the Med via the Black Sea. gave Cairo access to the sea. changed India's color from pinkish-mauve to monkey vomit green (lime) the following units have been added: Panther mbt: 3 of them i think, pre-placed an unbuildable (WG/LL) Meko 200 ffg: a euro-flavor sea unti F104 G: a high-end Starfighter F16 [export]: added into the euro air unit line (no dead end units now) Type 206 & Type 209 subs: German-made subs M48 mbt [Israel]: another to solve dead end units Egyptian Infantry (x2): buildable only in Egypt, both generations British Airborne Inf (x2): flavor unit for Brits, both generations ROC Infnatry (Taiwan~x2): buildable only in Taiwan, both generations Philippine Infantry (x2): buildable only in the P.I., both generations Yak-9 [Soviet]: solves a dead end unit El JustoOct 18, 2005, 09:45 PMi've decided to release TCW1.6 it is now attached to the 1st post of the thread. VERY IMPORTANT: you need not re-DL the large folder again. if you DL'ed v1.5 onwards, then you're in business! this is likely the last ever version of TCW outside of gfx expansion packs. anyway, it was tested pretty well...over about a month or so. most noticable adjustments: no doubt, it'll be the added AA values. be careful where you send your buffers! foot unit diversity w/ added country resources for flavor infantry units (eg Filipino, Egyptian, Tawainese, etc). finally, hopefully all 'dead-end' units (non-upgradable) are gone as a few country-specific units were added in. enjoy and leave feedback! RocotehOct 19, 2005, 08:23 AMEl Justo, I think version 1.6 looks very good. Great work!!! Rocoteh El JustoOct 19, 2005, 08:25 AMEl Justo, I think version 1.6 looks very good. Great work!!! Rocoteh thanks Rocoteh! this should be the final installment of TCW. Red DoorOct 19, 2005, 08:54 PMWhoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. When did this happen? All the sudden there's a 1.6. Edit: What's different about it from previous versions? man o' warOct 20, 2005, 01:34 AMLook here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3180378&postcount=2555 El JustoOct 20, 2005, 04:56 AMyeah...i had sort of been sitting on it for a while. there are some other subtle changes, too, like upped road mvmt (from 3 to 4) and a few other small things. man o' warOct 20, 2005, 10:57 AMHave downloaded and will play after I atleast make a dent in my HUGE wrokload (much of which is about the rise of communism in Russia, incidently - but about 45 years before this scenario is set...) Red DoorOct 20, 2005, 08:43 PMDo I have to re-download art and text files to play? El JustoOct 22, 2005, 09:26 AMDo I have to re-download art and text files to play? that's a 'negative'. El JustoOct 22, 2005, 09:28 AMalso, while i'm at it...i should advise that i uploaded a new TCW1.6 just now. i left the "WMD Program" wonder in the "NATO Base - Azores" city (USA). thanks for pointing that one out I_b. OgrePeteOct 22, 2005, 11:33 AMWill the 1.6 download work with the MP 1.51 biq? Sorry if this has been answered already... I'm trying to get a PBEM going with some of my friends. :D El JustoOct 22, 2005, 11:37 AMWill the 1.6 download work with the MP 1.51 biq? Sorry if this has been answered already... I'm trying to get a PBEM going with some of my friends. :D hi OgrePete. i'm not sure what you mean...the most recent MP biq is linked up on the 1st post. the regualr 1.6 biq is for single player only. this is a blast to play in MP format! I_batmanOct 22, 2005, 12:02 PMalso, while i'm at it...i should advise that i uploaded a new TCW1.6 just now. i left the "WMD Program" wonder in the "NATO Base - Azores" city (USA). thanks for pointing that one out I_b. No problem. WinnerOct 22, 2005, 12:18 PMDammit! :mad: I am playing as Israel. I've liberated the Arabian peninsula during the World War 5 in the early 60's. After the war, the turn time has skyrocketed to about 5 minutes! Is that possible? Before the war, it had been about 1 minute. That's weird... I_batmanOct 22, 2005, 01:39 PMDammit! :mad: I am playing as Israel. I've liberated the Arabian peninsula during the World War 5 in the early 60's. After the war, the turn time has skyrocketed to about 5 minutes! Is that possible? Before the war, it had been about 1 minute. That's weird... Are you talking about the first turn immediately after peace was declared, or subsequent turns? The first turn after peace is declared is always a long one. Usually it will settle down after that, but will still be significantly longer than turns at war, El Justo has done a ton of things to bring down turn times, but the game engine is still the game engine, which is pretty crappy when it comes to calculating all the events during the AI's turn, which results in slow times when there are a lot of units floating around. That being said, I just completed a game with 1.5 as WP that I took to the end, all 540 turns. There were zillions of units floating around, and war turns were 1 minute, but about 3-5 in peace time. Tommy1234567890Oct 22, 2005, 03:48 PMThe Malvinas (aka the falkland islands) belonged to Argentina until 1992! Tommy1234567890Oct 22, 2005, 03:55 PMalso can anyone explain to me why the units in the editor look wierd. The ICBM looks like a warrior why????????? El JustoOct 22, 2005, 04:17 PMumm...the falklands belonged to the UK during this time period. the reason the unit icons aren't right is b/c you DL'ed only the biq file and you're viewing it through the use of your default units_32 file. WinnerOct 23, 2005, 12:25 AMAre you talking about the first turn immediately after peace was declared, or subsequent turns? The first turn after peace is declared is always a long one. Usually it will settle down after that, but will still be significantly longer than turns at war, El Justo has done a ton of things to bring down turn times, but the game engine is still the game engine, which is pretty crappy when it comes to calculating all the events during the AI's turn, which results in slow times when there are a lot of units floating around. That being said, I just completed a game with 1.5 as WP that I took to the end, all 540 turns. There were zillions of units floating around, and war turns were 1 minute, but about 3-5 in peace time. Unfortunately, the turn time is still long after further few turns. I am just surprised it increased so suddenly. I_batmanOct 23, 2005, 07:59 AMUnfortunately, the turn time is still long after further few turns. I am just surprised it increased so suddenly. Then the only thing you can do to allieviate those turn times is total war, but that can't be maintained. I know 5 minutes seems like a lot, but if you have a book, some web surfing, anything else to do those minutes will fly by. I work from home a lot, and usually have civ running with a number of other programs I use for work simultaneously, but that is only possible with a fairly powerful computer. I_batmanOct 23, 2005, 08:36 AMWhat are people's feelings about the new AA values? I am playing the US in 1.6, and the Soviets just sent 7 Bear's over to attack Los Angeles. 6 were shot down by what appears to be flak, but I have no flak units in that city. I do have an airbase built, but the kill ratio seems awfully high to me. silver 2039Oct 23, 2005, 10:19 AMWait if I have 1.6 I need to redownload the whole main file? man o' warOct 23, 2005, 11:13 AMWait if I have 1.6 I need to redownload the whole main file? No, old graphics files work just fine. I personally like the new AA stats: I haven't seen anything as severe as what you have described though. What do you mean by airbase out of interest? Itnl Airport or Air Force base? If it is the latter, that strikes me as not beyond the relms of possibility - lucky, but realistic all the same. I_batmanOct 23, 2005, 11:15 AMNo, old graphics files work just fine. I personally like the new AA stats: I haven't seen anything as severe as what you have described though. What do you mean by airbase out of interest? Itnl Airport or Air Force base? If it is the latter, that strikes me as not beyond the relms of possibility - lucky, but realistic all the same. I had both, but the killing machine I imagine was the Air Force Base. man o' warOct 23, 2005, 11:25 AMThat makes a little more sense then - even when the planes are away, they're bound to have a good Flak barrier. Still, i'm assuming this is rare, right? I've certainly never seen anything on that scale. As long as this event was "lucky", it doesn't seem too unrealistic to me. warmwafflesOct 23, 2005, 11:56 AMThen the only thing you can do to allieviate those turn times is total war, but that can't be maintained. I know 5 minutes seems like a lot, but if you have a book, some web surfing, anything else to do those minutes will fly by. I work from home a lot, and usually have civ running with a number of other programs I use for work simultaneously, but that is only possible with a fairly powerful computer. OR you could do this the cool way.... I took my brothers PC because he got grounded and decided to use it while my PC was running civ and only civ...I put the 2 towers next to eachother and took a signal splitter which takes 2 PC towers and combines into 1 cord...I can switch between each computer with no problem....also the mouse and keyboard are configured a tad bit differently but work on the same principle ANY WAYS http://www.evo-games.net/Home/viewtopic.php?p=26463&sid=dcea03b2e5b0f6e8725dd31fba861e3b Check that out El its another C-130...it could be used somehow...I dont know I will let you do the thinnking WinnerOct 24, 2005, 03:49 PMThen the only thing you can do to allieviate those turn times is total war, but that can't be maintained. I know 5 minutes seems like a lot, but if you have a book, some web surfing, anything else to do those minutes will fly by. I work from home a lot, and usually have civ running with a number of other programs I use for work simultaneously, but that is only possible with a fairly powerful computer. I've cutted off the v1.6 a bit, removed South American and African civs, merged the South European nations and deleted few cities. Now, I am play-testing it as the West Germany. El JustoOct 25, 2005, 10:53 AMOR you could do this the cool way.... I took my brothers PC because he got grounded and decided to use it while my PC was running civ and only civ...I put the 2 towers next to eachother and took a signal splitter which takes 2 PC towers and combines into 1 cord...I can switch between each computer with no problem....also the mouse and keyboard are configured a tad bit differently but work on the same principle ANY WAYS http://www.evo-games.net/Home/viewtopic.php?p=26463&sid=dcea03b2e5b0f6e8725dd31fba861e3b Check that out El its another C-130...it could be used somehow...I dont know I will let you do the thinnking we don't have air transports in TCW so i'm afraid that's a 'negative' sir. El JustoOct 25, 2005, 11:01 AMI've cutted off the v1.6 a bit, removed South American and African civs, merged the South European nations and deleted few cities. Now, I am play-testing it as the West Germany. Winner, i'd be careful with what units you allow your newly merged civis to build. by this i mean that you will have to go into the 'Units' section of the editor and be sure that, for example, the "South European" civi should be able to build what, say, Greece and Italy can build. warmwafflesOct 25, 2005, 08:26 PMwe don't have air transports in TCW so i'm afraid that's a 'negative' sir. Curse you creator....lol man I have been so bored lately so I decided to catch up on a little bit of civ gameing that was sorely needed WinnerOct 26, 2005, 02:53 AMWinner, i'd be careful with what units you allow your newly merged civis to build. by this i mean that you will have to go into the 'Units' section of the editor and be sure that, for example, the "South European" civi should be able to build what, say, Greece and Italy can build. I know, that's why I didn't merge many of them, just the relatively "unimportant" for the Cold War world. Anyway, I can use an advice - the deleted civs don't have any cities or units, but they still appear to "be" there in the game. How can I get rid of them completely? Thanx. I_batmanOct 26, 2005, 01:19 PMEl Justo, I had a thought about 1st gen vs 2nd gen infantry. I did something without thinking about the repercussions until afterwards, and I think it goes against the intent of the infantry upgrades. I got the tech required to build 2nd gen infantry, and did a shift-U to upgrade all the units. Now, playing as the US I had captured a couple Chinese cities plus Hamburg. Because I had built barracks in these cities, these cities on essentially foreign soil also had the infantry there upgraded as well. The way I envsion a unit being upgraded in reality, be it a tank divsion, a naval unit, or an infantry division, is it would have to be at a home base or port where where it has access to a ton or resources and material to produce that upgrade. The armoured, naval, and air units units abroad I can't upgrade for that very reason, since these cities abroad don't have access to the requisite resources to upgrade the unit, be it oil, rubber, or aluminun. But since the infantry unit has no required resources, I can upgrade them abroad. I am starting to think that perhaps the 2nd gen infantry, marines, and possibly airborne should need at least rubber, and maybe oil as required resources, to even up the game. srbOct 26, 2005, 02:29 PMVery well done scenario, except for a few quirks... For example, why aren't there any generic DD's, subs and Cruisers for the smaller nations except for the Escort and Coastal? I haven't played up into the 70's and so but the relevant techs didn't show any buildable. Also, a generic Carrier for smaller nations might be interesting as well, just to give them a bit more options. Also, I've a complaint about the power of the F-16 versus the JA-37 Viggen. The Viggen and F-16 aren't that different in performance in real life as they are in the civilopedia, although the Viggen is bigger and heavier, and they carry comparable armament. Why the big difference in performance? And I do think that you should add the J-35 Draken. It was, after all, the first true European supersonic fighter. Also, what's up with the incredibly high unit prices? 250 shields for a post-war infantry man? :confused: EstebanOct 26, 2005, 04:04 PMSome weird bug In my Cuba game, the Federal Reserve Bank only gives me one bonus commerce instead of 50% and also the Factory doesn't give the bonus either. What's wrong ? I_batmanOct 26, 2005, 06:02 PMVery well done scenario, except for a few quirks... For example, why aren't there any generic DD's, subs and Cruisers for the smaller nations except for the Escort and Coastal? I haven't played up into the 70's and so but the relevant techs didn't show any buildable. Also, a generic Carrier for smaller nations might be interesting as well, just to give them a bit more options. Also, I've a complaint about the power of the F-16 versus the JA-37 Viggen. The Viggen and F-16 aren't that different in performance in real life as they are in the civilopedia, although the Viggen is bigger and heavier, and they carry comparable armament. Why the big difference in performance? And I do think that you should add the J-35 Draken. It was, after all, the first true European supersonic fighter. Also, what's up with the incredibly high unit prices? 250 shields for a post-war infantry man? :confused: Actually, a lot of effort went into deciding what civ's got what naval units. In fact, every navy's history (in the game) was researched to see exactly what naval units they had and when. It is pretty accurate, when compared to history. There is no generic carrier because the civ's that don't have carriers, never built carriers in reality. I can't comment on the F-16 vs the other jets, because I am not strong on the history of these European planes. And the cost of the infantry was hammered out for game play. Given the production values of the various civ's, you will see there is quite a range in abilities and costs for each civ's infantry, based mostly on historical values, and also to make the game play fair. I_batmanOct 26, 2005, 06:03 PMSome weird bug In my Cuba game, the Federal Reserve Bank only gives me one bonus commerce instead of 50% and also the Factory doesn't give the bonus either. What's wrong ? Probably not a bug, but more likely the Cyclopedia is inaccurate. I think there are still some inaccuracies in the Cyclopedia. srbOct 27, 2005, 04:18 PMActually, a lot of effort went into deciding what civ's got what naval units. In fact, every navy's history (in the game) was researched to see exactly what naval units they had and when. It is pretty accurate, when compared to history. There is no generic carrier because the civ's that don't have carriers, never built carriers in reality. I understand that, but it does make it a lot less interesting to play with minor nations and trying to make a difference. Also, Sweden should at least have advanced submarines later on in the Cold War, and possibly more tanks, like the defensive STRV S. Sweden also had Centurion tanks. However, this isn't my scenario and I don't decide what goes in it. I'm just giving a bit of critique. And the cost of the infantry was hammered out for game play. Given the production values of the various civ's, you will see there is quite a range in abilities and costs for each civ's infantry, based mostly on historical values, and also to make the game play fair. Or are you just trying to make the war be REALLY cold? ^^ silver 2039Oct 30, 2005, 11:03 AMNot to advertise or anything but I am writing a story about my game as the USSR based on the lastest version of this scenario so it may intreast you. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=135142 El JustoOct 31, 2005, 06:51 PMEl Justo, I had a thought about 1st gen vs 2nd gen infantry. I did something without thinking about the repercussions until afterwards, and I think it goes against the intent of the infantry upgrades. I got the tech required to build 2nd gen infantry, and did a shift-U to upgrade all the units. Now, playing as the US I had captured a couple Chinese cities plus Hamburg. Because I had built barracks in these cities, these cities on essentially foreign soil also had the infantry there upgraded as well. The way I envsion a unit being upgraded in reality, be it a tank divsion, a naval unit, or an infantry division, is it would have to be at a home base or port where where it has access to a ton or resources and material to produce that upgrade. The armoured, naval, and air units units abroad I can't upgrade for that very reason, since these cities abroad don't have access to the requisite resources to upgrade the unit, be it oil, rubber, or aluminun. But since the infantry unit has no required resources, I can upgrade them abroad. I am starting to think that perhaps the 2nd gen infantry, marines, and possibly airborne should need at least rubber, and maybe oil as required resources, to even up the game. good point. maybe we can incorporate this for a future version? El JustoOct 31, 2005, 07:00 PMSome weird bug In my Cuba game, the Federal Reserve Bank only gives me one bonus commerce instead of 50% and also the Factory doesn't give the bonus either. What's wrong ? hi Esteban. it's likely that the civilopedia wasn't updated. that's all. El JustoOct 31, 2005, 07:08 PMhi srb. thanks for the nice words. I_b touched on most of the points. we didn't want to allow some of the lower civis to build vessels, etc that they didn't build in RL. most of the unit stats (2nd and 3rd generation onwards really) were put in almost a year ago actually. i'd have to look at the viggen-f16 comparison you write of before giving a more precise opinion. i had thought about adding in that Swedish armour but i didn't. i can't recall why but i just didn'y. however, i would consider adding it for a future version. the high shield costs is for a few reasons. the main one is to give game play balance. this is attained mainly by keeping the total no. of units on the lower end and to put a strong emphasis on city buildings that give production bonuses. lastly, the low-end amount of units helps keep the turn times down some so that there aren't horsed and hordes of units on the map. thanks for the comments, too! El JustoOct 31, 2005, 07:09 PMWinner, were you able to make the changes that you wanted to? El JustoOct 31, 2005, 07:22 PMNot to advertise or anything but I am writing a story about my game as the USSR based on the lastest version of this scenario so it may intreast you. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=135142 never a problem mate! keep them coming! MichaNov 01, 2005, 07:50 AMStrange, everyone seems to be able to play this, however I´m getting a "file not found" error... Unzipped the files to /civ3/conquests/scenarios and the biq to that very same folder. Chose Warszaw Pact and clicked start, then *pow*, there it goes... :( AnthropoidNov 01, 2005, 08:06 AMHmm, never seen that specific file missing "MarinesRunRifle2.wav" but many of us had similar sorts of "missing file" error messages when we first tried to dl this mod Micha. I think mine was Theatre missing or something. The thing that seemed to "fix it" for me was just to dl at a less active time of day. The DL took SO long (even with DSL) that I think the files tend to get corrupted. If you DL at a low traffic time of day, I found that the DL time was much reduced, and then it opened up and worked fine. The only other thing is, make sure when you fail to DL the first time, delete the entire TCW folder from the scnearios folder. Also, when you unzip it, there seems to often be an extra folder in the file directory structure, and that may cause some problems. As far as I have observed on this thread, all of us who have had this problem eventually "fixed it" just by DLing repeatedly and eventually getting a nice clean and fast DL at a low traffic time of day. El JustoNov 01, 2005, 10:29 AMMicha, i would do exactly as Anthropoid suggests. it ought to work for you. iow, there's no bugs present that causes a crash such as the one you describe. Adler17Nov 02, 2005, 02:16 AMMicha, the problem is the German version of Civ 3! You have to copy and paste the standard units of civ 3 and rename them into English. So a Katapult is now a catapult. Also you have to rename the .ini files that they have the same name like the units. There is also a patch around here but I didn´t use him and have no opinion on that. However it should run then. Adler MichaNov 02, 2005, 04:16 AMThank you all for your kind and quick response! :) Micha, the problem is the German version of Civ 3! You have to copy and paste the standard units of civ 3 and rename them into English. So a Katapult is now a catapult. Also you have to rename the .ini files that they have the same name like the units. There is also a patch around here but I didn´t use him and have no opinion on that. However it should run then. Adler Yes, thanks, but I know that and have already renamed all units. Notice the path the missing file is looked for in: /paramilitary/... Browsing the folders, I found that "Paramilitary" is almost empty and no sign of any Marine unit can be found there... What´s up with that? There´s a "Marine" folder with the wanted files in the /civ3/art/units folder. Why isn´t it found by the scenario? I´m now trying to copy it over to the scenario folder, which is tricky, because parts of the path are not displayed in the error message... I also d/l'ed the files two times with a complete reinstall in between, no change... :( MichaNov 02, 2005, 04:32 AMYay, it finally works! For all still interested: The problem was that I had both the English and the German version installed, the latter one more recently. So while I had copied all the files into the English version folder and started that one, the registry (which I guess is used by the game to search for files not specified in the scenario subfolder) had ONLY the German version registered. So the game (English version) looked for the missing unit graphics in the German version folder... Stupid program... Simple solution: Copy the entire Civ3/Art/Units content into /civ3/conquests/scenarios/tcw/art/units and voilá, the thing is running! :) I have noticed that many mods countered this problem (in fact, this one is the first English mod I had such problems with), maybe they specified a search path in the scenario files which overrides the registry search... Now let´s play this great mod! Thanks to Anthropoid, El Justo and Adler17 :) EDIT: lol, I especially like the civilopedia entry for "judicial system" :D El JustoNov 02, 2005, 09:43 AMMicha, that's good to hear. i assume that the "Judicial System" entry refers to my line of work? cassa61Nov 02, 2005, 09:56 AMHey again El Justo, since I just bought Civ 4, it's got me in the mood for making another Australian Empire with your mod. If at all possible, could you give me a quick rundown of the major changes. :p I look forward to playing it again :D El JustoNov 02, 2005, 10:15 AMhi cassa61. welcome back mate. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3180378&postcount=2555 that's a link for many of the changes for v1.6 our main goal was to cure the "dead end" units in the upgrade paths. also, some new units were added in although you need not DL any extra unit gfx, etc. just the 1.6 biq file...and that's it! enjoy! cassa61Nov 02, 2005, 10:19 AMThanks, heh heh, I actually have to redownload it all, things don't remain on my hdd for 8 months. I'm currently browsing your other forum, interesting. Now to get civ 3 back from the friend who has it, and happens to live 400 kilometres away... El JustoNov 02, 2005, 10:30 AM400 km?! get that disc back! -lol- if you haven't played it 8+ months then you're in for some pretty big surprises. first, we stretched the starting date of the scenario from 1960 all the way back to 1950. of course, there's all of the extra "Fifties" units in there now. production levels have also been modded as well as some of the global A/D values for the mech inf, foot units, and tanks. specifically, the tank units now are all less in D than the mech inf. this was done primarily to give the mech inf units more usefullness b/c in prior versions of TCW, the human player would literally build all tanks and ignore all of the other ground units. iow, the playablilty and balance of 1.6 is fantastic. we spent many an hour trying to get it right, too. we love test reports also. post them if you have time! El JustoNov 03, 2005, 10:57 AM3 november 2005 update since civ4 won't run on my PC, i've decided to start work on a new map for TCW (among other things). no, it's not what you're thinking...a world map or even a regional map. instead, i've imported the TCW 1.6 rules into a blank biq file and created a new biq called "TCW1.6 Random". as the name implies, everything is completely random; the map, starting locations, resources, VP spots, you name it. i had to tweak the resources around some but the basic premises of TCW are intact like the unit lines, the civis, techs, etc. also, this version will have settler units. iow, it's going to be like a "mod" in that you can really build an empire. i'll have to do some minor testing w/ it but it's gonna sort be like an 'out of the box' mod in that it'll be playable right from the 'git-go. i'll probably open up a new thread for it, too. man o' warNov 03, 2005, 11:57 AMSounds cool - won't there need to be quite a few changes though; will you be able to build wonders like special ops? How will this work in relation to the resources (as different civs are "tied" to different resources)? El JustoNov 03, 2005, 12:13 PMSounds cool - won't there need to be quite a few changes though; will you be able to build wonders like special ops? How will this work in relation to the resources (as different civs are "tied" to different resources)? hi man 'o war. not as many as you'd think. i had to tie the country resources into the 'dummy techs'. iow, if you're playing as the UK, you won't even be able to see the "Soviet Union" resource on the map b/c the Brits won't have the "Mathematics" tech (ie the dummy tech for the Soviets). also, each and every special wonder which autopro's units is now under the jurisdiction of the resources. what this version will really highlight is the strategy of TCW. the US won't have the advantage of having 2 large oceans buffering them against any enemies. plus, the civer can chose what type of map (panagea, archipelago, etc). it's really an experiment. AnthropoidNov 03, 2005, 12:36 PMWow that sounds AWESOME El Justo. If you need any help let me know. I won't have Civ4 for at least another week or so! :) man o' warNov 03, 2005, 12:40 PMI really do like the idea, and hope you can't get civ IV to work anytime soon :P El JustoNov 03, 2005, 12:54 PMWow that sounds AWESOME El Justo. If you need any help let me know. I won't have Civ4 for at least another week or so! :) thanks dude. the one catch is that i couldn't pre-place anything. that means that all of the flavour wonders will have to be built. no biggie really. the only tedious thing to it was running down all of the resources and flagging the appropriate 'dummy techs' to them. i hope your PC is buff enough to run civ4. mine ain't and i'm in no hurry to spend alot of money to upgrade just to play what is, to me, only CIV4 BETA. gimme the expansion packs and that SDK crap and i'll begin my civ4 experience. until then, it's civ3. :p man o' war, i'm going to have to go 'back to school' to learn all of the C++ crap. i'm a when it comes to that stuff. Red DoorNov 03, 2005, 04:19 PMSorry about Civ4 not working. That sux. Didnt work for me either. Anyway I like the random map idea, but Im too busy playing Civ4 too try it out. Plus I deleted Civ3.;) El JustoNov 03, 2005, 05:41 PMSorry about Civ4 not working. That sux. Didnt work for me either. Anyway I like the random map idea, but Im too busy playing Civ4 too try it out. Plus I deleted Civ3.;) no sweat Al. nothing to be sorry about though... so, you're...what?...playing civ2 then? :p Red DoorNov 03, 2005, 06:21 PMNo I got Civ 4 to work with limited power. I can only play quick games, no custom options. Did you do all that stuff with defragmentizing the disk because that helps a lot. FYI: Even though you said you weren't going to make The Cold War for Civ 4, it would be freaking awesome with the new concepts added. AnthropoidNov 03, 2005, 06:21 PMI put together a new tower this year for only about $900 that is plenty powerful enough for Civ 4. Actually, FINALLY got hold of an additional copy of XP today so I can get that mutha runnin. My laptop is a solid machine, but I wanna defray the heat wear on it. As for your mod, El Justo, that sounds absolutely-fricking-awesome! If I may make any suggestions: 1. Some of the dynamics in the Age of Discovery scenario would be nifty, i.e., trade ships that bring back enough gold or VPs or whatever to actually make them worthwhile. This would make for a particularly cool MP version. 2. The Rise and Rule Mod (RAR) has a TON of detail all through the tech tree and units. It is a bit TOO detailed IMO, but you might get some ideas for alternate or flavor units throughout the ages. I would love to design a good RAR MP version, but you're mod does a much better job with modern units/techs than ANY other I've ever seen, so it would be neat if you could modularize your mod to something like RAR which is good, if a bit overly detailed, for the Ancient and Middle Ages. Even fleshes out the Age of Enlightenment stuff to a certain extent though it turns out to be just a blip right at beginning of Modern Era. I_batmanNov 03, 2005, 09:36 PMI put together a new tower this year for only about$900 that is plenty powerful enough for Civ 4. Actually, FINALLY got hold of an additional copy of XP today so I can get that mutha runnin. My laptop is a solid machine, but I wanna defray the heat wear on it. . $900 ???????? What did you put in it? I figure the video card is going to run a minimum of$450. Sorry for jacking the thread El Justo, but I am looking at a powerful machine so I can try to tackle the huge maps which bog down with all the AI processing. Oh yeah, and that Civ Iv thingie too. Even though I have not played Civ IV, I don't think TCW will port over well. From all that I have read on the forum, running a civ with a ton of cities is next to impossible, plus I don't think the map sizes are anything to write home about. AnthropoidNov 04, 2005, 05:22 AMTiger Direct: XFX GeForce FX 5500 / 256MB DDR / AGP 8X / VGA/DVI/TV Out/ Vid Card $87 (not the most incredible vid card, but reasonable, and$87 easily upgradable/disposable) Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz / 1MB cache/800FSB/Socket775/Hyperthreading Chip (I shopped the chips a bit, and this one seemed to be the absolute best deal as far as having a good-sized FSB, above average speed, and cache size) $169.99 Ultra 600 Watt ATX Dual 80mm fans power supply (MORE POWER!!)$79.99 Cooler Master Centurion ATX Mid-tower with front USB, fireware, audio ports (very nice case, and built for coolness, excellent backbone for any system for many, many years) $79.99 AOpen i9156Gm-I Intel Socket 775 ATX motherboard (solid motherboard on which I can add plenty of upgrades for at least 5 years, maybe longer)$99.99 With that much power, the chip I chose, the case built for cooling, and that motherboard, I figure I've got a very solid backbone for a system that I can keep adding to and upgrading for a long time. AOpen DUW1608 DVD+RW (whatever . . .) $47.97 Don't seem to have the hard drive details handy but pretty sure it was about$70 or less Not counting the OS (which I had to shell out $345 Can!!) that comes to what . . . (grabs calculator)$634.93 and with OS it is $979.99 (US) I'm probably forgetting some components, urm, lessee . . . I bought a mondo CPU fan but the Intel chip came with one, so I returned that. Initially got the wrong vid card and had to return that too. I bought the extra fan for the centurion case, and I think that was about$25. If you count in the keyboard, and mouse you add another $125 or thereabouts (depending on how ergonomic you like your stuff). That pretty much covers it I think! So I figure for a COMPLETE system, including the OS, and human-interface hardware you can get a solid machine, that is highly upgradable for around$1,100 US. I'ze off a bit, but not much. If you've already got a case, HD, DVD, keyboard, etc., a new motherboard, chip, and vid card are drop dead easy to put in, and that only comes to $356 US for my rig. They're practically givin the stuff away!! man o' warNov 04, 2005, 12:26 PMSame with me when I upgraded my machine recently - yeah, the time it took a month to get working :p I kept the basics and got a new motherboard, RAM, Chip and Graphics for around £320 or so, which i think is somewhere around$356...? That was with a pentium 4 3Ghz processor, basic radeon 9550, a gig of RAM and a very "upgradable" motherboard. Shame I'm using a 1995 gateway keyboard at the moment :lol: Red DoorNov 04, 2005, 02:49 PMIm just buying a new graphic card so I dont experience any problems with the graphics. Will cost me \$100 which is a lot for a 14-year old kid like me. srbNov 05, 2005, 05:18 AMhi srb. thanks for the nice words. I_b touched on most of the points. we didn't want to allow some of the lower civis to build vessels, etc that they didn't build in RL. most of the unit stats (2nd and 3rd generation onwards really) were put in almost a year ago actually. I understand that, it's not my scenario but I just thought I'd comment on it. For balance reasons one could make them worse and more expensive than the other carriers and cruisers, but still capable, but like I said, not my scenario. Excellent work regardless ^^. As for Sweden, we have been one of the world's premier submarine nations for quite some time now. Recently the US Navy leased one of our subs and its crew for ASW practice, our modern subs are some of the best in the world and the older ones used during the cold war are no slouches either. It could be difficult to find info about them on the web though :/. The manufacturer, Kockums, does have some information about them: Södermanland-class, formerly Västergötland-class (http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/sodermanland.html), 1987 Näcken-class (http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/nacken.html), 1978 Sjöormen/Challenger-class (http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/challenger.html), 1968 As you'll see, they were (and still are) some excellent subs. i'd have to look at the viggen-f16 comparison you write of before giving a more precise opinion. Well, the Viggen is a heavy fighter with STOL capabilities and it carried pretty much the same weaponry that the F-16 carried. The F-16 is a light tactical fighter. They're about as fast, but the F-16 is more maneuverable thanks to its unstable construction. When Viggen came into service its engine was the most powerful jet engine mounted on any fighter. The later version Jaktviggen (1979) is also equipped with a 30mm Oerlikon cannon, making it very lethal in dogfights. A unique feature is the coupling of the radar gunsighting mode to the autopilot, introduced with Edit 32. When the pilot places a target in a capture window, the autopilot takes over pitch and yaw, and presents bank information on the HUD for the pilot to follow. Even if it's not followed, the pitch and yaw channels have enough authority to precision aim the cannon, reducing pilot workload letting him or her concentrate on tactics and situational awareness. There are several variants (http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/37viggen.htm) of the Viggen, but one or possibly two would be quite enough if you would decide to change it that way (one early, one late perhaps?). i had thought about adding in that Swedish armour but i didn't. i can't recall why but i just didn'y. however, i would consider adding it for a future version. That's good to hear, and even if you don't would you consider changing it so that Sweden can build Centurion tanks? the high shield costs is for a few reasons. the main one is to give game play balance. this is attained mainly by keeping the total no. of units on the lower end and to put a strong emphasis on city buildings that give production bonuses. lastly, the low-end amount of units helps keep the turn times down some so that there aren't horsed and hordes of units on the map. I understand and I believe that it's a good idea. thanks for the comments, too! No problems! Even after Civ IV has been released I'm finding this scenario to be incredibly fun to play :goodjob: ! Are you planning a version for Civ IV after the SDK is released? El JustoNov 05, 2005, 08:54 AMvery nice post srb. thank you for those links, too. i will, at some point, diversify Scandinavia's unit lines b/c you are right. they are sort of lacking when compared it's euro neighbor-allies. the problem w/ a civ4 version of TCW is the distinct lack of custom units. however, at some point, yeah, i'd like to see a TCW scenario for civ4. AnthropoidNov 05, 2005, 09:45 AMHey El Justo, What are the changes you made in the editor to make turn times so short? I've made a huge map for the RAR mod to while away the days till I get Civ4 and the turns are already getting too long for my tastes at only turn 65 of 915! I_batmanNov 05, 2005, 11:48 AMHey El Justo, What are the changes you made in the editor to make turn times so short? I've made a huge map for the RAR mod to while away the days till I get Civ4 and the turns are already getting too long for my tastes at only turn 65 of 915! Big thing that cut down on turn times was no trading allowed via harbours and airports. The AI spends countless cycles calculating each and every trade route when those two are enabled. That was the biggie. I am betting if you turned off ALL trade it would go slightly faster still, but then the game balance would be off, IMHO. I have a feeling that Civ III will be kicking around for quite awhile. Porting scenarios over is going to be a nightmare, if at all possible, and I have no faith that a scenario with 512 cities with 31 civ's is even something the Civ IV game engine can handle. man o' warNov 05, 2005, 03:56 PMBig thing that cut down on turn times was no trading allowed via harbours and airports. The AI spends countless cycles calculating each and every trade route when those two are enabled. That was the biggie. I am betting if you turned off ALL trade it would go slightly faster still, but then the game balance would be off, IMHO. I have a feeling that Civ III will be kicking around for quite awhile. Porting scenarios over is going to be a nightmare, if at all possible, and I have no faith that a scenario with 512 cities with 31 civ's is even something the Civ IV game engine can handle. ...or at least not without a couple of expansion packs. I have decided not to buy Civ IV untill it is bugfree - particularly as there will be few if any scenarios untill the exp. packs start emerging. Oh yeah, and something to do with me not having any money. srbNov 05, 2005, 06:41 PMvery nice post srb. thank you for those links, too. i will, at some point, diversify Scandinavia's unit lines b/c you are right. they are sort of lacking when compared it's euro neighbor-allies. A bit, yes, and while I try to keep patriotic bias out of my slight criticism it is an established fact that we weren't just sitting on our butts doing nothing when it comes to military technology during the cold war ^^. But I do also recognize how incredibly vast of a project this scenario really is and that Scandinavia is nothing more than a bit player so it's quite understandable that the focus has been on the NATO and Soviet blocs. the problem w/ a civ4 version of TCW is the distinct lack of custom units. however, at some point, yeah, i'd like to see a TCW scenario for civ4. Yeah, I could see how making 100+ custom units for a scenario could be quite a handful, but if you ever decide to try to make the scenario I'm sure it'll be a great effort, just like this :) . Red DoorNov 05, 2005, 06:50 PM@ El Justo and Srb: Doesn't TCW use mostly units from unit graphics forum? I recognize a lot of them from other scenarios? When the last expansion is released wont there be a lot of new units available? Im waiting to do my scenarios until then anyway. But Im patient. AnthropoidNov 05, 2005, 08:36 PMBig thing that cut down on turn times was no trading allowed via harbours and airports. The AI spends countless cycles calculating each and every trade route when those two are enabled. That was the biggie. I am betting if you turned off ALL trade it would go slightly faster still, but then the game balance would be off, IMHO. I have a feeling that Civ III will be kicking around for quite awhile. Porting scenarios over is going to be a nightmare, if at all possible, and I have no faith that a scenario with 512 cities with 31 civ's is even something the Civ IV game engine can handle. Thanks Batman. I'll try this. Amazing that just that one aspect of the game slows it down so much, but I can believe it. With so many tiles, trade routes, units, civs, the number of permutations, and the ripple effects that broken-established routes have on game outcomes, it does make sense that it would be an onerous string of calculations for the processor. I'm just trying to think if there is any way that the human can still take advantage of trade but leave the AI out of it, so that trading remains an important part of an epic SP game. I_batmanNov 05, 2005, 09:26 PMThanks Batman. I'll try this. Amazing that just that one aspect of the game slows it down so much, but I can believe it. With so many tiles, trade routes, units, civs, the number of permutations, and the ripple effects that broken-established routes have on game outcomes, it does make sense that it would be an onerous string of calculations for the processor. I'm just trying to think if there is any way that the human can still take advantage of trade but leave the AI out of it, so that trading remains an important part of an epic SP game. Well, keep in mind that one of the small wonders that each civ can build in ONE city allows for trade by air. I believe it is Overseas Trade, but not sure. The key to this is you want to be careful where you build it, since you have only one shot at it. ie. A key island that does not have resources on it, or on yoir mainland to allow for luxury trade with tran-ocean partners who have buolt it as well. silver 2039Nov 06, 2005, 08:15 AMHey have you considered adding a few of the more modern units? T-90 or Black Eagel for Russia (It hink that India should also have acess to the T- line of units. Perhaps you could waken them a bit for the Indian version?) F-35 for the US Not sure if it's in but maybe the SU-27 or SU-30 for Russia/China/India Arjun Tank for India Super-7 for China/Pakistan and so on.... Red DoorNov 06, 2005, 10:07 AMHey have you considered adding a few of the more modern units? T-90 or Black Eagel for Russia (It hink that India should also have acess to the T- line of units. Perhaps you could waken them a bit for the Indian version?) F-35 for the US Not sure if it's in but maybe the SU-27 or SU-30 for Russia/China/India Arjun Tank for India Super-7 for China/Pakistan and so on.... Aren't these all units that were developed in the 90's? KlydenNov 06, 2005, 10:27 AMThey are for the most part. I won't speak directly for El Justo, but we had discussed making the scenario longer before (result being a 1950 start time vs a 1960). I don't know if it is in the cards for a future version going longer or not. Obviously, there has been a lot happen since the end of the cold war although any extension would likely be based upon the premise that the cold war continued. warmwafflesNov 06, 2005, 01:20 PMIs it me or is that v1.6 link to 3ddownloads not working? EDIT: Nevermind it was my wireless card....DLing the newest version now EmerentiusNov 07, 2005, 10:35 AMhi, playing your splendid scenario :goodjob: i was wondering if it's possible to adjust the movement rate of ships? i'm playing as w-germ/lowlands and want to bring some transports to greece/turkey to cross and attack the arabs but it takes like 23 turns/months for my ships to circle around africa (med is blocked by france ships) and i would think it should be no more than 2 months. El JustoNov 07, 2005, 10:42 AMhi, playing your splendid scenario :goodjob: i was wondering if it's possible to adjust the movement rate of ships? i'm playing as w-germ/lowlands and want to bring some transports to greece/turkey to cross and attack the arabs but it takes like 23 turns/months for my ships to circle around africa (med is blocked by france ships) and i would think it should be no more than 2 months. hi there Emerentius. you would need to open up the biq file in the editor and adjust the movement rate for the transports. it's quite easy actually...however, you'd have to start a new game as it isn't possible to mod it and then load up the current game. one note: iirc, the Adv Amph Warfare tech allows for a higher mvmt transport unit (6 i think). thanks for the nice words, too! man o' warNov 07, 2005, 10:45 AMhi, playing your splendid scenario :goodjob: i was wondering if it's possible to adjust the movement rate of ships? i'm playing as w-germ/lowlands and want to bring some transports to greece/turkey to cross and attack the arabs but it takes like 23 turns/months for my ships to circle around africa (med is blocked by france ships) and i would think it should be no more than 2 months. I do see your point but can you imagine the effects on gameplay balence if ships could move that fast? One sight of a (bigger) enemy ship, and you can dissappear immediately. It's one of the main flaws in the Civ engine - best to have movement rates lower that higher though, IMO. Of course, if you still want them changed, there is no reason why you shouldn't do it yourelf in the editor... I have made minor gameplay changes myself on my version. man o' warNov 07, 2005, 10:46 AMwhoops, you beat me to the post, El Justo :p EmerentiusNov 08, 2005, 12:01 PMthanks guys. just found out the red sea was blocked too. this time by english subs so their isn't any point anymore. i'll leave it as it is. WinnerNov 08, 2005, 05:54 PMWinner, were you able to make the changes that you wanted to? Still working on that (don't have enough time, damn studies). I have a little problem with Greece. As I said, I've merged the Southern Europe into one civ, but somehow the Greece still appears in the diplomatic screen as a separate civ. I absolutely don't know why - they don't have any cities, units, nothing. Maybe they hate Italians so much they can't stand living along them? :mischief: To counterweight the USSR in Europe, I've also merged the France and Germany into the Western Euro civ. It's not very accurate since the French haven't participated in NATO, but well, nothing is perfect. Then I've massacred many cities, in foolish attempt to dissuade the AI from building so many defensive units. Completely off-topic: I have an idea - you could make few subscenarios representing different stages of the Cold war. For example one scenario in 1962, then some in mid-70's, late 80's etc. It could be interesting to jump in the world with modern weapons and start a modern war right in the beginning. (now, I am going to finish off the ChiComms :D Operation Dragonhell is underway - few nukes on Beijing, then a surgical strike with my M-60 divisions (I am actually giving names to every one of them - 32nd to 45th Assault Armored Divisions are prepared by now ;) ) and the Chinks are without all their tactical nukes=no danger of nuclear retaliation. Fools.) El JustoNov 09, 2005, 08:01 AMhi Winner. welcome back. i'd have to look at your biq file closely to properly diagnose your problem. i'd be happy to do so. however, if it's a 'condensed' version you're looking for, i'd suggest that you look no further than the MP version of TCW by Klyden. it's 8 total civis w/ the hardware distributed evenly, etc. we had actually given that 'sub-scenario' idea some thought before. as a matter of fact, i released a biq called "TCW The Fifties" which, as the name implies, is relegated solely to the 1950s. the intention was to do one for each decade. the kicker is that it i made it on a massive map (360-something x 360-something). i had worked some on the 60s version but stalled some due to RL stuff. i may eventually get back to them. I_batman was working on a 70s version as well. Adler17Nov 09, 2005, 08:10 AMI hope you make the huge version 1950- 1991. I think that would be a great scenario. Adler El JustoNov 09, 2005, 08:20 AMAdler, the problem w/ the huge versions are the nasty, nasty turn times at about turn no. 150 or so. i'm talking 60 mins+. I_batman has actually played the huge map from beginning to near-end and he was waiting quite some time at the end there. now, up to 150 turns, the wait is quite decent. this is why i had broken it down into decade versions (ie 120 turns). to be honest though, the sheer size of the huge map is overwhelmingly impressive and adds many more dimensions to strategy, etc. i would need some help if i were to get the other decade versions of the ground though. it's a lot of work. man o' warNov 09, 2005, 10:34 AMon the huge maps, are the unit speeds updated? I know there are more cities, but it's important to keep game balence right by allowing a tank to travel more than 40 miles in a month :crazyeye: El JustoNov 09, 2005, 10:41 AMyes man o' war...the mvmt rates were adjusted accordingly. I_batmanNov 09, 2005, 04:27 PMhi Winner. welcome back. i'd have to look at your biq file closely to properly diagnose your problem. i'd be happy to do so. however, if it's a 'condensed' version you're looking for, i'd suggest that you look no further than the MP version of TCW by Klyden. it's 8 total civis w/ the hardware distributed evenly, etc. we had actually given that 'sub-scenario' idea some thought before. as a matter of fact, i released a biq called "TCW The Fifties" which, as the name implies, is relegated solely to the 1950s. the intention was to do one for each decade. the kicker is that it i made it on a massive map (360-something x 360-something). i had worked some on the 60s version but stalled some due to RL stuff. i may eventually get back to them. I_batman was working on a 70s version as well. Yeah, I was working on the 70's version, then also got bogged down in that RL thing. I am trying to have a look at it, but there is a matter of priorities. In no particular order: 1. Get a machine powerful enough to chew through a small game of Civ IV and/or a TCW version on huge map. BTW, wait times did indeed get ugly. I think I may have a save floating around, and will post it, if I can find it. 2. Learn Python well enough to be useful if/when Civ IV is bug-free enough to play. Not sure that is going to happen after reading Sirian's posts today. Sirian is the map-maker for Firaxis, and reading what he said sure sounds like death for large scale scenarios in Civ IV. 3. Learn/play Civ IV. 4. Do what I said I would do, namely build an 70's version and an 80's version of huge maps of TCW. WinnerNov 10, 2005, 01:18 AMhi Winner. welcome back. i'd have to look at your biq file closely to properly diagnose your problem. i'd be happy to do so. The problem has been solved, although I don't know how. however, if it's a 'condensed' version you're looking for, i'd suggest that you look no further than the MP version of TCW by Klyden. it's 8 total civis w/ the hardware distributed evenly, etc. I know, I am just experimenting with your scenario. It's a great work. I'll make few changes to the Klyden's MP version for my personal use as well (I must say I don't like the idea of China and India merged to one civ). we had actually given that 'sub-scenario' idea some thought before. as a matter of fact, i released a biq called "TCW The Fifties" which, as the name implies, is relegated solely to the 1950s. the intention was to do one for each decade. the kicker is that it i made it on a massive map (360-something x 360-something). i had worked some on the 60s version but stalled some due to RL stuff. i may eventually get back to them. I_batman was working on a 70s version as well. That's good. Well, I am not exactly a fan of huge maps, they're very demanding and I don't have enough time (and patience ;) ) for such games. Is anybody working on a regional map, based on TCW? WinnerNov 11, 2005, 07:28 AMOh my God, who said the AI is dumb?! :eek: I've protected my bases in Europe, where my tactical bombers were stationed, with US Marines. I discovered the Adv. Amph. W. so I moved them to Prague (captured WP city) for upgrade. And know what? Those damn commies attacked :mad: smashing my entire stockpile of tactical bombers with tanks so I am now totally outnumbered (in Europe, most of my armored divisions are now occuping China)[pissed] If Prague falls, I'll launch my nukes. :bump: :nuke: warmwafflesNov 11, 2005, 11:51 AMI've protected my bases in Europe, where my tactical bombers were stationed, with US Marines. I discovered the Adv. Amph. W. so I moved them to Prague (captured WP city) for upgrade. And know what? Those damn commies attacked smashing my entire stockpile of tactical bombers with tanks so I am now totally outnumbered (in Europe, most of my armored divisions are now occuping China) If Prague falls, I'll launch my nukes. What the hell are your tactical bombers doing in Europe...lol...I take it you didn't base any of your B-52's there correct cuz that would have been the biggest mistake you have ever made. Also the AI pretty much knows where all the weak towns are...thats why they all stockpile up near a weak city and when you move a couple good defenders the stock pile goes away. All right today I am gonna play some TCW...I was occupied by Rocotechs WW2 Global...but now I feel like bombin the sh it outa someone WinnerNov 11, 2005, 12:05 PMWhat the hell are your tactical bombers doing in Europe...lol...I take it you didn't base any of your B-52's there correct cuz that would have been the biggest mistake you have ever made. B-52's are placed safely in the US territory, but the A-4's and A-6's have to be in Europe to bomb out the approaching Soviet armored divisions. Also the AI pretty much knows where all the weak towns are...thats why they all stockpile up near a weak city and when you move a couple good defenders the stock pile goes away. AI is a ---- ;) But I've set a trap - the Soviet AI is apparently reluctant to send it's TU-95's to bomb cities protected by interceptors, so I've placed few SAM's in Honolulu and let them try to bomb the city. They've lost 8 bombers there :lol: All right today I am gonna play some TCW...I was occupied by Rocotechs WW2 Global...but now I feel like bombin the sh it outa someone Good call :) warmwafflesNov 11, 2005, 12:08 PMGood call Ya I need to find new Border flags though....cuz I had some pretty cool ones before I had to re format my HD. so when I find the flags I am off to bomb commies. EDIT: Hey El Justo check this out http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=108483 its the United States building GFX....might be useful for this mod...no? Red DoorNov 11, 2005, 04:34 PMyeah, they look good. (US Cities) El are you ever going to put flag leaderheads in? Because I think Stalin looks very bad as Catherine. warmwafflesNov 12, 2005, 12:46 PMI think its an insult lol El JustoNov 13, 2005, 11:48 AMWinner, good to see you solved the 'merge' problem. re the MP version: we also weren't particularly thrilled w/ lumping china in w/ india. however, for balance and gameplay reasons, we went w/ it. of course, if there's a more desirable set-up, we'd certainly consider it. i've seen the AI do some astounding things in this scenario over the course of time. the AI will often focus on soft spots in your defense. however, i know for certain that the AI shys away from locations w/ an army unit. Driveby, cool cities, for sure. i thought of customizing the city gfx but never got around to it. same for the leaderheads. at one time, there was a flag pack in the works. but that time and the cfc'er who was to make them seem to have passed. warmwafflesNov 13, 2005, 11:57 AMYa it seems to happen a lot now. You get interested in playing Civ3. Then you start modding it. Then it gets boring and thats where I decided to STOP there because if I kept working on it while I was bored I would grow to hate it. But anyhow. When I was playing whats up with the Commies having Humvee's? it's saying they are BTR-(somethin)? Is this a bug or is it intentional El JustoNov 13, 2005, 12:15 PMthe btr152 gfx weren't available at the time i released v1.5. however, vingrjoe has made this unit...albeit a few days after i uploaded the TCW behemoth. anyhow, check the unit forum and you'll see the replacement for the humvee placeholder gfx. warmwafflesNov 13, 2005, 12:39 PMO well thats just being lazy Justo lol I will find the BTR152 and put it in.. El JustoNov 13, 2005, 12:44 PMyou silly 'wabbit... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=125982 WinnerNov 13, 2005, 02:15 PMWinner, good to see you solved the 'merge' problem. re the MP version: we also weren't particularly thrilled w/ lumping china in w/ india. however, for balance and gameplay reasons, we went w/ it. of course, if there's a more desirable set-up, we'd certainly consider it. I'll try it with my brothers. They don't play Civ very much, so it won't be a hard game ;) i've seen the AI do some astounding things in this scenario over the course of time. the AI will often focus on soft spots in your defense. however, i know for certain that the AI shys away from locations w/ an army unit. That's positive, AI doesn't attack the army, unless it is very damaged. Red DoorNov 15, 2005, 08:14 PMMe too. I invaded China with the Reds. I thought I had every route covered. They went through mountain pass where I had no defensive units only IS-3 tanks and captured Ashgabat. It was very positive to see that from an usually stupid AI. I tried MP version with my friends. They liked it, but SP is so much more fun. von_ClausewitzNov 15, 2005, 10:10 PMso i decide to start a new game with 1.6 and wasn't sure who to play. i just finished a 1.5 game as warsaw pact and wanted to try a smaller nation, perhaps brazil something like that. unable to decide i choose random, figuring 'how bad could it get?'. the rng being in a humorous mood gave me north africa. me being perhaps in a more humorous mood decided to accept my fate - just 5 cities, no worker to start with, no planes that could be built, cast off soviet equiptment, no allies, no special wonders for cool units, ect ect. one bright spot was no maintenance costs. so things move along fairly quickly with only 5 cities to keep track of. i'm giving away gold to whoever asks, and the line is long. begin plans along the lines of snatching the arab's african holdings of cairo and aswan. it doesn't take long to realize that it won't be easy. then i get my first spy and we begin the ritual robbing of workers. arabs have 3 groups of two between thier african cities. i take one and then during the ai turn one of the more blatent examples of AI stupidity occur. one of the other stacks of two move into the tile with my spy. first one then the other die to the pistol. now this isn't so odd, particularly with this senario as i have seen upwards of 4 workers all walk into the same spy and die. what was odd was that the first pair that i attacked, killing one and capturing the other, resulted in a promotion to elite. the idots that walked into the spy on thier own resulted in a leader, or corps in the scenario, for my spy. i got the corps back to my land and have since filled it with t55s, the best that the soviets could afford to throw away. the spy died in central africa after capturing a total of 5 workers, killing another 6. the death was due to the unfortunate circumstance of being caught on a railroad crossing when central african troops were in transit north to where some south african had advanced on thier way to settle a score with the arabs. now i doubt i will be able to 'win' but the corps was a nice surprise and may enable me to achive some limited goals - such as dominance over all of africa. maybe if i continue to be lucky i can get south america. El JustoNov 16, 2005, 08:09 AMwow von Clausewitz! that's quite some luck! i must say that i've popped some lucky 'corps' in my days but never w/ a spy unit. that's really something else! it should give you some much needed muscle. 7roninNov 16, 2005, 10:24 AMThanks to el Justo for another super game. I could probably spend the rest of my life just playing TCW and nothing else. Lot's of variety, nuance, and teriffic units aplenty to make playing even the small countries fun. Thanks again and keep up the good work! El JustoNov 16, 2005, 10:35 AMmy pleasure 7ronin. i hope you enjoy b/c i know that i have! WinnerNov 18, 2005, 02:19 AMI am now reading a book about NATO, WP and their struggle for dominance. It appears that in the year 1949, the Soviets had a HUGE conventional superiority - about 6 million Soviet soldiers equipped with modern weaponry - they were totally outnumbering the NATO land forces, but they lacked in the air force. In the summer 1951, NATO had 15 divisions in West Germany, facing 50 front line Eastern Bloc divisions. The Czechoslovakia and Poland alone had armies more powerful than the combined armed forces of Benelux and France. Looks like the Reds have missed their opportunity ;) Red DoorNov 18, 2005, 07:06 PMI am now reading a book about NATO, WP and their struggle for dominance. It appears than in the year 1949, the Soviets had a HUGE conventional superiority - about 6 million Soviet soldiers equipped with modern weaponry - they were totally outnumbering the NATO land forces, but they lacked in the air force. In the summer 1951, NATO had 15 divisions in West Germany, facing 50 front line Eastern Bloc divisions. The Czechoslovakia and Poland alone had armies more powerful than the combined armed forces of Benelux and France. Looks like the Reds have missed their opportunity ;) Oh yeah, big time. I must add I think they missed their chances at least a couple more times after that. KlydenNov 18, 2005, 08:37 PMPart of the issue that you have to keep in mind with some of the "window of opportunity" issues the Soviets had is what they thought of things themselves. First, immediately after the war, the Red airforce was huge. While technically inferior to the West, (First Soviet jets were not around or even close to ready and they had not had time to get the technology from the Germans), they could have given the western powers tactical airforce a run for their money. B29 units would still be unable to touch the heart of Soviet industry in the Urals (not that Allied intel knew it was there in the first place). The Reds also held advantages in quality and quantity of tanks. They had a clear edge with the JS3 in quantity production compared to the Pershing that was not available in quantity. The British were about finished as far as what they could take. 1944 was a very hard year on them for casualties and the mini-blitz. The UK had been at war for 6 years and had just enough to get them through. You also have to remember that Churchhill was voted out of office before the surrender of Japan. Sooo.. why did the Russians not strike? For one, they were starving. The Red army was eating lend lease rations. Many have written about how little US/UK aid in terms of tanks and airplanes impacted the war effort for Russia and they are absolutely correct. In terms of war production, those were but a drop in the bucket compared to what Russia produced herself. There are a couple of key items that the Allies did provide that made all the difference in the world and one of them was food. Another was trucks. At any rate, the Russians were starving at the end of the war and they too were in no condition to continue when you look at the appaling casualties they suffered during the war and the condition of European Russia. The ace in the hole was they had no clue how many atomic weapons the US had.. only that they had them. The last item to consider is the Allies had absolutely overwhelming control of the seas and could strike anywhere they please along Russias vast coast line. On the balance, Stalin was content to consolidate his gains and incorporate Eastern Europe into Russia, loot Manchuria and see the deal through on China. The next window they probably had was the early 50's over Korea. The Chinese were close allies and while the had generally started to recover from the effects of WW2, the Allies had disarmed willy nilly to the point that the Allied armies were in sad shape. Tank quality remained in favor of the Soviets, although the gap was closing. The Allies keep their air superiority and while the Soviets have made strides in submarine construction, the Allies are still living huge off of the surplus of WW2 and have overwhelming superiority at sea. An attack at this point would have probably yielded gains in Europe, but they would have never been able to keep them and they knew it. The Soviet nuclear arsenal is very, very small, leaving them vulnerable to nuclear strikes from the US. President Eisenhower was also in the White House and the Russians had first hand dealings with him from the days of WW2 in Europe, so I think they knew he would not mess around if it came down to it. I think their last opportunity was in the mid to late 1970's. The US was shattered by Vietnam, the M1 nor the M2 was not yet in service and the US Army was at its lowest ebb in terms of moral, material and overall strength. The Soviets had some advantages in terms of nuclear weapons to the point that it was no longer a weakness for them and their navy had grown after an extensive building program, although there was still no question the US Navy would win unless the Soviets tried nukes and that could get nasty in a hurry. The Air Force had new planes coming on line that were superior to what the Russians had while the Russians had numerical superiority. The US appeared very weak under the Carter administration and if there was ever a chance, I think this was the best chance they had and it passed when Reagen came to office and started the rearmament programs and restored the military as far as moral and equipment. (I entered the Navy in 1980 just after Reagen came to office and the change in the services was marked within the first 2-3 years I was in as far as cleaning the drugs out of them, the rules changes, etc). I think it is significant that Russia instead tried for Afganistan and given the results there, it is also clear we gave too much credence to the Russian military capabilities on the offensive. As a final note, I find it interesting that as much as the SDI (or Star Wars as it was known by) initiative was ridiculed by some in the public and Reagan's enemies, Gorbie himself said this is why the Russians started their reforms that got out of control and then led to the downfall of Communisim and the reason was very simple.. while many in the US did not believe it could be made to ever work, the Russians absolutely believed it would work and saw it as a check mate to the nuclear arms race and felt a change in course had to be taken. And the rest.. as they say... is history. Red DoorNov 18, 2005, 09:20 PMWhat about Vietnam era? I think that would have been there best chance. With U.S. divisions in the jungles, they could fight mostly Europeans, win, and take control of Europe? Then they might move to a bigger target....the United States? In 1968 or something like that there was only one partial division protecting the whole country. WinnerNov 19, 2005, 04:36 AMAs a final note, I find it interesting that as much as the SDI (or Star Wars as it was known by) initiative was ridiculed by some in the public and Reagan's enemies, Gorbie himself said this is why the Russians started their reforms that got out of control and then led to the downfall of Communisim and the reason was very simple.. while many in the US did not believe it could be made to ever work, the Russians absolutely believed it would work and saw it as a check mate to the nuclear arms race and felt a change in course had to be taken. And the rest.. as they say... is history. Well, SDI had certain effect, but it was not what brought the commies down. When we were analysing the former regime, we came to conclusion, that the main cause of its fall was something we call a motivation crisis. Simply put, the regime was unable to motivate people to work better and harder, because there was no reward for their effort. The motivation crisis started in the early 70's and was deeping thoughout the 80's. The communist economies were failing and when people realised that, they rose up. Anyway, I don't think the reds were able to win after the 50's. The nukes were too strong and their range too wide. In the early 50's, Russians could have survived the US nuclear strike and steamroll the NATO forces in Europe. In the end, they'd have conquered the continental Europe, isolating the US and probably nuking Britain into surrender. WinnerNov 19, 2005, 04:46 AMWhat about Vietnam era? I think that would have been there best chance. With U.S. divisions in the jungles, they could fight mostly Europeans, win, and take control of Europe? Then they might move to a bigger target....the United States? In 1968 or something like that there was only one partial division protecting the whole country. Pity we didn't fight the Russians when they invaded in 1968. Of course we would have lost in few days, but I wonder what the NATO reaction would have been. Probably none... RocotehNov 19, 2005, 05:20 AMAccording to authors like Waksberg and Sudoplatov there existed no political will to attack the West after the death Stalin. BTW: Kaganovitj stated (told by his relative Stuart Kahan) that he Malenkov, Bulganin, Molotov and Voroshilov murdered Stalin with poison. When Stalin presented plans to launch terror against the Jews in Soviet he was downvoted! Furious he tried to call for the guards but was stopped and hit by a injection of poison. Stalins last words was invectives directed at Molotov. (Stalin had send Molotovs wife to GULAG.) Rocoteh WinnerNov 19, 2005, 07:01 AMAccording to authors like Waksberg and Sudoplatov there existed no political will to attack the West after the death Stalin. BTW: Kaganovitj stated (told by his relative Stuart Kahan) that he Malenkov, Bulganin, Molotov and Voroshilov murdered Stalin with poison. When Stalin presented plans to launch terror against the Jews in Soviet he was downvoted! Furious he tried to call for the guards but was stopped and hit by a injection of poison. Stalins last words was invectives directed at Molotov. (Stalin had send Molotovs wife to GULAG.) Rocoteh That's possible, I've seen a document about Juschenko (Ukrainian president) and the poisen used in his assasination attempt. They've mentrioned that Stalin was probably poisoned by his bodyguard. Anyway, Gottwald (the Stalin's twin in Czechoslovakia) died because of pneumonia he got when he was flying to Moscow for the funeral :lol: Red DoorNov 19, 2005, 05:17 PMI just tried MP version with my friend. It didn't work. This surprised me since I've done it before. Never mind, I figured out the problem. Hey, El. Whatever happened to the TCW the Mod? El JustoNov 21, 2005, 07:53 AMI just tried MP version with my friend. It didn't work. This surprised me since I've done it before. Never mind, I figured out the problem. Hey, El. Whatever happened to the TCW the Mod? okay...good. i stopped working on the 'mod' b/c i want to finish out the AoI update. however, i did manage to get a lot of it done and even playtested it but it'll have to wait for the time being. as for the SU's demise and the SDI theory: by no means did it single-handedly bring down the SU. however, i am also of the school of thought that it did contribute some to its fall. Kly noted that the ruskies were scared as hell of the proposition and this is true. the soviets did indeed believe that the yanks could make such a weapon. vingrjoeNov 21, 2005, 08:46 AMWell, I finally finished my game as the USA on demigod level. I played 71 hours, 3 minutes, 8 seconds much to the scorn of my wife. The game ended at June 1979. Allied powers wiped out several countries, China, North Vietnam and Cuba just to name a few. NATO also brought the Soviet empire to it's knees. Now this was version 1.5, as I have not yet d/l'd v1.6 . I have some thoughts. Regarding subs: As it is now, I believe subs are given a bombardment to represent a first strike type of attack. This is nice except that subs w/o cruise missile ability can bombard land units. I suggest giving subs a very high attack rating. Sure, a salvo of three to four torpedoes won't be the same as a salvo of 16 inch shells or a saturation of ASMs, but two to three torpedoes slamming into a ships hull and/or detonating under the ship's keel will ruin that ship's day. Putting holes in a ship's hull is far more destructive than mangling a ship's topside and waiting for it to succumb to fire damage. Unless you have 16" shells plummeting down on you. In which case, your topside will be mangled and your hull will get holes puched in it from the shells. (just had to show my battleship favoritism there). Flat land bonuses: I feel that all flatlands IE: plains, desert, grassland, tundra etc., should give no defensive bonuses. After all, what kind of cover does flatland provide ? If anything, it should be an attack bonus, but since it doesn't exist in Civ3, I feel the defense bonus for these terrains should be removed. Anyway, just some ideas I had running through my head. I actually witnessed the AI using arty at the end of the game. N Africa brought some of those Soviet made Katyusha Rocket arty, to use against me. The first and only time I saw the AI use arty this game. As I've said before El Justo, thanks for this great scenario, it's a blast. El JustoNov 21, 2005, 09:39 AMhi vingrjoe. heh...i know the feeling w/ the wife...i made the grievous error of telling my mine during the summer that 'the end' was near as i was putting the final touches on TCW. well, there's never a real perceivable end to what we do w/ civ :lol: re: subs yes, i agree that there is a gray area here. i guess we'd have to look at the particular classes some in order to determine what the best fits are. re: terrain these are all valid points. iirc, i left in the default terrain defensive bonuses. it'd be worth a look though to see if this could be ammended. re: arty that's good news for sure. i have also seen the AI not deploy their art pieces effectively. however, there've been times where i've seen 'smart' AI usage of it but on the whole, yeah, it's terribly under-used. thanks for the nice remarks mate. i guess i can say that TCW will be updated (gfx-wise that is) once all of those SOE units are publiclly released. also included will be your fine units also. so, i guess TCW will live yet another day! WinnerNov 21, 2005, 04:34 PMHow the AI reacts to the usage of nuclear weapons? I've hit the ocean tile next to Murmansk to kill the defenders without causing too much pollution. I expected a swift retaliation, but nothing happened :confused: Is it possible, that the AI can't move the tactical nukes out of Moscow and use them? It seems it is unable to move the rocket few tiles closer to my territory (West Europe) and launch it. Actually, it doesn't move the nukes at all... I_batmanNov 22, 2005, 01:39 PMHow the AI reacts to the usage of nuclear weapons? I've hit the ocean tile next to Murmansk to kill the defenders without causing too much pollution. I expected a swift retaliation, but nothing happened :confused: Is it possible, that the AI can't move the tactical nukes out of Moscow and use them? It seems it is unable to move the rocket few tiles closer to my territory (West Europe) and launch it. Actually, it doesn't move the nukes at all... That is surprising. I have played many games as WP, and if I ever used nukes, I got a swift return attack by US ICBM's, and if UK was still alive, they would use their UK tactical nukes. Never did the AI have the sense to load US tactical nukes onto SSBN's and launch then. Now, whether the AI has the sense to move tactical nukes closer to the borders to use them, I can't answer. The UK tactical nukes may have been launched from the city they were built. That is unknown. That is a real problem inherent with the AI, not using nukes properly. I once purposely reduced China until they had one city left, but always used conventional weapons. The AI refused to use the nukes, even as I was in the process of capturing that final city that held the nukes. WinnerNov 22, 2005, 01:49 PMThat is surprising. I have played many games as WP, and if I ever used nukes, I got a swift return attack by US ICBM's, and if UK was still alive, they would use their UK tactical nukes. They don't have ICBM's yet. I think they simply can't move them out of Moscow and launch it against my cities (ufff). Never did the AI have the sense to load US tactical nukes onto SSBN's and launch then. Is the AI able to do that in classic game (I mean normal game, not scenario)? Now, whether the AI has the sense to move tactical nukes closer to the borders to use them, I can't answer. The UK tactical nukes may have been launched from the city they were built. That is unknown. That is a real problem inherent with the AI, not using nukes properly. I once purposely reduced China until they had one city left, but always used conventional weapons. The AI refused to use the nukes, even as I was in the process of capturing that final city that held the nukes. Actually, the only thing you need to do is to conquer Bejing ASAP and then they are defenceless. Anyway, I am playing at Monarch level. Maybe the AI will use nukes at higher levels? El JustoNov 22, 2005, 02:42 PMi have never really seen the AI use nuclear weapons with any real efficiency. however, i would assume that if you bumped up the difficulty levels a notch or two that you may see a difference. Red DoorNov 22, 2005, 09:09 PMYeah probably. I never use nukes as of fear of retaliation and so many countries declaring war on me. In a testing game, I bombed the crap out of the U.S. They hit me right back. (I was the Reds, as always.) Anyway MAD was proved. Red DoorNov 23, 2005, 10:19 AMIm starting my first game that I'll actually finish. Playtest Report-Edition 1 I'm the US of A for the first time ever. January-March 1950:No Wars, just Navies going back to home countries. April 1950:Stalin demands gold, I refuse, sending us into war:) . I bomb Soviet positions in East Germany. Makes Cuba, Arab League, Central Africa declare war on me. Then my Shermans are whooped by Soviet Infantry. May 1950:Soviet TU-4 Bulls positioned in Cuba bomb Miami making this World War 3. June 1950:West German troops take Airfield next to border. Heavy casulties for Soviets. Soviet Air Force depleted. Soviet Navy is pretty much extinct on Pacific. U.S. tanks land near Cugeiforms(Spelled Right?). July:U.S. troops take Cugeiforms. August:U.S. troops land near Vladivistock which is guarded only by a flak. :lol: U.S. tanks go ashore near Santiago de Cuba. September:U.S. troops "liberate" Vladivostock from Soviet terror. More U.S. soldiers land there. US troops take Santiago de Cuba without taking a hit. October:Soviet soldiers whooped right outside Vladivostock. Also whooped in West Germany-East Germany border. US troops also take Soviet airfield in Cuba, therefore East Cuba is liberated from communist rule. Also, US Airborne Infantry get demolished in Odessa. November:Peace is declared between Cuba and United States. This end World War 3 after only 7 months.:eek: New countries formed:East Cuba(Democratic, backed by NATO). West Cuba (Communist, backed by USSR). Vladivostock does not achieve independence, instead becomes a U.S. territory and in the future take-off point for American troops. December 1950-June 1952: No wars are declared. CIA ops are runnig around USSR, kidnapping workers and avoiding allies of America. I'm moving troops to West Germany and Vladivostock to get ready for World War 4 whenever it happens. July 1952:Mao Zedong asks me for 100 gold. I refuse starting another war. He sends huge numbers of troops toward Vladivostock. 15 PLA infantry, 20 NK Infantry, 5 T-34, 10 Parlimentary Infantry. Luckily mb B-29's and B-36's are able to hold them from direct attacks on the city. August 1952:The Turks, being the genius' they are, declare war on the Warsaw Pact. Nice Job Retards! China contunies its attempt at capturing Vladivostock and continues to get held back by American bombers. 1 marine has died while China has lost a couple of T-34s, 5 Parlimentary, 3 PLA, and 5 NK Infantry. September 1952:World War 4 starts. US Tanks quickly take Havana ending Cuba's short life. Now American troops going to Vladivostock through the Soviet rail line are caught. They get attacked by Soviet infantry. 1 US infantry dies, but a marine and an airborne division fill the Soviet and move south towards Baku. Meanwhile, Chinese troops turn their attention from the city of Vladivostock and go towards the strategic airfield I built in the mountains near the city. Now my troops are getting hit harder. China also landed infantry near Hiroshima but got killed next turn. Chinese Air Force seems non-existant at this point. Soviet Air Force is definately weakening my navy. I dont know if the Soviets have a Navy at this point because Allied ships are going freely through Baltic and North Seas. That's where I saved. WinnerNov 24, 2005, 12:49 AMNice, I'll try the Warsaw Pact for the first time (in my tweaked version). Anyway, some real WP war plans were found in CZ archives. The CSLA (Czechoslovak People's Army) was apparently tasked to advance into South Germany and France, crossing the Rhine :lol: Commies counted with extensive use of nuclear weapons against NATO forces. Also the Poles counted with rapid advance. (legend - I don't speak polish, but the language is similar, so I'll guess: - the most important targets for nuclear strikes - redeployment routes - attack directions) http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_12/texts/wprost_bild_1000.jpg http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_1/texts/introvm.htm http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/images/varia/map_1964_war_plan.gif Adler17Nov 24, 2005, 04:57 AMWell, I remember a qutation by seeing this plan: No plan survives contact with the enemy. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder Adler Red DoorNov 24, 2005, 08:23 AMI agree with Adler. Where'd you find this plan anyway? Red DoorNov 24, 2005, 03:07 PMPlaytest Report-Edition 2 October 1952:Soviet and British navies are fighting in Baltic Sea. My Air Force, all in the Pacific because of war with China continues to wreck the Chinese. They try again to mount an attack on the airfield but are slowed down by B-36s and B-29s. Meanwhile the USS New Jersey and Missouri are pounding Najin with their deadly artillery. China also starts pushing troops into South Korea. November 1952:Same stuff happening as last time. December 1952:Same stuff happening. Now, US Infantry, Tanks, and Airborne divisions pushing Chinese out of mountains and areas around Vladivostock. U.S. Sherman tanks land outside of Najin and Rangers are moved in. Bombings continue. Next turn, China sends most of its forces towards Najin to deal with my tank and my Ranger. Also, Soviets land a IS-3 next to Aberdeen. Nothing however is going on West German or Yugoslav border. January 1953:U.S. Rangers march in on Najin after USS Missouri kills remaining defender. U.S. then contacts Mao Zedong and they agree to peace. Now the U.S. can focus on their upcoming invasion of Siberia and Central Africa. Also planes can be sent to airfields in Britain and West Germany to help allies there. That's where I saved. WinnerNov 25, 2005, 01:44 AMWell, I remember a qutation by seeing this plan: No plan survives contact with the enemy. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder Adler Of course, it is totally ridiculous. As I know the morale of our army under communism, we would have been defeated in few days, only reaching some of the German border towns. It's funny how are these planners confident, that nuclear bombs will clear their way, but the NATO won't do anything in retaliation. In fact, the Soviets hadn't any tactical nukes in that time. WinnerNov 25, 2005, 01:47 AMI agree with Adler. Where'd you find this plan anyway? There is a link between those pictures. It's actually very valuable, because not many of such plans exist. AFAIK the Czechoslovak plan was found in an archive by some military historian. It's a plan from early sixties. WinnerNov 25, 2005, 03:36 AMOperation Red Dawn finished, Europe conquered :evil: I've destroyed about five US ships including one carrier and one Baltimore Class cruiser - the group stopped next to the coast, so I moved my artillery, bombed it and then finished it with my Tu-4's :lol: Stupid Americans ;) WinnerNov 27, 2005, 07:27 AMIt's a bit OT here, but what does the "collateral damage" in the units editing screen mean? El JustoNov 27, 2005, 08:12 AMhi Winner. iirc, the collateral damgage flag allows for arty bombardment to possibly destroy city improvements. post whatever you please mate. it's not OT ;) WinnerNov 27, 2005, 03:17 PMhi Winner. iirc, the collateral damgage flag allows for arty bombardment to possibly destroy city improvements. post whatever you please mate. it's not OT ;) Ah, that makes sense. Thank you very much :goodjob: warmwafflesDec 08, 2005, 10:31 PMHmm....haven't been here in a while...damn sports got me tied behind my back and Civ IV is not running fast on my PC....so now its back to Civ III :D El JustoDec 09, 2005, 08:55 AMhey Driveby. good to see you around again ;) warmwafflesDec 09, 2005, 08:30 PMYa I got bored and decided I need some time to...ohh say ....crush an army...or two. So how goes the work on this mod (which is MY favorite) WinnerDec 10, 2005, 08:32 AMHello everyone, I've decided to make a small, European regional map for TCW. I'll try to finish a beta version ASAP and then, I'll place a link here. I intend to use this map (you can see some already placed cities): man o' warDec 10, 2005, 05:01 PMWow that'll be really cool - are you going to put North Africa, Egypt, Arabia, Israel and others that would fit the map in aswell? Due to the greatly increaced scale, you can also afford to put more detail in the form of more civs - rather than just "W-Germany/lowlands" you could split them up - even if only to "W-Germany" and "lowlands". One final thing - any "unnassigned" civs? France could "liberate" N-africa... Maybe a major conflict could be sparked of by de-aligning (or putting into a smaller treaty group) Yugosalavia? WinnerDec 10, 2005, 06:22 PMWow that'll be really cool - are you going to put North Africa, Egypt, Arabia, Israel and others that would fit the map in aswell? Yes. Actually I am thinking about creating some extra land for few (+-3) US cities to get America into the game. Due to the greatly increaced scale, you can also afford to put more detail in the form of more civs - rather than just "W-Germany/lowlands" you could split them up - even if only to "W-Germany" and "lowlands". One final thing - any "unnassigned" civs? France could "liberate" N-africa... Maybe a major conflict could be sparked of by de-aligning (or putting into a smaller treaty group) Yugosalavia? I am not exactly a good scenario maker, so I'll release a beta version and you all can modify it as you wish. Maybe El Justo will complete it and kill all the bugs, it's his scenario, isn't it? ;) El JustoDec 11, 2005, 08:59 AMWinner, i think the idea is fantastic and i'd help out w/ anything that may crop up. i had given this idea some thought a while back but decided not to take it on. however, it'd be great if you took the lead on it. plus, feel free to PM me or to post in the thread. my 1st thoughts: - yes, giving the US some land on the map would be good. this had me thinking that maybe one of the WW2 maps could be used (ie with the eastern US seaboard on the map). not sure how far along you are on the city placing but it's just a thought. - since the USSR would have a lot less land (and cities), i'd consider either lowering the costs a smidge for their units OR to at least come close to their actual number of cities on the europe map as is on the standard map. man o' warDec 11, 2005, 10:11 AMWinner, - since the USSR would have a lot less land (and cities), i'd consider either lowering the costs a smidge for their units OR to at least come close to their actual number of cities on the europe map as is on the standard map. Or give them a couple of unit-producing wonders? just make sure they only produce under commmunism!:crazyeye: WinnerDec 11, 2005, 05:15 PMWinner, i think the idea is fantastic and i'd help out w/ anything that may crop up. i had given this idea some thought a while back but decided not to take it on. however, it'd be great if you took the lead on it. plus, feel free to PM me or to post in the thread. Thank you for your blessing. I'll keep you posted. my 1st thoughts: - yes, giving the US some land on the map would be good. this had me thinking that maybe one of the WW2 maps could be used (ie with the eastern US seaboard on the map). not sure how far along you are on the city placing but it's just a thought. My main concern is the speed of the game. I want it as fast as possible. - since the USSR would have a lot less land (and cities), i'd consider either lowering the costs a smidge for their units OR to at least come close to their actual number of cities on the europe map as is on the standard map. If you look at this map, the Warsaw Pact will have a huge chunk of land. But first, I am a bit confused about the resources. Can you tell me something about it, something what is really important and what should I know about it before I start? silver 2039Dec 12, 2005, 06:22 AM@ El Justo I would like your permission (and possibly help if you are willing) to make a Modern World Scenario using your units and terrain and such. This is what I have so far http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/Modern_World_Scenario.JPG I will be creating a Creation thread in the Creation and Customization Fourm. Sorry to advertize. El JustoDec 12, 2005, 08:54 AMThank you for your blessing. I'll keep you posted. My main concern is the speed of the game. I want it as fast as possible. If you look at this map, the Warsaw Pact will have a huge chunk of land. But first, I am a bit confused about the resources. Can you tell me something about it, something what is really important and what should I know about it before I start? my pleasure mate. i'm happy to help out some. as far as game speed is concerned, you'll want to take a few things into account. obviously, the size of the map is at the top of the list. the total number of cities on the map also plays a part and finally, the total number of starting units. if could make a recommendation: include some of the smaller countries not included in TCW like Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. it would add a lot of flavor i think. it seems that you can indeed fit in a bunch of soviet cities. i'd be sure to make it so that the ruskies have a clear advantage in the # of cities. re resources: each civi essentially has their own 'country resource'. for instance, there's a "UK" resource which is required for some of the british units and especially the flavor wonders like the wonders which autopro' the commando units, spy units, etc. there's a "Soviet Union" one for all of their special wonders and so on. also, iirc, there's a specific format i used for e germany. i would suggest that we maybe correspond by email or PM b/c i think i could go into better detail for you. maybe we could correspond for each civi or a few small ones so that i don't have to write a dissertation on it? :crazyeye: either way, i'm very happy to help out and guide you through it. it ain't too hard but there are a few things that are essential. El JustoDec 12, 2005, 08:56 AM@ El Justo I would like your permission (and possibly help if you are willing) to make a Modern World Scenario using your units and terrain and such. This is what I have so far http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/Modern_World_Scenario.JPG I will be creating a Creation thread in the Creation and Customization Fourm. Sorry to advertize. silver, sure. i'd be willing to help some. i'm not sure if i can crunch away w/ you with all of the hard-core stuff but i could definitely guide you some and point you in the right directions as far as units, upgrade paths, stats, etc. AnthropoidDec 12, 2005, 08:02 PMI originally posted some of this material over at One Big Community, in the form of a poll, but I thought it might be of interest to some of you guys who don't go over there PROPOSITION: BECAUSE NATIONAL IDENTITY LEADS TO WAR, TO SET AN EXAMPLE TO ALL OF HUMANITY, THE CANADIAN AND U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BEGIN THE PROCESS OF UNIFYING THEIR TWO NATIONS INTO A SINGLE NATION. Its funny stuff. No matter what principles of brotherly love any of us might espouse, eventually we'll encounter some threshold that we do not wish to have breached in our "share and share alike" mentality. Example: I just read this book by Gwynne Dyer, who is a very famous and influental Canadian Defense Analyst, and foreign policy consultant. In it, he lays out an absolutely BRILLIANT overview of the cultural evolution of war. His final conclusion: with nuke escalation, war has effectively become obsolete, impractical, and indeed, a threat to the very continued existence of humanity. In short, time for pacifism, but not for strictly altruistic, lovey-dovie reasons. No need to go there at all, because from strictly pragmatic reasons, war has become as much a threat to the most powerful, autonomous, and militarily defensive nations as it is to the smallest, assimilated, and militarily "insurgent" "nations" or groups. In short, if we do not get rid of the concept of War, chances are it is eventually gonna kill us all, and that includes all of us who might ever BE, not just US right here and now. In short, war since 1945 has become (with the nuke arms race) increasingly, objectively, TOTALLY INSANE. So, what does Dyer propose needs to happen? Decreasing reference to, reliance, on and regression to "national" or "ethnic" or other dividing identity categories, and increasing solidarity, union, and cooperation across these boundaries. Eventual result: pan-global human government. He acknowledges that while this is impractical and even unlikely even in the longest term, that it is the ONLY viable solution to eliminating the pervasive risk to the survival of humanity that national and ethnic divisions now pose. Based on some of Dyer's attitudes expressed about the greater righteousness of Canadian foreign policy compared to U.S. in the post WWII world, his conclusions are rather ironic IMHO. While I cannot disagree with what he has to say, and fully support his conclusions, I anticipate that his response, as a representatively intelligent and reasonable Canadian citizen, to the following hypothetical proposition would be ironically in opposition to my own, as a representatively intelligent and reasonable American citizen: Because national identity is a scourge on which war is fought in the modern era, and thus a threat to the survival of humanity, national boundaries should be eliminated whereever possible, and as soon as possible. Thus, Canada and the U.S. should immediately initiate the process of amalgamating their nations into one. My response to this proposition is, sure thing; lets start today! I seriously expect that HIS response to this, as a citizen from the "little brother nation," which is so predominantly opposed to the will of the majority of Americans who placed Bush into office, would be "no way! We're Canadians, and we don't want to become mere clients to the American hegemony!" Its easy to talk the talk, but walking the walk is not so easy. the simple version of Dyer's argument. He goes through the entire history of warfare from paleolithic to post-Cold War. Warfare probably existed before nation states, but nation states made it something new and terrible. Instead of 10% or so of all males, and perhaps 5% of all females dying in war over about 5 year period as in nomadic or semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers, warfare in the first settled people amounted to less frequent fighting, but much bigger fights, and very differnet tactics. For a while, the rate of mortality was probably actually LOWER than in paleolithic times, then on to the scene come the first great dictators/national leaders, e.g., Sargon, and with the new concept of the massive warring state/tribe, the first true largescale atrocities. Entire villages sacked, entire tribes eliminated. Continue for about 5000 years or so to the present, with this same basic theme being played out repeatedly, sometimes in very large scale, sometimes in not so large scale. Sometimes with new weapons or tactics sometimes with old reliables. All through it, people, nations, leaders, soldiers held pretty much the same mindset. War was terrible, it was not always something to be leaped into with enthusiasm but it was regarded as an inescapable "natural" part of the relations between sovereignties. Nuclear weapons, and the subsequent proliferation of nuclear weapons have caused a dramatic change in the actual destructive capacity of war, but there has been virtually no corollary change in the way people THINK about what war is, and what it can achieve. Throughout the Cold War, there was a debate between the "minimum deterrence" school of thought, and the "flexible response" school (several different names and types for this set of strategic thoughts. Minimum deterrence is just basically: have enough nukes that can be covertly protected from preemptive strike, and enough to flatten the enemies major cities. He will not attack you, because he knows that if he does, he's toast. President Kennedy in 1962 said that we needed about 200 sub based nukes to achieve this, but the defense industry wanted nothing to do with such small arsenals! The other school, "flexible response" is all about trying to plan for, and figure out how to make nukes part of "tactical warfare," e.g., by using artillery filed nukes, suitcase nukes, short range missiles and so on, on targets that are primarily military and might minimize both retaliatory response, and civilian deaths, and thus allow one side to engage the other in a kind fof tit-for-tat city hostaging practice. The problem is, no one actually knows how this would work, i.e., if one side would eventually back down or not, or if it would just escalate into afull scale war. The point Dyer arrives at based on this is that, war is no longer even useful for what nations and other sovereignties once used it for, because it has become so unpredictable and potentially lethal to the benefactor as to the loser. What does Dyer think this means as far as solutions to this conundrum we find our selves in? Greater national unification. What two nations have the least reason NOT to unify, the least tension between them, the most similar socieites and cultures, etc., and are thus the best "first wave" in the hopefully upcoming process of world unity building? Canada and the US, thus my poll. We can probably all recognize that, Dyer's fundamental point is correct: nations do not wage war on themselves (though various totalitarian nations have done a pretty good job of 'waging war' on their populations over the years). Thus, if you want to PREVENT the risk of the extinction of humanity from nuklar war, the solution is for all current nuke holders to eventually be unified into one "nation" (whatever that may mean, i.e., is EU now akin to a "nation" because they have the economic union? or is it something slightly different? Maybe there really are not any nations any longer since we have the internet??). Even while we can (probably) all agree that this is a laudable long-term goal, it does not prima facie have any immediate benefits to us as individuals. How would Cuba, Venezuela, Turkmenistan POSSIBLY benefit in the immediate term from the unification of Canada-US into the United States of Canada? Very likely the governing leadership in these places WOULD NOT benefit, given that Canada has generally been more friendly and conciliatory to them, and the U.S. has not. Thus, despite the long-term benefits of us becoming one big happy war-proof human family, our individual, national, ethnic, and ideological interests in the idiosyncratic SHORT-TERM interests of our allegiance/self prevent us from being willing to see the initial steps to that long-term outcome as being worthy. Probably also, some folks who dislike the U.S. or its current government, would regard such a baby step for humanity, not even as _not a benefit_ but as a positive threat. Why not unify US and Cuba? US and Venezuela? US and Mexico? etc.? Cuba would have nothing to do with it, and Russia probably wouldn't be keen, and probably Canada, China, etc., would also be recalcitrant. Venezuela's current leader would definitely not go for it, and the Brazilians might view it as some kind of threat to their own self-interest or something. Probably Chile, Equador, etc. as well. With respect to US-Mexico, the blame is probably more atritubale to US lobbying interests. Why not unify with Mexico? because powerful industrial and political lobbies in the US make more profit by keeping Mexico a client state, propping up the aristocrats who control the country, and filtering in lots of "guest workers" etc. . . . Okay, I've had enough of this planet of the apes. Can I please check back into the non-corporeal ethereal state . . . Kinda makes you feel like vomiting doesn't it? Ah well, we'll all be dead eventually, so who cares. AnthropoidDec 12, 2005, 08:08 PMDyer's point is simply this: Increasingly since 1945, our basic premise that nations have a "right" to be divided has become increasingly untenable, from a simple standpoint of probabilities. No matter how good is your balance, you will eventually slip, and when the nuclear balance slips, poof!, no more humanity. The razor's edge on which the survival of our species is balanced was easier to comprehend in say 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis, or even more so in the 1970s and 1980s when the Russkies and the Yanks were actively bristling at each other. Now that the Soviets have lost control of a few of their sateillite states, the same "WAR IS OVER! Lets go home!" mentality that made the Korean war possible has struck humanity once again. Because the American public were SO thoroughly sick of militarization, the US military experienced one of the most precipitous downsizings of any force every in all of human history immediately after WWII, and this meant that the US deterrent all over the world was quite minimal; this was exactly why the North Koreans, backed by the Chinese and Soviets thought they could get away with annexing South Korea. They knew that US ability to protect its client states in Asia using conventional strength was extremely low, and they gambled that the US would NOT play its trump card, the bomb. People did not LIKE the "Cold War" at all. It made them very uncomfortable, so it is no surprise that the media, the politicians, the activists, EVERYONE, were more than happy to pretend that the threat of global thermonuclear war simply vanished when "the Soviet Union collapsed." Problem is, the risk is probably even greater NOW than it was then, because the USSR has fallen into even greater shambles. Most of the arsenals are still there, and most of the military leaders are still there. Even a lot of the Old Guard of political leaders are still there. The only thing that has changed is that, the USSR had to back down from its propaganda war, because it was finally obvious to everyone that it was a sham, and that it was in economic shambles. Prior to the "end of the Cold War," because everyone on both sides was extremely attentive to the risks, everyone on both sides was well-paid, and much attention was being paid to their organization and command, at the PEAK of the Cold War, the actual risk of global thermonuclear armaggedon was probably lower then than it is now, despite all the posturing, and propaganda that came out of both sides, and consequently focused the world's attention on the threat. Thus, the real risk ever since about 1950 or so, has never been that the core of military or political leadership in any of the nuclear club would actually START a nuclear war, although that risk was not trivial. The major risk was always that either a false alarm would spark one, or that somehow, someone truly malicious and mad would gain the ability to launch one or two, and thus get the domino effect of reprisals going. The greater coherence, and strength of the USSR in 1986, no matter how belligerent it may have TRIED to seem, was thus a much better assurance that nuclear war would not start than is the more divided, weakened, and socioeconomically handicapped Russia of today. It is more likely that a radical could gain control of a weapon, or that a false alarm could occur in an inefficient, weak, economically depressed, and divided nation. The risk that an "unintentional" nuclear war, or one that started based on a false alarm or a misunderstanding could occur was, in short, probably lower in 1986 than it is today in 2005! Moreover, with Russia experiencing considerably more political change, the chance that some radical might get control of one or two weapons, even if only VERY temporarily, is probably greater in 2005 than in 1986. Launching only one ICBM or SSBN may seem like a fairly minimal threat to the survival of humanity, but the point is that, once the sword comes out of the sheath, the opponent is beholden, not only to draw his very quickly TOO, but to disable his opponent before it is too late. Even if a radical group gained control of a silo, launched an SSBN, and then Putin got on the phone to explain the terrible mistake, would Bush believe him? How would Bush know that Putin was not simply lying? Or, would Bush or someone of his ilk decide that if New York is going to be taken, then Moscow and St. Petersburg ALSO have to go! It is not difficult to imagine the ensuing tit-for-tat string of reprisals that could ensue if a Chechnyan group managed to gain control of a Russian silo, or a Chinese or Al Qaeda team managed to get control of an American silo. For someone crazy enough to be a terrorist, it is also not difficult to imagine that they might actually think that engaging in this tactic would actually further their self-interest? Are you sufficiently terrified yet!?! Can you say living on borrowed time? The chance that rational, self-interested leaders would actually start a nuclear war has probably always been fairly low, at least since the Soviets got their first one, and the potential for a tit-for-tat string of reprisals existed. It is amazing really that the US did not get a big-head and start using its advantage between 1945 and 1949 or whenever it was that the Russians demonstrated that they had the bomb as well. I guess it was just lucky that Truman did not bear much resemblance to Hitler, Mao or Stalin, all of whom STARTED major wars or pogroms (WWII, Korea, the Great Leap Forward, etc.). It is chilling to consider isn't it, how lucky humanity was that the first people to get their hands on the bomb were the relatively more restrained ones? Even France, which has one of the smallest arsenals in the nuclear club, has enough firepower to decimate two or three "potential rivals," killing potentially about 3 to 5 times as many as all who died in WWII in the span of about 5 minutes, and that probably wouldn't even dig into their strategic reserves! Moreover, some recent estimates about nuclear winter indicate that, even such a relatively small amount of nuclear fireworks very well might spark off the nuclear winter process, a downward spiral from which no human beings might EVER escape. This is to say nothing of India and Pakistan, where the death toll could be much, much worse, or the US and Russia which still to this day have an absurd overkill capacity to literally destroy all civilizations, and all of humanity not just one another. Dyer gives an example of plans that were actually WRITTEN down in both Soviet and US military documents, for "flexible response" protcols that involved the use of "limited" tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a surprise conventional attack that was overwhelming. Without even digging into the thousands of ICBM, and SSBN missiles, some of which carry 10 or 15 warheads, each of which could have scores of times more destructive capacity that Fat Man or Little Boy, a single "limited" tactical package, involving short range missiles, air-dropped bombs, and artillery shells, could effectively wipe out the majority of the enemies military forces in any particular region in Central Europe, kill several million civilians, and destroy vast tracts of landscape, towns and villages. In short, by the 1970s, even a "limited" nuclear war, would have been so incredibly destructive, that it would have been over almost as soon as it started, because most of the conventional forces in the vicinity of the theatre of war would very readily be eliminated by only a few of these "limited tactical packages" of which both sides possessed literally scores! These weapons were not just thrown in the trash heap in 1991 when the Berlin Wall fell! They are STILL in the arsenals of MANY armies all around the world! And this is to say NOTHING of the absurd level of destructive power in the strategic arsenals of the major nuclear powers, which has the potential to destroy literally every major city on the planet!! So if we wanted to make Dyer's point a little less sweeping, we would conclude that there are multiple layers to the proposition. The nations which currently have nuclear weapons should be actively thinking about, discussing, and initiating the long-term sociopolitical processes of unifying, so as to make the use of nuclear weapons moot. Sadly, this would seem to be even a step beyond the unification of Canada-US, which is a much smaller leap frankly, given the minimal differences between those two nations, their decades of friendliness, and general social similarities. Keep in mind, Franklin D. Roosevelt, an American President, was a socialist long before Trudeau, or the current Canadian government. Reacting to the US as if the current rightish-wing bloc were representative of the broad themes of American society would be about as logical as reacting to Canada as if the Bloc Quebecois were representative of that nations broad themes. In fact, the real differnencest between American and Canadian, between liberals and conservatives, and yes even between Israeli and Palesitinian I reckon, are truly minute compared to the far outliers in the political spectrum (Hamas, Krushchev, the Ba'athists, etc.). People just like to exaggerate how THEY, and THEIR party are so different from THOSE GUYS, because it is a key to "divide and conquer." Unfortunately, this does not really help anyone, when the differences are truly negligible, and there is more to be gained for EVERYONE with such minimald differences by being on the SAME team as opposed to being divided. The point: because there can be no winning a nuclear war, and because the existence of ANY nuclear weapons in the hands of any one nation, will always result in every other nation wanting to have them, resulting in inevitable arms races, the presence of even a relatively small number of nuclear weapons on Earth represents a grave threat to the very survival of ALL humanity (read every single individual, every single nation, and every single social groups SELF-INTEREST). Unfortunately once Pandora's box is open, it cannot be closed. We cannot UNLEARN the knowledge of how to make thermonuclear bombs and the projectiles on which we can convey them to targets on the other side of the planet. Even if we COULD unlearn it, we would not want to, because there are so many beneficial extensions and applications of this military knowledge. The Genie is out of the bottle, so the only solution is to make friends with it, i.e., to make the social basis on which nuclear wars might ever occur, non-existent: unify. Thus, Dyer's point, all nations which either have nukes, or have the capacity to have nukes, need to unify, because it is no longer in their self-interest NOT to unify. Moreover, while today, there are only a handful in the nuclear club, in the long run, EVERYONE can, and probably WILL have a bomb or 600, so in the long run EVERYONE needs to unify, not just the major players of today. While the most dire need is for the unification of say, Russia with US, or Pakistan with India, obviously these are even more unlikely, and unbelievable eventualities than is unification of Canada with US. So why would Canada-US national unity be a positive step in teh right direction? Because it would set a precedent, and if it were done for the right reasons, it would inspire humanity. Before you can run hurdles you have to be able to sprint, and before you can sprint, you have to be able to run, and before you run, you have to be able to jog, which requires first learning how to walk, which requires first learning how to crawl, which first requires being able to sit up on all fours, which first requires being able to roll over! We can think of Canada-US unification as being the very first step in this developmental process of humanity, i.e., the infantile personae of HUMANITY, finally recognizing that it had better start putting a little effort into at least making the first move, learning how to roll over. Looking at it this way, the eventual feat of humanity being immune to the threat of international thermonuclear war (terrorist use of them will not be reduced by unity between separate nations unfortunately) because we are all one big happy group, in which we recognize our shared self-interest, much like the developmental distance between a world class hurdler and a new born learning to roll over, can be seen to be a LONG way in the future, even if we DID start to acknowledge the need to eventual run world class. If that new born is not nurtured, and cared for, he will never even situp, let alone run the hurdles world class. MatteLeDogDec 14, 2005, 03:39 PMPrior to the "end of the Cold War," because everyone on both sides was extremely attentive to the risks, everyone on both sides was well-paid, and much attention was being paid to their organization and command, at the PEAK of the Cold War, the actual risk of global thermonuclear armaggedon was probably lower then than it is now, despite all the posturing, and propaganda that came out of both sides, and consequently focused the world's attention on the threat I would think that the risk was greater on October 27th 1962 than it ever was or has been since, although that incident during the Yom Kippur war of 1973 when Nixon was drunk and Kissinger changed the defcon level (or so the legend goes) and the Soviets were threatening to intervene in the Middle East is almost on par with that. Now with the new Hitler ruling in Teheran the danger level seems to be on the rise though. MatteLeDogDec 14, 2005, 05:23 PM"which is so predominantly opposed to the will of the majority of Americans who placed Bush into office, would be "no way! We're Canadians, and we don't want to become mere clients to the American hegemony!" True American hegemony ended with the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970's, the concept of hegemony is today wrongfully used to describe the influence of U.S. on world politics in general. Anyway is this some kind of essay? It is very hard for anyone to comment on your writings if they haven't read the book you are referring to, and your reasoning goes back and forth constantly so that your own opinion is hard to disguingish from sarcastic or ironic remarks, and having the latter in an essay would be academically unsound in any case. El JustoDec 14, 2005, 06:51 PMi think Anthropoid was using a 'casual' tone in his posts... MatteLeDogDec 15, 2005, 03:56 AMAha, so this is to be considered more of a book review then? Anyway I've spent to much of my life in academia, the real world awaits [pimp] @silver 2039: Are you going to increase or have the same number of civs in your modern world variant silver? EDIT: Sorry, just discovered there was a seperate thread for it in C&C El JustoDec 15, 2005, 09:26 AMAha, so this is to be considered more of a book review then? Anyway I've spent to much of my life in academia, the real world awaits [pimp] yeah...Anthropoid likes to "elaborate" :mischief: i myself like to escape from academia into the alternate world of civ3. it's quite theraputic actually :D also, i should probably let everyone know that once the Storm Over Europe mod has been released to the public, TCW will receive quite a graphical facelift in the form of all of the new unit gfx that will be introduced with the release of SOE. additionally, i intend to include all of vingrjoe's sweet new unit updates as well. in sum, there'll be close the 3 dozen (or more!) replacements for the existing place-holder gfx. i've seen many of these units, too, and they are indeed top-notch. MatteLeDogDec 15, 2005, 01:32 PMAn excellent idea, will be looking forward to version 1.7 (or 2.0?) then :) El JustoDec 15, 2005, 02:03 PMAn excellent idea, will be looking forward to version 1.7 (or 2.0?) then :) nah...it'll be like a "patch" w/out an update to the game. however, i have given some thought to what vingrjoe had recommended some time ago and that was to alter the sub stats some. i'll have to crunch the numbers a little once the patch is ready. Red DoorDec 15, 2005, 03:09 PMStill its great that all the SOE units will be in here. (even if its after the Holidays) El JustoDec 15, 2005, 03:20 PMStill its great that all the SOE units will be in here. (even if its after the Holidays) well, consider that the ones that appear late-game for SOE will make their way into TCW as the first wave of units (pre-placed/1st gen/etc). AnthropoidDec 17, 2005, 08:36 PMYeah, basically just a book review sort of format. Mainly intended to get a bunch of smart guys thinking about, maybe even chatting about the topics. Those incidents you mention Matte must be related to Cuban Crisis and the Yom Kippur war respectively? Also, Bretton Woods, what is that? man o' warDec 18, 2005, 03:16 AM[QUOTE=Anthropoid]The point: because there can be no winning a nuclear war, and because the existence of ANY nuclear weapons in the hands of any one nation, will always result in every other nation wanting to have them, resulting in inevitable arms races, the presence of even a relatively small number of nuclear weapons on Earth represents a grave threat to the very survival of ALL humanity (read every single individual, every single nation, and every single social groups SELF-INTEREST). Unfortunately once Pandora's box is open, it cannot be closed. We cannot UNLEARN the knowledge of how to make thermonuclear bombs and the projectiles on which we can convey them to targets on the other side of the planet. Even if we COULD unlearn it, we would not want to, because there are so many beneficial extensions and applications of this military knowledge. The Genie is out of the bottle, so the only solution is to make friends with it, i.e., to make the social basis on which nuclear wars might ever occur, non-existent: unify. Thus, Dyer's point, all nations which either have nukes, or have the capacity to have nukes, need to unify, because it is no longer in their self-interest NOT to unify. Moreover, while today, there are only a handful in the nuclear club, in the long run, EVERYONE can, and probably WILL have a bomb or 600, so in the long run EVERYONE needs to unify, not just the major players of today.[QUOTE] Whilst I can see the point, would it not couase more problems for the natiopns with nukes to unify? Ie, it forces other nations to do so, or left them to be abused by this "uber-nation"? A paradox then: either take a process of gradual union, which could go wrong becaue it would be to easy to abuse power and make the situation worse, or go for a sudden union, making the situation worse because of civil revolt, politicians who hate eachother, and general revolution. ...or, keep with what we've got untill we find a better way of doing things that will work...? MatteLeDogDec 18, 2005, 11:10 AMYeah, basically just a book review sort of format. Mainly intended to get a bunch of smart guys thinking about, maybe even chatting about the topics. Those incidents you mention Matte must be related to Cuban Crisis and the Yom Kippur war respectively? Also, Bretton Woods, what is that? Yes, those were the incidents I was referring to, I might just read that book you are writing about, If I could get a copy somehow, but I've seen quite a few crazy "solutions" to problems of conflict proposed by International Relations scholars, arguing from power balance perspectives or game theory, that method is really a bit too abstract and relies on ideal (non realistic) conditions. Unifiying nations to solve conflict sounds like a far fetched idea, the European unification process is experiencing some severe difficulties, and that unification process has its roots in strong economic and security incentives (absolute gains from cooperation rather than competition). The linkage between states like Russia, India and China are considerably weaker than the linkage between the European states, and the chances of those countries unifying into one because of nuclear weapons control incentives seem extremely small. The nationstate remain unchallenged so far as the best political entity for achieving some sort of legitimate democracy. Of importance is the task for the recognized nuclear powers to make sure that states like Iran and North Korea or non-state actors do not acquire those weapons or technology. Bretton Woods was the post war (ww2) economic order that the American hegemonic leadership rested on up until the 1970's (with institutions such as the IMF, world bank and the forerunner to WTO, GATT), It was the American post war hegemonic leadership that made the economic recovery of the Western World possible. By the 1970s however the U.S. had created strong economic competitors by making the buildup possible and was no longer unchallenged on the world stage in terms of trade and economic output. In a sense, the U.S. itself both created its own hegemony and signed its death warrant on the day it created it. This is making a very long story short and simplifying the matter however. marcellino4Dec 20, 2005, 09:40 AMEl Justo: 1. Sorry for my english. I´m from slovak republic, in central europe. 2. I admire your work on TCW, it´s great WORK!!!! 3. What do you think about that how use artificial inteligence (AI) nuclear weapons in the war? How could be this stupid AI changed? How to play nuclear war? Is it possible? 4. Please, could you make TCW version for late seventieth or early eightieth? I suppose, that it must be more interesting (with many types of ALCMs, ICBMs as russian topol or ss-..., or american minuteman-1-2-3, mx, titan, SLBMs as polaris, poseidon and trident or even ABMs as s-300 and patriot. And for example very expensive nuclear bombers. And all of this types of weapons systems with different range) than era of beginning TCW. I think that TCW is mainly about nuclear deterence, nuclear threat and posible nuclear war. It´s THE NUCLEAR AGE!!!! I´ve got to many technical documentation, schemes and material to achieve this, but i haven´t time and ability to do this heroic work/project. If you (or anybody) want it I could help you with this, really. I think it must be incredible interesting to start game as ronald reagan or leonid brezhnev and have deployed to many (houndreds and thousands) of many types of nuclear weapons and start to deploy some ABM system! ...and decide, who is the WINNER of possible scenario of TCW!!!! What do you think about this? 5. I´ve got only civ3conquest, because civ4 and my computer aren´t friends. So I colud help in scenario only for this version. 6. I will be happy if you correspond me in this civ forum but if you or anybody else (who want it), please, send me your answer on my e-mail: marcellino4@orangemail.sk I hope that everybody will understand what I mean good bye players (BROTHERS) :-)))) warmwafflesDec 20, 2005, 04:41 PM@Marcellino4 Welcome to CFC. This game is extensive and there is no need to rush...because with Haste there is Waste and that means Bugs...we dont like them. vingrjoeDec 22, 2005, 10:21 AMI just thought I'd pop in to report I just finished a game on...whatever level is second from hardest, with max aggression AI. It was a long game, 97 hours plus change. I played as the USA, as usual. I am suprised that WP doesn't seem inclined to build naval units. I suppose with potential enemies on all sides, projecting naval power isn't high on the list for the defense ministry. I loved the way the last turns played. I was using combined arms. I was clearing airspace with my F15s, then hitting with my F111s, A10s, B1s and last but not least my buffers. I would follow the airstrikes up with artillery, then I would move in with my armor. Oh, I had a blast (no pun intended) sending my four Iowa BB SAGs on gun strike missions, but sadly my conquering of the hostile nations with the help of my allies, finally resulted in no more targets for the battlewagons, so I gave them and their crews some much deserved R & R. I've said this before and I'll say it again, great job on this scenario El Justo ! :goodjob: WinnerDec 22, 2005, 10:46 AMEnglish speakers please ignore this post, it will just be a lot easier when I use different language ;) El Justo: 1. Sorry for my english. I´m from slovak republic, in central europe. Jsi první Slovák na CFC, pokud vím, zdravím ;) 2. I admire your work on TCW, it´s great WORK!!!! 3. What do you think about that how use artificial inteligence (AI) nuclear weapons in the war? How could be this stupid AI changed? How to play nuclear war? Is it possible? Bohužel, to se změnit nedá. Taky jsem po tom už pátral. 4. Please, could you make TCW version for late seventieth or early eightieth? I suppose, that it must be more interesting (with many types of ALCMs, ICBMs as russian topol or ss-..., or american minuteman-1-2-3, mx, titan, SLBMs as polaris, poseidon and trident or even ABMs as s-300 and patriot. And for example very expensive nuclear bombers. And all of this types of weapons systems with different range) than era of beginning TCW. I think that TCW is mainly about nuclear deterence, nuclear threat and posible nuclear war. It´s THE NUCLEAR AGE!!!! I´ve got to many technical documentation, schemes and material to achieve this, but i haven´t time and ability to do this heroic work/project. If you (or anybody) want it I could help you with this, really. I think it must be incredible interesting to start game as ronald reagan or leonid brezhnev and have deployed to many (houndreds and thousands) of many types of nuclear weapons and start to deploy some ABM system! ...and decide, who is the WINNER of possible scenario of TCW!!!! What do you think about this? Ono nemá moc smysl do toho scenaria přidávat tisíc druhů jaderných střel, když je AI neumí používat. Ke zbytku, teď budu dělat na verzi TCW pro Evropu, takže pokud by tě to zajímalo, můžeš mě kontaktovat přes PM (soukromé zprávy, doufám, že to umíš používat ;) ). El JustoDec 22, 2005, 10:57 AMI just thought I'd pop in to report I just finished a game on...whatever level is second from hardest, with max aggression AI. It was a long game, 97 hours plus change. I played as the USA, as usual. I am suprised that WP doesn't seem inclined to build naval units. I suppose with potential enemies on all sides, projecting naval power isn't high on the list for the defense ministry. I loved the way the last turns played. I was using combined arms. I was clearing airspace with my F15s, then hitting with my F111s, A10s, B1s and last but not least my buffers. I would follow the airstrikes up with artillery, then I would move in with my armor. Oh, I had a blast (no pun intended) sending my four Iowa BB SAGs on gun strike missions, but sadly my conquering of the hostile nations with the help of my allies, finally resulted in no more targets for the battlewagons, so I gave them and their crews some much deserved R & R. I've said this before and I'll say it again, great job on this scenario El Justo ! :goodjob: hi vingrjoe! well done on finishing it up. i also have reservations about the AI not building enough naval units. as a matter of fact, i'm trying out an experiment for my AoI scenario which would directly address this problem. i shall report back w/ results and if successful, i will implement into TCW as well. that's good to see that the 'combined warfare' tactics have played out so well. this was a main point for us when we designed this hog. thanks for the nice words mate and don't forget that in due time, i will assemble all of your re-done units and release a 'patch' for TCW. :goodjob: El JustoDec 22, 2005, 11:01 AMEnglish speakers please ignore this post, it will just be a lot easier when I use different language ;) no problem. :D 'holla if there's anything that i may be able to help clarify :D El JustoDec 24, 2005, 08:18 AMTCW is nearing its first birthday ;) it was last x-mas that it was released. since then, it has been DL'ed 7567 different times. thank you for all of the interest! merry chirstmas to all! WinnerDec 24, 2005, 08:21 AMTCW is nearing its first birthday ;) it was last x-mas that it was released. since then, it has been DL'ed 7567 different times. thank you for all of the interest! merry chirstmas to all! Since you have an entry in Wikipedia, you're quite famous, do you realize that? :D El JustoDec 24, 2005, 08:31 AMSince you have an entry in Wikipedia, you're quite famous, do you realize that? :D :lol: :lol: :lol: warmwafflesDec 24, 2005, 11:29 AMhmm....Wikipedia....I dont believe it..... be back with a link EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_III#Mods right there...in the mods... I had to add a link in wikipedia so people know where to find it... WinnerDec 24, 2005, 04:33 PMhmm....Wikipedia....I dont believe it..... be back with a link EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_III#Mods right there...in the mods... I had to add a link in wikipedia so people know where to find it... What about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising#Computer_game :) warmwafflesDec 24, 2005, 05:57 PMhaha great...nice to know this mod is getting famous El JustoDec 24, 2005, 08:59 PMWhat about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising#Computer_game :) that one i wrote myself...:cool: man o' warDec 25, 2005, 03:37 AMwow, I never knew that! Happy birthday (approx) TCW and happy Christmas everyone else! warmwafflesDec 25, 2005, 04:04 AMWell El....how conceited lol...I added that bit on the Civilization III definition.. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL YOU CHRISTIANS!!! EDIT: At precisely 7:31 Pacific Standard Time TCW will be 1 year old... El this mod has been a great accomplishment by you and all others who have participated in the making of this...I just have one question El.. HOW DOES YOUR WIFE PUT UP WITH ALL THIS TIME PUT IN? :lol: ;) Red DoorDec 25, 2005, 10:58 AMOnly 10 hours until the birthday. WinnerDec 25, 2005, 12:48 PMthat one i wrote myself...:cool: I suspected you ;) warmwafflesDec 25, 2005, 03:11 PMYa he is a self concieted guy lol...of course I would have El JustoDec 26, 2005, 10:40 AMYa he is a self concieted guy lol...of course I would have silly rabbit...it's wikipedia dude. it's not like Law Review or the NY Times or anything. :p my wife hates all things civ i'm afraid. :mischief: RambuchanDec 26, 2005, 11:19 AMEl Justo in Wikipedia? :lol: Question is: Is it really is a truism that any publicity is good publicity??? :hmm: warmwafflesDec 26, 2005, 12:29 PM@El Justo I'm surprised she even lets you play video games...my god most women HATE that lol... As for publicity goes...not sure if its ever good or not El JustoDec 26, 2005, 09:08 PM@El Justo I'm surprised she even lets you play video games...my god most women HATE that lol... As for publicity goes...not sure if its ever good or not well...gone are the days when me and the fellas would make my then girl-friend (now wife) sit through marathon sessions of madden and nhl whilst we swirled back beer and other adult beverages :crazyeye: re the publicity- i certainly ain't looking for it...i mean...i've got bigger fish to fry if you know what i mean. civ is a hobby and a grand one it is! warmwafflesDec 28, 2005, 02:29 PMMMM.....Madden....that brings back memories....and how I miss the money that I've won from that game... Red DoorDec 28, 2005, 02:33 PMI still play it. El JustoDec 28, 2005, 02:45 PMi've been playing it since '92. nicatorDec 28, 2005, 07:03 PMDear El Justo, I've recently downloaded TCW 1.6, this is definately a great scenario! thanks mate! but there is an error: the date in the game is not changing.... :confused: it doesn't have the date at all. pls help me sort this out. thanks in advance. Red DoorDec 28, 2005, 07:48 PMI had this problem earlier, just download the 1.29 patch for Conquests. Then the date will be right. nicatorDec 28, 2005, 08:04 PMI had this problem earlier, just download the 1.29 patch for Conquests. Then the date will be right. thanks, but pls provide me with link to the 1.29 patch? :) coz i dont know from where to download the patch. nicator Red DoorDec 28, 2005, 08:35 PMIts in here. Actually, dont download 1.29, Download 1.22. Download Patch 1.22 Here! (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/patches/) El JustoDec 28, 2005, 08:37 PMnicator, yes, you'll need the patch to clear up the date error. glad you're enjoying!