hey El Justo, great scenario, just one question though, in 1.6 should you still be able to steal tech? iirc you could in 1.5 but I can't seem to do it in 1.6.

I shall endeavour to update my stories/reports from my little Total War effort over the coming long weekend when I drive down to Adelaide and have some time to spend. Also to join the ranks of records are the tales of Britain and Australia.

I do enjoy the current 1950s mega map; it allows interesting naval combat, and heavy naval gunfire is essential when dealing with the artillery positions and coastal defences, particularly of North Vietnam.
There is great potential for the large map versions of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, with similar little tweaks, units substituted in and out.
The forthcoming release of some interesting materials in the next few years calls forth some very evil cackling on my behalf, coming as it does on the back of some very interesting naval fiction from various boards set in wars of the 1950s.
Combine this with the steady excellence of output from vingrjoe (with the spectre of an Arleigh Burke and Sovremenny on the most distant of horizons), and the wide waters are filled with danger for those in peril on the sea. But they should dread nought, for the world is large and target rich.

The thought of Alaskas, Montanas and Des Moines cruising alongside Iowas and Baltimores, with South Dakotas and North Carolinas acting as the slow battleline, against Soveyetskiy Soyuz battlewagons and Stalingrads in a Cold War world of B-47s is something that some like indeed. (Incidentally, has there been a Des Moines CA unit made yet?)
I can CB it now - the Soviet Naval Aviation pilots being ordered to their just desserts - "Bombe Alaska, tovarich!"
Even observing the rules of balance and reality, there is excellent potential, what with the CAG and CLG conversions, Long Beach, CSGN (an Aegis US Kirov equivalent?), LSTs and their many comrades...

Anyway, I concur with the observation made earlier about the AI not building a balanced fleet; this could be counteracted by different naval shipyard wonders, but I am given to understand that the limit for small wonders producing units has been neared.

For a bigger Soviet threat, cities at Polarny and Severodinsk could have their shipyard wonder. More Whiskey on the Rocks!

Perchance other possible features for a 1970s or 1980s version may be include an FB-111 option - longer range, greater bombload, but very expensive to simulate its limited deployment (certainly down from the original thought of about 230); it could employ the same graphics.

As the scenario progresses, I have quite a few resources from my wargaming, alternate history and military research background - 1980s military deployment statistics, maps and strategy, with detail going down to battlegroup composition and battalion level. If required, they are available.

hey El Justo, great scenario, just one question though, in 1.6 should you still be able to steal tech? iirc you could in 1.5 but I can't seem to do it in 1.6.
hello DuncanSimpson.

iirc, tech stealing had been disabled in v1.6

this was done b/c it was producing some weird results when a human player tried to steal a tech from an AI ally. specifically, war would be declared b/c this is the way the civ-engine is set up when a certain civ 'finds out' they a human player is trying to steal a tech.

it can be switched back though if this isn't you bag. go into the 'Civilization Advances' tab of the editor and find a tech (one from the Ancient era would allow for stealing from the get-go while one later on in the game would unlock this ability at a time of your chosing).

i hope that helps mate!

I shall endeavour to update my stories/reports from my little Total War effort over the coming long weekend when I drive down to Adelaide and have some time to spend. Also to join the ranks of records are the tales of Britain and Australia.

I do enjoy the current 1950s mega map; it allows interesting naval combat, and heavy naval gunfire is essential when dealing with the artillery positions and coastal defences, particularly of North Vietnam.
There is great potential for the large map versions of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, with similar little tweaks, units substituted in and out.
The forthcoming release of some interesting materials in the next few years calls forth some very evil cackling on my behalf, coming as it does on the back of some very interesting naval fiction from various boards set in wars of the 1950s.
Combine this with the steady excellence of output from vingrjoe (with the spectre of an Arleigh Burke and Sovremenny on the most distant of horizons), and the wide waters are filled with danger for those in peril on the sea. But they should dread nought, for the world is large and target rich.

The thought of Alaskas, Montanas and Des Moines cruising alongside Iowas and Baltimores, with South Dakotas and North Carolinas acting as the slow battleline, against Soveyetskiy Soyuz battlewagons and Stalingrads in a Cold War world of B-47s is something that some like indeed. (Incidentally, has there been a Des Moines CA unit made yet?)
I can CB it now - the Soviet Naval Aviation pilots being ordered to their just desserts - "Bombe Alaska, tovarich!"
Even observing the rules of balance and reality, there is excellent potential, what with the CAG and CLG conversions, Long Beach, CSGN (an Aegis US Kirov equivalent?), LSTs and their many comrades...

Anyway, I concur with the observation made earlier about the AI not building a balanced fleet; this could be counteracted by different naval shipyard wonders, but I am given to understand that the limit for small wonders producing units has been neared.

For a bigger Soviet threat, cities at Polarny and Severodinsk could have their shipyard wonder. More Whiskey on the Rocks!

Perchance other possible features for a 1970s or 1980s version may be include an FB-111 option - longer range, greater bombload, but very expensive to simulate its limited deployment (certainly down from the original thought of about 230); it could employ the same graphics.

As the scenario progresses, I have quite a few resources from my wargaming, alternate history and military research background - 1980s military deployment statistics, maps and strategy, with detail going down to battlegroup composition and battalion level. If required, they are available.
hi Simon. good to see you around :)

yes, i also believe that the giga maps have lots of potential. i hadn't a chance to try dreadnaught's fine version although i will as time permits.

and i also believe that vingrjoe does plan to crank out a few more sea units to fill some of the gaps/gfx place-holders. iirc, he wanted to make sure that there was/is still a significant interest in civ3 and TCW which i reckon there is...or will be. :D

combined naval warfare could very well be possible on those large maps. the trick would be to get the AI into believing that building a diverse fleet is a good thing. however, some recent events that i've witnessed w/ my Age of Imperialism mod has led me to believe that it is possible (ie - that the AI will build large amounts of sea units). i'll get into that more at a later date though.

i don't recall seeing a Des Moines class CA around although i may be wrong. i could check though. it may be tucked away somewhere...

SW's and GW's that would autoproduce certain sea units is always a great fall-back. you know, this could be implemented into the giga maps and decade versions based on the fact that some of the irrelevant wonders like "Intifada" and some others could be subbed in. just a thought...

we love wargaming type feedback. post it at your liesure mate. :goodjob:

Simon, it is very interesting that you mention the Des Moines CA. A few months ago I ordered blueprints of the Des Moines class CA, and the Albany class CAG missile conversion. I have also been collecting many photos of those ships- real and photos of models, which actually help me more. I still have the Kresta I rocket cruiser (as the Soviets called them) to finish animating.

I have to admit, I've been sitting on my butt the last couple of months. I've played through a couple of TCW games, bought Half Life 2 :Episode One and just finished it, and have been somewhat playtesting AoI. I'm sure my ambition will return soon.

nice new avatar there matey ;)

i've also been ginving some thought to a customized Sounds folder for TCW. i've recently mastered the tedious procedures of modding the music for C3C and the sky's the ceiling w/ regard to possible TCW sounds.

i'll post more when i'm able to actually roll up my sleeves and get dirty w/ it. i hope to get going some time in the summer i reckon.

@dreadknought
hi, playing your test 4.1 version and want to know why the bb's wisconsin and iowa have no movement points.
thanks.

Emerentius, they have no movement points because they are in mothballs. The Iowas, both mothballed and active, are pre-placed, unbuildable units. This is to keep historical accuracy and to keep the USN from being too overpowered. They are available to upgrade to the Modern Iowa Class Battleship in the third generation of the tech tree.

Hello everybody!

Long time ago, I've decided that there should be a TCW regional map for Europe. I've started working on it and I managed to take a map, add cities for the main players, even to place some units for UK and France. Then I stopped working on it (from various reasons) and then I almost forgot it.

I don't know if I am ever going to finish it, so I'll place a link to the scenario here, maybe somebody else will. It is a relatively small map (I wanted it to run fast, I am not exactly patient man and that huge waiting times between turns were killing me ;) ), so there shouldn't be much work on the units placement. The biggest problem is, that it is necessary to change the rules (because the map is smaller and also the region it is covering is small), which are taken from TCW 1.6, if I remember correctly.

I am ready to help anybody who decides to complete it is much as I can.

The link:
http://www.volny.cz/vicdvorak/TCW_Europe.zip

I like the city placement, it is nice and detailed, and adds some extra dimensions to play as you can obviously represent smaller cities which you are unable to do so on the full map.

I'm not sure if anyone else feels the same way, but I'm never really a great fan of sticking a little bit of America on the edge. Not only does the map look weird, but transport times between the US and Europe are obviously v. unrealistic, and I don't like the fact that it is possible for, as an example, Russia to launch an attack directly on the US mainland from the Mediterranean - this is, after all, supposed to be a European scenario.

I think it would be much more realistic if a couple of unit-producing wonders were placed, and more could come available for the Americans as you advance through the tech tree. This would make playing America a very different experience, as I would not allow the small airbases to create armour, just build the unit producing wonders, representing a steady flow of units from the US mainland.

Just a thought, but I think it has potential - my only worry is that there are not enough "wonder spaces" to do so effectively - obviously there would be a fair few more as there would be no N-Korean barracks or anything needed, but I'm still not sure if that would be enough. It would also obviously require a great deal more rule changes, of course, but I'm willing to help out after this week, if anyone likes my idea.

I like the city placement, it is nice and detailed, and adds some extra dimensions to play as you can obviously represent smaller cities which you are unable to do so on the full map.

I'm not sure if anyone else feels the same way, but I'm never really a great fan of sticking a little bit of America on the edge. Not only does the map look weird, but transport times between the US and Europe are obviously v. unrealistic, and I don't like the fact that it is possible for, as an example, Russia to launch an attack directly on the US mainland from the Mediterranean - this is, after all, supposed to be a European scenario.

Well, I understand what you mean, but I can't imagine any Cold War European scenario without the Americans. A map of Europe + US Eastern Coast would be nice, but it is a bit late to think about it now ;)

I think it would be much more realistic if a couple of unit-producing wonders were placed, and more could come available for the Americans as you advance through the tech tree. This would make playing America a very different experience, as I would not allow the small airbases to create armour, just build the unit producing wonders, representing a steady flow of units from the US mainland.

Great ideas, if anybody decides to finish the scenario, he can do it as you say - the piece of land representing the US could be deleted then.
I am not a very skilled scenario-maker so I don't think I am capable of such modifications.

Just a thought, but I think it has potential - my only worry is that there are not enough "wonder spaces" to do so effectively - obviously there would be a fair few more as there would be no N-Korean barracks or anything needed, but I'm still not sure if that would be enough. It would also obviously require a great deal more rule changes, of course, but I'm willing to help out after this week, if anyone likes my idea.

If you can find any skilled modder willing to help you, it will be great. I'd like to see it completed, but as I said, any further changes in rules/wonders etc. are far beyond the level of my modding capabilities.

I provided the .biq file because I don't want to waste it. There is plenty of very good scenario makers around here who could adopt it ;)

hi Simon. good to see you around :)

yes, i also believe that the giga maps have lots of potential. i hadn't a chance to try dreadnaught's fine version although i will as time permits.

and i also believe that vingrjoe does plan to crank out a few more sea units to fill some of the gaps/gfx place-holders. iirc, he wanted to make sure that there was/is still a significant interest in civ3 and TCW which i reckon there is...or will be. :D

combined naval warfare could very well be possible on those large maps. the trick would be to get the AI into believing that building a diverse fleet is a good thing. however, some recent events that i've witnessed w/ my Age of Imperialism mod has led me to believe that it is possible (ie - that the AI will build large amounts of sea units). i'll get into that more at a later date though.

i don't recall seeing a Des Moines class CA around although i may be wrong. i could check though. it may be tucked away somewhere...

SW's and GW's that would autoproduce certain sea units is always a great fall-back. you know, this could be implemented into the giga maps and decade versions based on the fact that some of the irrelevant wonders like "Intifada" and some others could be subbed in. just a thought...

we love wargaming type feedback. post it at your liesure mate. :goodjob:

I am a river to my people, old boy :D This weekend should see some very interesting stuff, with my new machine going into action, and the account of the Second Battle of Poltava, the Great Fire of Moscow and the 13th Crusade shall follow my muppet-named characters from the Age of the Darkshade.

The gigas add a new element to the gameplay, and certainly have my stamp of approval.

That is good news for future navies, along with the release of SOE5 sometime in the next x months. Your mention of encouraging naval combat is interesting, very interesting...

I have not found one in my delvings, so thank you for confirming it; it may make a future appearence, as referred to Vingrjoe's reply. I have managed to cobble together a little old fleet in addition to the ships featured in TCW; can't get my paws on Montanas, Lions, Soveyetskiy Soyuzs nor Modernized Yamatos, given the cessation of some places. Meh. If only there was another way. :ack:

They provide a consistent challenge for the human player, rather than an empty ocean.

I have a range of stuff, from modern and 1980s defence magazines and journals, plentiful monographs, several Janes All the World's Ships from the 1960s, diagrams showing CVBG and SAG deployment and main ports from 1984/5, copious documents from Air University Review, Congressional Budget Office documents from the 70s-80s on defence and particularly naval matters and a detailed work on global disposition of forces in 1983/84 (from a text on nuclear deployment; it shows nuclear capable forces, thus giving divisions, calibre specific artillery battalion locations, air wing locations and designations, capital ship homeports and much more). I shall get to the gathering of the pearls, as such. :cool:

Vingrjoe - Great news, interesting coincidence, and keep up the good work, my dear chap! Take whatever time necessary and enjoy thyself - your labours merit it, not to mention your new family addition, if I recall correctly.

As a related point, the Warships Discussion forums had some interesting document scans from the Springstyle collections at the National Archives, including a conversion of USS Kentucky to an anti-air specialist carrying the rapid fire 8" guns of the Des Moines class.

Having Big Stick and Wisky mothballed makes sense and balance for the long game, but for the 1950s version they should arguably be capable of deployment, as it was not until the late 1950s that they went into their long sleep until the 1980s, disturbed by Big J providing Firepower for Freedom off Viet Nam. However, the AI would wreck havoc with them, and they do tilt the seapower balance (which was heavily in US favour, though).

Once, in a particularly evil streak, I added Illinois and Kentucky for a test run...:evil:

these are all great ideas guys. i haven't DL'ed Winner's file yet although i will in time to give it a look-see.

man o' war:
yes, conversions like the one you suggested could be done. it's a matter of importing the rules and doing some fine-tuning. it's tedious but it's very 'do-able' as they say ;)

i like that info Simon. keep it coming old chap! :goodjob:

Wow sounds like some nice changes coming in a new version cant wait!
@VJoe glad to hear the shipyard isnt closed I alwayslook forward to your units.

I'd like to say that I have downloaded Winner's file, and right now I'm working on TCW-Europe. Right now, I'm messing with the units. I'll soon go on to improvements and wonders. I might get a BETA out before I leave for Italy in a week.

Hello. I present to all you The Cold War in Europe, version 0.1.

The Cold War in Europe is based off The Cold War Deluxe 1.6 by El Justo. The map is by Winner.

There are 30 Playable Civilizations, some are more strong than others. There are 3 alliances, the Warsaw Pact, NATO, and the Anti-Israel Alliance.

In the Warsaw Pact: Union of Soviet Social Republics, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, and Albania.

In NATO: Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom/Ireland, United States Military (no mainland cities, just Iceland and bases), and West Germany.

The Anti-Israel: Syria and Egypt.

What I Have Done So Far:
Placed Infantry and some Armor Units
Perfected Map To My Liking

What I Am Going To Do Before Final Version Release:
More Unit Graphics
Grab SOE Units
Get Still Leaderheads (Either Flags or Not)
Make Some More Wonders and Improvements
Cut Out All The Stuff That Isn't Needed (Asian Wonders, etc.)
Use Ares de Borgs Terrain
Place Civ-Specific Resources
Place Air/Navy/Land Units In Historically Accurate of 1950 Locations

You'll need the TCWE files, you don't need to put it in the TCW folder, I've set up the scenario search path to look for both.
This is the download file. (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads12/TCWE.zip)

It's in DEBUG mode right now, I think it needs to be for the time being. Take a look at it. Give me comments and suggestions, please. I know it's not perfect yet. If you want, you can contact me at alcosta15@gmail.com.

Attatched is .biq. You need it in order to play.

gyargh, you beat me to it, alcosta!

Sorry.:( I was very interested in this project. If you want, you can work with me on mine.

Wow, this is the best scenario I have ever played. It is amazing. I give it 5 out of 5 stars.

well done Al! i haven't had a chance to look at it yet but it seems pretty good. i'll see if i can fire it up some time soon.

and thanks El Bend3r! hope you enjoy!

It's still very BETA El Justo. I'm currently adding Music and Leaderheads (Flags). However, I'll probably not get version 0.2 up until after I return from Italy.

If you need any intell on 1950 troop deployments, unit designations, and fleet organizations, give a yell, and I will accomodate you.

lol man I need to play TCW again...*fumbles for Civ 3 Install disc*

Anywho...El justo is there going to be any major updates to the scenario or are you to leave as is and just change the unit GFX

thanks gents.

yes, i hope to revisit this beast some time around Autumn '06 (ie after i get done w/ AoI and the WW1 Deluxe hog).

there's a few things i have on the pallette for a TCW revision. nothing drastic - just some enhancements, tweaks, and of course, the unit additions.

I hope at some stage there may be some minor tweaks, in terms of inserting units, but that can be done on an individual basis, I suppose.
The looming of SOE does offer a number of units: CVA-58s, B-47s, early RAF and USAF jet fighters, amphibious warships, cruisers and battleships, artillery and many other options.

Not a lot else is really able to be added to the 60s and 70s, save that already considered in earlier stages; some units just haven't been made - A7 Corsair II comes to mind; 175mm or 203mm SPHs (although there does seem to be some decent heavy arty in some WW2 mods that could be tweaked)), CSGNs and the like.

There may be scope for Huey Cobra, AC-130, SR-71, Arromanches/Clemenceau MN CVs, Virginia and California CGNs, LVTP-7s, T-4 Sotka, E3 AWACs, M728 CEV, FB-111, a modified HMAS Australia type as an Iwo Jima LPH in these 'middle' two decades.

For the 80s and beyond, things are fairly steady; F-22s, F-35s, CdGs, Strykers, Visbys, Valley Forges, Eurofighters, Rafales, M1A2s, USS Seawolf, stealth destroyers, Gripens, Sukois and Migs are all available; DDG-51s that are about could be a bit resized without trouble.

There is an argument to be made for including M270s in the early 80s, though, and for Green Berets to have a role. There is a new F-15E out, as well.

In gameplay, not a lot needs to be tweaked - international dialogue is one option, whereby Ben Gurion is not the Scourge of Rome, but it is merely a trifle, merely a trifle. Wonders to produce units to encourage AI participation in types of warfare, potential unit names for sub games - nothing major is needed to be rehauled in my view.

The Civ3 world is constantly evolving, and getting new injections of perspective, and material. Certainly the great output of Wyrmshadow, vingrjoe and others is a joy to behold gratefully. I see a Kresta ASW cruiser appearing as I type this. The Cold War has life in it yet.

If you need any intell on 1950 troop deployments, unit designations, and fleet organizations, give a yell, and I will accomodate you.

I'll give you a yell in a few weeks. That's probably going to be last.


I was looking at the scenario today, and I was thinking some of these civs could be taken out. Every North African and Middle Eastern civs are un-needed IMO. Should I keep them in or not? I'd like to at least take some out, like Algeria, to add civs like Romania, Bulgaria, or Hungary in. Your opinions/comments/questions are welcome for this.

Hungary was a bit significant in the 1950s, but Romania and Bulgaria arguably less so. Algeria presents a potential backwater theatre of operations for France, as it was historically.

Hungary was a bit significant in the 1950s, but Romania and Bulgaria arguably less so. Algeria presents a potential backwater theatre of operations for France, as it was historically.

Okay, that means I have to take out 1 civ. Probably Iraq, they're barely on the map.

Yep. For Europe, they are at best peripheral and more probably less use and importance to the Cold War ETO in the 1950s than a hole in the head.

Swiss and Austrian neutrals present an interesting quandary.

I think I have an extra slot available because I took out Jordan already, I'll add Austria. I don't think there's room for Switzerland on this map.

Lump them together as European Neutrals; or Alpine Opt-Outers

But there is no room for a Swiss city. I have room for 1 more civilization.

Tsk. Put some gold on their mountain top as a tribute to fondue parties of old.

Crap! Major Bug!
Right now, I was messing with the music files and look what I get at the start of the game.
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3025/sneakattackpart11hx.png (http://imageshack.us)
Anyway to fix this?

Damn, I was hoping to try and implement some of my suggestions this week - I guess I'll just wait until this version is more stable and fiddle with it then. Good work guys!

Al-
i don;t know what that is...i'd have to have everything open in front of me to trouble-shoot it.

no man o' war! of course your ideas can be implemented! please discuss!

It's a music error for sure. Because when I took the music out, it works fine. I'm working with Azmorg to fix the music problem.

It looks great, I am glad that someone is working on that. I am looking forward to the final version :goodjob:

Thanks Winner!

Okay, me and Azmorg (mostly Azomrg) figured out what was wrong with the music. The song "War" was at the wrong rate the whole time. I actually got it from a Civ 4 scenario and I was assuming it was the same bitrate. Whoops!

Anyway, do you guys have any Cold War-Era themed music you would like to see implemented.

So far, I have some good songs from the era.

I have some others, but I know they're going to be taken out, so if you have a particular affection for one song, suggest it now.

Please send your suggestions to my PM box.

Okay, I tried out version .1 (with music) and it was wicked fun. The only problem is that I forgot to set a cost on Panther Tanks. I was West Germany. It is March, 1951, and I control all of the Soviet Union. Here is the minimap:
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9364/thebeginning4ni.png (http://imageshack.us)
Soon, my alliance is going to win the domination win.

Thanks Winner!

Okay, me and Azmorg (mostly Azomrg) figured out what was wrong with the music. The song "War" was at the wrong rate the whole time. I actually got it from a Civ 4 scenario and I was assuming it was the same bitrate. Whoops!

Anyway, do you guys have any Cold War-Era themed music you would like to see implemented.

So far, I have some good songs from the era.

I have some others, but I know they're going to be taken out, so if you have a particular affection for one song, suggest it now.

Please send your suggestions to my PM box.

Would you like some propagandist songs from the former Czechoslovakia/Soviet Union? Some of them are hilarious (of course if you know what the lyrics are about), "Kupředu levá" (Left to the front!), "S prezidentem Gottwaldem" (With president Gottwald), "Zítřek je náš" (Tomorrow is ours) and so on. I also have a decent collection of soviet songs of similar style, including the famous Red Army march songs, all with awesome chorus :)

I could find some dissident songs too.

(EDIT: a sample of what I am talking about: http://www.sojuz.cz/hbs/download.jsp?source=partyzanska.mp3 )

It looks great, I am glad that someone is working on that. I am looking forward to the final version :goodjob:
[FONT="Arial"]

This might be of interest

http://www.oldiesmusic.com/no1.htm

Year Song Artist
1956 I'm In Love Again Fats Domino
1957 Bye Bye Love Everly Brothers
1958 The Purple People Eater Sheb Wooley
1959 The Battle Of New Orleans Johnny Horton
1960 Alley-Oop Hollywood Argyles
1961 Quarter To Three U.S. Bonds
1962 The Stripper David Rose
1963 Sukiyaki Kyu Sakamoto
1964 A World Without Love Peter & Gordon
1965 Mr. Tambourine Man Byrds
1966 Hanky Panky Tommy James & the Shondells
1967 Windy Association
1968 This Guy's In Love With You Herb Alpert
1969 Love Theme From Romeo & Juliet Henry Mancini
1970 Get Ready Rare Earth
1971 Want Ads Honey Cone
1972 I'll Take You There Staple Singers
1973 My Love Paul McCartney
1974 Sundown Gordon Lightfoot
1975 Sister Golden Hair America
1976 Silly Love Songs Wings
1977 Da Doo Ron Ron Shaun Cassidy
1978 Shadow Dancing Andy Gibb
1979 Hot Stuff Donna Summer
1980 Lost In Love Air Supply

omg! look at some of those tunes!

i actually recall hearing some of the last few on the list when they were 'in'. :lol:

Winner:
please do! it wouldn't be right if it were all western styled tunes...

Winner, those songs should be great in this scenario.

Some Vladimir Visotsky would be good, and then in the 1980s, 99 Red Balloons...

...99 Red Balloons...

Sure, but please, include the german version (99 Luftballons I think).

Okay, I'll give you few links to few songs I consider to be the best ones:

USSR national anthem (http://www.sojuz.cz/hbs/download.jsp?source=cccp.mp3)
-> This simply can't be missed (click on the link, then wait a few seconds, downloading will start automatically)

Skal a stepi (http://www.volny.cz/vicdvorak/skalastepi.mp3)
-> Soviet song about guerilla fighters, I think. But that doesn't matter, because this is the music to invade West Germany with ;)

Kupredu leva (http://www.sojuz.cz/hbs/download.jsp?source=leva.mp3)
-> Czech song about the bright future under the leadership of the communist party and iron fist against the imperialists. My dojdeme! :lol:

Internacionala (http://www.sojuz.cz/hbs/download.jsp?source=interces.mp3)
-> I guess this song is so famous I don't need to explain it. It should be international :lol: Oh, it is in Czech as well, because the Soviet version isn't as good, I mean the audio quality is better.

Kalinka (http://www.volny.cz/vicdvorak/kalinka.mp3)
-> Kalinka, an old Russian song heavily abused by the Soviet regime.


So, this would be all from the propaganda songs. Do you want also some popular songs of that era? Just to evoke the atmosphere of the 60's on the other side of the fence? :)

(if yes, please PM me after you download all the songs, my web space is somewhat limited)

Tovarisch Stalin, Save our Souls are possible Russian inclusions, plus the Ballad of the Green Berets

USSR national anthem (http://www.sojuz.cz/hbs/download.jsp?source=cccp.mp3)

Awesome stuff Winner! :) I had never heard any of that before. I like the USSR anthem, though it does kind drag on a bit for the last couple minutes.

Funny thing is, did "we" (The West) really have much "propaganda music" other than the anthem? Winner's comment made me stop and think, and I cannot think of much modern-created "propaganda music." Would be neat to know if there was any.

I have to say, the continued interest in this mod is just fantastic. El Justo, you really have created legacy that will live for all time! If Firaxis is so INCREDIBLY boneheaded as to ignore the amount of interest that true Civ fans have given to work like yours (i.e., detailed, exquisite, and thorough), well, maybe you should just start your own game company!

Just another music suggestion. While it's not technically of the era, what about Hell March from Command & Conquer: Red Alert. There is nothing more satisfying than having that playing as your soviet tanks roll across the map. :D

Oh and keep up the good work everybody, this mod (and the mods of the mod) are great. :goodjob:

Battle Hymn of the Republic, America the Beautiful, God Bless America, Jerusalem, There'll Always Be an England, I Vow to Thee My Country, Rule Britannia, Land of Hope and Glory, Die Wacht am Rhein, Panzerlied, that gallic one - there is a bit of Western material.

Wow! I already have 18 songs without the ones people have listed. I'm probably only going to add 2-4 more.

99 Luftballons (Original German Version)
USSR National Anthem
Skal A Stepi

I'm going to add 2 more, probably one Communist and one Western.

BTW, Winner, you take those songs off. ;)

Skal a Stepi, I can only recommend this. When playing the original TCW, I always listened to this when invading the West ;)

Okay, only one vacant spot left.

heh...you guys!

thanks for the nice words everyone. this mod is like our little baby. that's for sure. we had lots of fun putting it together and we look forward to revisiting it

wrt the music:
what i originally had in mind (and it's rather labor intensive) was to have a few different music folders; specifically, one for each era. this way, if i want to hear Elvis while i send the 7th Fleet abroad i can. or i can hear the Beatles jam on while i ship my goods overseas. or Jimi Hendrix - or Sinatra - or anyone!

of course this would take some time to compile and test (the forthcoming AoI music folder took me forever to trouble-shoot). however, i think it is real kewl to hear the songs in-game the first few times...

Barry Sadler for the Western option!

Or, if we want to be more in the spirit of the game, Randy Newman's 'Political Science'...

is there anybody,who knows,how to prevent chemical warhead to destroy all infrastructure around the city in its radius?

is there anybody,who knows,how to prevent chemical warhead to destroy all infrastructure around the city in its radius?
hi marcellino4.

iirc, those units have the 'nuclear' flag and if you remove it and mod the bombardment stats (real high i'd think), you'll be able to get the desired results. however, you'd have to re-start your game or knock out the Arab civ in your current game :p

AlCosta, you should put in some Shostakovich for the Soviet side, ideally the finale to Symphony no. 5

EDIT: thats movement 4

El Justo, is the chemical warhead just a tac nuke?

It is from my experience.

yes. Cheezy. S-D is right ;)

Extremely right. ;) :evil: :D

I dont think the west really did alot of true "propoganda" music there is a large collection of anti-war songs though like sister golden hair, bye bye american pie etc. That russian site isnt working for me I wanted to hear the USSR national anthem to see if it would work for my Korean scenario. BTW if you want the ballad of the green beret there are links for free downloads on the web.

I dont think the west really did alot of true "propoganda" music there is a large collection of anti-war songs though like sister golden hair, bye bye american pie etc. That russian site isnt working for me I wanted to hear the USSR national anthem to see if it would work for my Korean scenario. BTW if you want the ballad of the green beret there are links for free downloads on the web.

If you mean that Czech (did you see any cyrillic there :crazyeye: ) site I've linked, it should work. Just click on the link and wait a few second, downloading will start automatically.

Yes the Czech site I cant read any of it so I wasnt sure anyway when I go there the page loads then nothing but like a reload every several seconds.

Yes the Czech site I cant read any of it so I wasnt sure anyway when I go there the page loads then nothing but like a reload every several seconds.

That's odd.

OK, this is a direct link, it should work:

http://www.sojuz.cz/archiv_hbs/cccp.mp3

Ok that one worked interesting song.

I've been playing as Australia, and one quick question: why can they build the Marshall Plan? Isn't that one only for European Civs?

It could be; it reads as blue European civs. Rationalize it as postwar aid and investment.

yes. Cheezy. S-D is right ;)
Come again, over?

ppppfffftttt.....all you people and your 'national anthem' songs...well you know what... there fine but nothing compared to Korn, Nickelback, Mushroomhead, ect...

god it feels great to be back at CFC again...

BTW You have been ---> http://www.reefaquariumguide.com/forum/images/smilies/new3/threadjacked.gif

me and my free time...what will I think of next...oh I know...Play TCW

ppppffff.....all you people and your 'national anthem' songs...well you know what... there fine but nothing compared to Korn, Nickelback, Mushroomhead, ect...

god it feels great to be back at CFC again...

You got banned? ;)

No more of a real world ban...I had no time to come here...I was playing Unreal Tournament 2004 and Halo 2 alot....

but ya its summer now and I have time

EDIT: oh and trying to get my 1972 BMW working....well rather getting it to run nicer than it is

Come again, over?
I guess he was observing that one can't possibly be wrong, Right Knight and all that. :evil:

I have been putting together a little file for TCW, on areas interest. Once I get my Conquests CD back/replaced, I shall test some more, as well as more AoI. Some potential ideas are gathering in merit.

Come again, over?
i mean, yeah, Simon is right that the chemical warhead unit is flagged as a nuke. :nuke:

I'm back from Italy, and I decided to give you guys an update on TCW-Europe.

I added 2 wonders, the Olympics (small) and the World Cup (also small.)

I added a unit, the City Guard, a 1/2/0 unit to make a unit to protect smaller cities that shouldn't have Infantry protecting it.

For Graphics, I'm going to use Ares De Borg's Terrain when it comes out.(probably when SOE comes out)

SOE units, when they come out, will be in here.
I have a question for you guys, should the First-Generation units be armed with machine guns or a bolt-action rifle?

Lastly, would anybody like to help me out by making the flag leaderheads? It would greatly help me out. I have the base images if whoever takes this up wants them.

Bolt action rifles were used by the French in Indochina and the British in Korea and the various colonial police actions. The Russkies had the AK-47 after a while, as well as the Simonov and submachine guns; the Americans moved from M1 to M14.

As such, bolt action or semi automatic battle rifles would be perhaps the most appropriate option, with assault rifles and lmgs entering into later generations.

Here's a screenshot of the New Jersey, two Des Moines CAs, and a couple carrier battlegroups near Hawaii. I replaced the Baltimore CL with the Des Moines CA in my version of TCW 1.6.

you can really see the difference vingrjoe :goodjob: well done!

I think I'm in love!

Certainly, the more big gun ships in the scenario, the better (particularly in the early 50s). Those Baltimores are nice pieces of work, though, and can turn into something very, very wonderful with a small CAG conversion...
One waits with bated breath for SOE on the chance there may be Clevelands or Worcesters in there, for further missile conversion.

Okay, here's the biq, El Justo. Hope you can download this time.

Here's a screenshot of the New Jersey, two Des Moines CAs, and a couple carrier battlegroups near Hawaii. I replaced the Baltimore CL with the Des Moines CA in my version of TCW 1.6.
Wow that looks really nice isnt the main difference not the size of the main guns but autoloading?

I believe the Des Moines were the first heavy cruisers to mount the autoloading 8 inch guns. In fact, I believe I recall reading that the Des Moines were designed around the eight inch autoloaders.

What is the correct scenario search path for this scenario its set at "TCW" but no graphics show up and I can't seem to figure out what the correct search path should be something like "..\scenarios\TCW" but that does'nt work either plz help I can't wait to play this scenario!

It's Infrogames Interactive/Civilization 3/Conquests/Scenarios/TCW.

nc-1701:

Make sure that the scenario .biq and the TCW folder are in the same folder, be it Conquests/Conquests or Conquests/Scenarios, it doesnt't really matter. Then, make sure that the TCW folder does not contain another folder inside it also called TCW. That would commonly result from unzipping it. Just drag and drop, easily enough fixed. Then, open the .biq, and go to Scenario Properties, and type in the Search Folders box or whatever it's called: TCW, hit apply, save it, and you're done!
On a scenario-related note, the US is probably the best to play the first time, while you get aquainted with the new gameplay.

It's Infrogames Interactive/Civilization 3/Conquests/Scenarios/TCW.
Not all of us have Infrogames Interactive Al Costa. Mine, for example, is Atari/Civilization 3/Conquests/Scenarios/TCW.

Ok thanks it works now I had a second TCW folder inside the first. Maybe I can get a bunch of other senarios I dl'ed to work now. lol

nc-1701,

good to see you got it to work. Cheezy is probably right that the US is a good position to start with...

I don't know, my first game was with the Soviets, that was a fun game. I captured all of Yugoslavia, Istanbul, some of Iran. I also captured all of Eastern China, but unfortunately, no North Korea. Then I deleted the save on accident. Doh!

Not all of us have Infrogames Interactive Al Costa. Mine, for example, is Atari/Civilization 3/Conquests/Scenarios/TCW.
Cheezy looks like you have the complete version like I have.

I believe the Des Moines were the first heavy cruisers to mount the autoloading 8 inch guns. In fact, I believe I recall reading that the Des Moines were designed around the eight inch autoloaders.

You are correct - they were the first and only to mount the automatic eight inch guns (indeed, the only other cruisers with automatic guns were the Worcesters and the RN Tigers), and were designed around these for use against Japanese cruisers following the lessons learnt in the South Pacific.

They were never used in this role, obviously, but all played a role in the
1950s, and Newport News until 1975. Very good for shore bombardment. As previously mentioned, they were potential candidates for 1980s reactivation.

(Now if only I can work out how to add them using that unit32 thingy)

Simon, here is a link to TCW units32 sheet with the addition of the KrestaI cruiser and the Des Moines CA. Also, included is the units32 numerical guide. This will tell you what number the unit has assigned to it, for use in the editor.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads12/TCWUnit32_Files.zip


El Justo, I hope you don't mind me posting this. If you would prefer me not to have this posted, please let me know.

don't be silly vingrjoe...of course you can post it.

i was actually going to reply to Simon that you are the man to see wrt the units_32 file since you re-did it for me last summer :D

i know i've mentioned it before but i still have the TCW revision/patch on my plate. i think it'll be in the late autumn '06 or early winter '07.

i know i've mentioned it before but i still have the TCW revision/patch on my plate. i think it'll be in the late autumn '06 or early winter '07.

Take your time El Justo. From what I've been reading in your AoI thread, and emails, it sounds like TCW will have some nice gameplay adjustments, from the experiences learned from AoI, when the time comes for a TCW update. Plus, I still have some naval units I would like to make for TCW yet.

A brief list of the abovementioned units would be:

Spruance DD
Albany CG *Simon Darkshade ,you are correct sir*
Knox FF
Perry FFG (maybe)
Forrest Sherman DD
Kara CG
Moskva CH (I don't know the official designation for helo cruiser)

Thank you very kindly indeed, Vingrjoe! May flights of cherubim and seraphim sing you to your rest and annoint your brow with celestial ambrosia for this marvellous magnamity to a malevolent, Mephistophelean mariner!!! This is very good indeed; you are a lifesaver!.

Albany, Chicago and Columbus were designated CG, having lost all their gun armament during the conversion process.

Possible designation for Moskva would be CVG, but the Soviets did quibble a lot with the designations for the aircraft carrying vessels, due to the treaties needed to get through the Bosphoros.

El Justo - I concur mightily. I have just begun delving into AoI, as I mentioned earlier, and it is a great package worthy of as much polish as necessary. Meanwhile, more units can be compiled, and the little notions that always crop up can be noted for any potential changes. As well as the First World War, I have been giving the Third World War a bit of a workout to stimulate my hideous maniacal laughter...

Well I played for awhile as China but the warsaw pact was beating up on me =)

Why does China not get any planes? They should atleast get 3 MIG-15s 1 for DPRK 2 for China the nato air power was crushing me. Also the civilopedia is great i some places but for example their is nothing there for he Type 96. I really don't get why you put your list of recently read books in at pedia entry for library either? Also it would'nt let me get alliances.

Don't get wrong it is a great scenario and I love the fast turns would you say how you got them so fast? Or is it a trade secret?

It is a trade secret indeed. Secret to all in the trade...

Historically, Red China did not have much of a modern air force to speak of until the late 1950s at a bare minimum.
I figure El Justo put the books in there as a personal touch, of which there are quite a few. These are quite interesting, unique, and funny.
The Civilopedia is a work in progress, as such, and is not essential to the game. It can be easily appended.
Alliances are locked into power blocs.

Can we put Intruders and Corsair IIs in the new TCW?

Oh, and we need MiG 25 Foxbats too.

@nc-1701: China ought to get a lot of air units later on, once you get into the seventies and eighties. As I recall, most of their air power was not a direct buy from the Soviet Union, but rather an almost identical plane built specifically in China for China, and thus they had new designations. Sometimes, these newer versions were better than their Sovier counterparts.

In regards to your concern about the Fagots (that's the MiG 15's NATO designation for all you non-military folk), I don't know why you can't build them, since China also represents NK in this scenario, too.

On a good note, you get access to the MiG 29 Fulcrum later on! It provides an effective, albeit late, counter to the F-14, F-15, and F-18, even though most of these would outgun a Fulcrum without thinking about it in real life.

Alliances are locked in this scenario. If you want to forge alliances, play as India, they are allied to nobody, it's very very fun to play as India.

The library and stadium stuff is hillarious! I love to read about what subways El Justo has been on! Even though I already...know...that....*ducks behind a wall*
Seriously, it's called comic relief.
I personally enjoy the pedia entry for that Destroyer Ivan gets at the start. You know the one I'm talking about, the 10/5 one.
Oh, as China, expect to get your ass pounded by B-52s every few years, whenever you wind up at war with the West. It's very frustrating, but grab ahold of a few ZSU or MiG 21s; they come late compared to when the Yanks get the BUFF, but at least there is hope on the horizon.
Good luck with your game, too. BTW, what difficulty?

EDIT: Cross-post with President Darkshade.:cool:

don't be silly vingrjoe...of course you can post it.

i was actually going to reply to Simon that you are the man to see wrt the units_32 file since you re-did it for me last summer :D

i know i've mentioned it before but i still have the TCW revision/patch on my plate. i think it'll be in the late autumn '06 or early winter '07.
LOL you have lots of new units from SOE to add as well as other new units Wyrm and VJ plan to make. I know I am looking forward to Wyrm's Kittyhawk and VJ's Knox class frigate as well as allthe other ships in the works.

Intruders are already in the game, Cheezy. Corsairs haven't been made as a unit of late; I recall seeing one on a units32 text file, and an F-8 Crusader somewhere, which is of course a similar design.

PM me for further discussion, or maybe I will you.

It is a trade secret indeed. Secret to all in the trade...

Historically, Red China did not have much of a modern air force to speak of until the late 1950s at a bare minimum.
I figure El Justo put the books in there as a personal touch, of which there are quite a few. These are quite interesting, unique, and funny.
The Civilopedia is a work in progress, as such, and is not essential to the game. It can be easily appended.
Alliances are locked into power blocs.


Surely they atleast had a few prop from ww2 I mean a small air force yes but give them something! Also after my two T-34 that I started with they died and now the best thing I can make are BTR-152s Didn't China license build T-34 and T-54/55 ?

As for the game it was on emporer a mistake I think I usualy play games at monarch and scenarios at emporer (my start is always bad) but at this point the warsaw pact beating me to shreds in 1952 I did have luck against s/korea and indochina at the start though taking all but Pusan and Kuala Lumpur. The reason I want alliances was because N/vietnam was just sitting there i the way and had been hoping they could help me.

Didn't China license build T-34 and T-54/55 ?

Don't worry, once you research Military Organization you can build them. :)

Although I tried playing China once, I found it very very difficult... First I took out North Vietnam, and then just sorta sat there building up because I couldn't go on the offensive anymore, not until the Soviets went to war with NATO. I couldn't face NATO airpower, nor could I stand up to the HUGE WP tank rush....and the only other choice was India, which was currently innacessable. I gve up around 1963.

India looks fun though. They at least get better weapons. :)

Surely they atleast had a few prop from ww2 I mean a small air force yes but give them something! Also after my two T-34 that I started with they died and now the best thing I can make are BTR-152s Didn't China license build T-34 and T-54/55 ?
Historically during WWII the chinese airforce was very small and it contained outdated designs given to them by the US through lend lease. These planes did not last long against the invading Japanese so they really had no air force until they started building one following the Communist take-over.

I download this scenario (the zip file listed as an attachment) and tryed to play the secenario and get an error about loading Pedia Icons. How might I fix this?

wow - you guys've been busy here!

China is definitely a tough position to get going with as many have mentioned. however, once you get past the first decade or so, things ease up some and you can build a variety of stuff to stave of the Paper Tiger and her allies.

honestly, it's been so long since i played this that i can't fully comment on which units are in there and which aren't. there is however a few spreadsheets that list all units in the game w/ stats, attributes, etc. i used them during the construction period and i posted them in the thread for peoples' review and reference.

as for the CivP entries - just some off-beat stuff to keep you guys on your toes ;) there are also those that i've taken special pleasure in drafting and they profess my admiration for certain peoples, etc. as a matter of fact, i need to update this thing...

Simon is right though - i've learned alot from AoI and i hope to implement some of these nice features into TCW.

as for the turn times - it's really no secret :p air and sea trade has been disabled thus giving the AI and your PC a helluva lot less to thnk about in between turns. beleive it or not, i'd actually like to shave some more time of the TCW turns as those for my new AoI are even faster...

I download this scenario (the zip file listed as an attachment) and tryed to play the secenario and get an error about loading Pedia Icons. How might I fix this?
hi Tommy.

it sounds like the old 'folder within a folder' problem. the fix is easy.

open up the large TCW folder that you DL'ed from 3DDownloads. if you see another folder named TCW within the folder of the same name then you must 'cut' the folder that is within the 1st TCW folder and 'paste' it into the Civilization III/Conquests/Scenarios directory. this should cure your problem...

I don't see a folder, just the icon for the scenario.

As I said it the AoI thread, are you sure you have downloaded both files? If so, you may have to download the large one again, as they sometimes become corrupted.

lo folks,
Long time reader and player, first time poster. Started playing this v1.5, enjoyed it but game got so far then died midgame never to be able to refix. Have since dled the latest version and started playing again, as the UK. Firstly let me say great mod, love the detail in it and the scope and possibilities represented. :) Having said that there are some parts of the game as the UK which need some polishing. Now as turn times are increasing I have not as yet manged to play this through to conclusion. Keep taking a bit at a time so this is not a conclusive list of everything to be found. Also did try to read through all posts here but got as far as 70 pages before I gave up and jumped to the end. So apologies if these points have already been made. :mischief:

Firstly Carriers. The UK starts of with a selection of Collosus Carriers but cannot build anymore. When Naval Aviation is researched UK can build Hermes Carriers and Collosus Carriers upgrade to these. However these upgrades costs 0 gold. Then when you later research Advanced Carriers it allows you to build Collosus Carriers. This for the period 1960 - 1975. Something is very out of place here.

Cruise Missiles. This may be deliberate but surely these should be airliftable or loadable? As the UK if I build any I can basically hit the Northern European coastline and a small part of Scandinavia. Not a huge amount of use. Also should they be available to all civs? Was quite surprised when N.Africa dropped a crate load of them on my airbase in Spain.

Britist Airborne Infantry, both postwar and modern. The main issue with these is the fact they can only actually jump into the square they are already in making them completely redundant. Also British Airborne Inf-Modern Civ description reads "This is the American airborne unit.........." Also upgrade prices. from post to modern = 1000 gld. It costs half as much to upgrade a nuclear submarine? Doesn't seem quite right. Last, and this is a mere suggestion, I have some idea of the work load that goes into such things, but surely a better model for UK airborne, i.e, the para's, would be the royal marine commando model with a red beret?

Royal Marine Commando's. Nice idea, nice unit model but I would expect them to be on a par stats wise with standard marines units, even if they kept their 3 hp to show their smaller unit size. They are meant to be the elite of the Royal Marines and at present they're getting their arses handed to them by N.African Militia units! Also, he appears to be holding a submachine gun but sound file is for a rifle?

Is there a limit on how far aircraft can rebase to/from? Have had some trouble rebasing units to/from the falklands and the brit base s.e of India.

Submarines. Something odd here. Porpoise and Oberon classes are both available at the same time. Both cost exactly the same but Oberon does slightly more dmg and they both upgrade to Swiftsure class for the same price? Or is this just down to what resources are available where as you've disabled trade so less powerful units still appearing in build menu?

Are Oliphaunt tank units meant to be for the British? It seemed that way from the unit decription but having researched them am unable to build them.

Bloody American Airbase in North Yorkshire. Had same problem with v1.5. They always keep the National Guard Unit there but no planes it seems and I always end up with the square polluted and not being able to do anything about it. And with the UK being so small another square would help! I know it's historically accurate, and I know there's probably nowt can be done because of how the game engine works but is a pain in the arse.

Anyway, thats all for now folks. Am heading back to my continued invasion of Northern Africa. Loving the Vulcan bombers, have a score based in Cyprus knocking the proverbial out of anything that offers aggression from Central Africa to China to Northern Russia. Love the mod, love the game and will post more as the game progresses.

Cyrano De Begerac

On a good note, you get access to the MiG 29 Fulcrum later on! It provides an effective, albeit late, counter to the F-14, F-15, and F-18, even though most of these would outgun a Fulcrum without thinking about it in real life.


Uh, Cheezy, have a look at a book Aviation Factfile: Modern Military Aircraft,a British book published by Grange Books in 2004.

This might have been THE best short range low level fighter plane.

Will quote an excerpt of the book: "In the right hands a Mig-29 can win a close in , gloves-off dogfight with any warplane in service today.

Seen by the West as a rival to the F-16, the Mig-29 offers far superior detection capabilities, and the AA-10 and AA-11 missiles it carries are much superior to its western counterparts."

Top Speed: 2445 kph. (F/A-18: 1915; Mirage 2000: 2340)
Service Ceiling: 35,800 (F/A-18: 49,000, Mirage 2000: 59,000)
Combat Range: 1200 km (F/A-18: 2000, Mirage 2000: 1500)

Bottom line: Cheap to build, resilient, difficult to fly, but devestating in the hands of a good pilot.

lo folks,
Long time reader and player, first time poster. Started playing this v1.5, enjoyed it but game got so far then died midgame never to be able to refix. Have since dled the latest version and started playing again, as the UK. Firstly let me say great mod, love the detail in it and the scope and possibilities represented. :) Having said that there are some parts of the game as the UK which need some polishing. Now as turn times are increasing I have not as yet manged to play this through to conclusion. Keep taking a bit at a time so this is not a conclusive list of everything to be found. Also did try to read through all posts here but got as far as 70 pages before I gave up and jumped to the end. So apologies if these points have already been made. :mischief:

Firstly Carriers. The UK starts of with a selection of Collosus Carriers but cannot build anymore. When Naval Aviation is researched UK can build Hermes Carriers and Collosus Carriers upgrade to these. However these upgrades costs 0 gold. Then when you later research Advanced Carriers it allows you to build Collosus Carriers. This for the period 1960 - 1975. Something is very out of place here.

Cruise Missiles. This may be deliberate but surely these should be airliftable or loadable? As the UK if I build any I can basically hit the Northern European coastline and a small part of Scandinavia. Not a huge amount of use. Also should they be available to all civs? Was quite surprised when N.Africa dropped a crate load of them on my airbase in Spain.

Britist Airborne Infantry, both postwar and modern. The main issue with these is the fact they can only actually jump into the square they are already in making them completely redundant. Also British Airborne Inf-Modern Civ description reads "This is the American airborne unit.........." Also upgrade prices. from post to modern = 1000 gld. It costs half as much to upgrade a nuclear submarine? Doesn't seem quite right. Last, and this is a mere suggestion, I have some idea of the work load that goes into such things, but surely a better model for UK airborne, i.e, the para's, would be the royal marine commando model with a red beret?

Royal Marine Commando's. Nice idea, nice unit model but I would expect them to be on a par stats wise with standard marines units, even if they kept their 3 hp to show their smaller unit size. They are meant to be the elite of the Royal Marines and at present they're getting their arses handed to them by N.African Militia units! Also, he appears to be holding a submachine gun but sound file is for a rifle?

Is there a limit on how far aircraft can rebase to/from? Have had some trouble rebasing units to/from the falklands and the brit base s.e of India.

Submarines. Something odd here. Porpoise and Oberon classes are both available at the same time. Both cost exactly the same but Oberon does slightly more dmg and they both upgrade to Swiftsure class for the same price? Or is this just down to what resources are available where as you've disabled trade so less powerful units still appearing in build menu?

Are Oliphaunt tank units meant to be for the British? It seemed that way from the unit decription but having researched them am unable to build them.

Bloody American Airbase in North Yorkshire. Had same problem with v1.5. They always keep the National Guard Unit there but no planes it seems and I always end up with the square polluted and not being able to do anything about it. And with the UK being so small another square would help! I know it's historically accurate, and I know there's probably nowt can be done because of how the game engine works but is a pain in the arse.

Anyway, thats all for now folks. Am heading back to my continued invasion of Northern Africa. Loving the Vulcan bombers, have a score based in Cyprus knocking the proverbial out of anything that offers aggression from Central Africa to China to Northern Russia. Love the mod, love the game and will post more as the game progresses.

Cyrano De Begerac
hello Cyrano De Bergerac. welcome to the boards :)

thanks for the nice words. i appreciate it.

i will have to give that carrier glitch a look-see. it's quite possible we missed it. you're right. it is a strange arrangement.

the cruise missilies ought to be able to load onto at least the SSBNs. i will have to look at it though to be certain. it's likely that most civs can build some cruise missiles. it's been so long since i have last visited TCW that i can't say for certain.

that is certainly a bug then w/ regard to the range of the British Airborne unit. i will be certain to correct it for the future version. unfortunately, i'm unable to create units on my own but some other gfx could be subbed in as you suggest.

the Royal Marine Commando unit is catergorized as a "special force" unit and it possesses only marginal stats b/c of the actual size of commando units in comparison to the standard infantry units which for all intents equals that of a division. the sound file can be changed. it's just linked up to the wrong /wav file.

rebase ranges are dertermined by the specifc range of each aircraft. i can't recall the exact specs w/ it but i do know that it varies depending upon the ranges of the individual air units.

noted on the subs. thanks. the sea units (w/ particular emphasis paid to the SSs, SSNs, SSBNs) in the next version of TCW are going to undergo quite an overhaul...at least w/ the stats and HPs. so i'm sure we'll find this when we comb through it. i'm hoping to get to these changes some time in the coming months as i have been busy w/ another project atm.

the Oliphants are for S Africa iirc.

yes, the airbases are a pain in the tail. this is something else we'll revisit once we get to the revision.

thanks for the info! very insightful!

PS - when you said your original game died, what exactly occurred? i mean, i may be able to fix it for you...and allow for you to pick right back up.

rebase ranges are dertermined by the specifc range of each aircraft. i can't recall the exact specs w/ it but i do know that it varies depending upon the ranges of the individual air units.

A planes rebase range is four times its operational range, IIRC. :)

This was how my orignal game went, up until the crash. Don't know how much interest or help it will be to folks.

Game opened and all was peaceful for a few turns.

India declared war on china - I laughed.

War for a few turns, then peace, no land swopped sides.

Somehow I end up at war with china/n.korea. Carrier group in that are starts to pummel land targets.

China manage to smuggle two infantry units through europe, on foot(!) and attack my airbase in the south of spain! Destroying units there.
Far eastern airbase starts launching raids against chinese targets. Several infantry units including royal marine commando's airlifted in to bolster airbase defences.

game continues like this for a while, uk has very limited cities so cannot produce a large army quickly. Also the distance to ship troops is huge. It looks like it's just going to be air raids for the time being.
retake southern base in spain with a couple of centurions and an apc.
Lack of a far eastern city/port/base shows, my carrier group is taking some serious hits and it's a long way back over open sea to resupply and regroup.
Peace declared finally.

Somehow end up at war with the arab league. Bombers based in Cyprus, including canberra bombers start to pummel damascus and cairo. Still not in suficient quantities to do more than be a nuisance though.
have been steadly building up fleet over this time, all carriers but the one on chinese coast upgraded to hermes class. Slowly building up fleet air arm to take advantage of this.

WWIII breaks out.

Russian subs pour into north sea. Australian, american, italian, turkish and greek ships head for the chinese/russian coastline. Russian subs taken out by a mixture of aircraft and subs, though with a sub or two lost in the process.
Such units as I have in europe sent to german border to help our allies. In retrospect an error. They are quickly hammered by incoming soviet units.
Generally I don't play a huge part in this first major conflict. I sink a few subs in the chinese sea, and lose a couple of destroyers in the bargain.
eventually peace is declared, but not before russia has managed to snag 3 chinese cities.

Also peace not declared by me. I assume this a result of the alliance system but there was a mass declaration of peace and no bugger asked me, yet I'm at peace with everyone but china/n. korea and the arab league.
China/n.korea send occasional armour unit against my airbase in far east but have enough infantry present and being cycled through safer locales when injured to repel them everytime.

Finally have enough troops present to try an invasion of the arab leagues. Or so I thought. One transport of Centurions and an apc don't go quite as far as I'd hoped. I do damage but not enough. Am pushed back and forced to regroup on the coast. Gradually these units are picked off before I can bring reinforcments. Partly because of the distance, also because of the time to create units.

As I've actually had troops on arab soil though N.Africa decide to join in and declare war.

Another mass outbreak of war declarations occurs.

Life continues like this for a few turns until a mass outbreak of peace happens. Howver at the end of this I am still at war with China/N. Korea and N.Africa. Go figure. I shrug, think Africa's a good a place as any to hit and my now vulcan bombers start knocking the hell out of cairo, aided by 2 canberra bombers off my carrier group in the mediterranean. Tripoli starts to take major damage.

In the Irish sea meanwhile I've been building up another carrier group, and another transport full of centurions and an apc. Once both are fully stocked this group, led by HMS Vanguard, proceed to the coastline of Tripoli, all the while Tripoli is being hammered by fleet air arm and the base in Cyprus.
Once Vanguard's group is in the area full aerial and naval bombardment commences before I drop the armoured units on the coastline. Again, the next turn full aerial and naval bombardment commences before the tanks move in. Resistance is suprisingly and gratifyingly light. Tripoli is mine! At the lose of one centurion tank, lost in mopping up some close by infantry units. A british african empire looks like it might be on the cards.

Vulcans change target to next city up the coast as transport returns to uk.
Aargh, N.africans must have made a deal with the russians because 3 t-34's just mashed through my armoured units. tripoli recaptured by the N.Africans.
Central Africa has declared war on South Africa, so my mpp means I have to join in. Looks like the first major war will be decided in the African continent.
The sneaky italians taking advantage of my air cover land a tank division next to Tripoli and take the city from it's one highly damaged armoured defenders. I have to say was a bit pissed about that but mighty relieved when the next turn the N.Africans managed to find some more armour from somewhere and kick out the Italians. For the moment Tripoli is back in African hands. Vulcan bombers are now hitting both Algiers and Zarsis. The aircraft carriers are hitting where necessary. Troops in uk nearly finished, with FV-432 armoured units instead of apc's providing the defence this time, hopefully this will make this will make the difference.

SOAB!!! Now the french land one tank and take the city after which peace is declared on a global scale meaning the french took tripoli while I put all the effort in. Not impressed. Redeclared war on N.Africa, bombers ressume pounding of Zarsis as transports arrive in med.

zarsis taken at the loss of one Centurion division. Would have liked Tripoli as well but this does prove some consolation. As long as I can hold the place.
Zarsis held, Algier taking heavy bombing raids. Further up the coast, american long range bombers and naval air units begin to hit african cities.

N.Africa begin to move infantry through terrain surrounding Zarsis. I allow this as I have an idea their heading for Tripoli. Maybe I'll have the city yet.
I was right. The french didn't reinforce their position and their armoured unit went down. I promptly shifted bombing raids to Tripoli, beat the hell out the defenders and moved in with royal marine commando units. City taken then reinforced with much infantry.

Unable, due to friendly ships in the way, to land units at algiers landed and took Rabat instead. N.Africa is crumbling. Have moved two armoured tank units and one apc unit to outside algiers in the hope of snatching the city and immediatly airlifting heavy reinforcements in.

Algiers falls! Although this triumph is somewhat lessened by SE Asia not wanting to renegotiate a right of passage with me. Something to do with a sneak attack on the Arab League. ¬¬ As a result I lose my far Eastern base. Units there are moved to some bloody awful spots. All my infantry there are moved to Siberia as the nearest neutral piece of terrain!!!! :s Thankfully had a worker with them. Plonked an airbase down and will airlift them out over the next few turns.

Damn these mass outbreaks of peace. Was about to move in and take the last N.African city of Bechar when everyone jumps in bed with each other. :s Still will give me time to regroup and consolidate.
Finally research advanced naval warfare. This means will finally have some semi decent air cover for my ships and transports and I'm moving on to research Advanced espionage, to give me spy planes. Can never have enough recon imo.

Workers beginning to bring N.Africa colony infrastructure back on line and up to uk standards, despite the differences in climate! Somehow despite peace N.Africa manages to plunder terrain in my territory with a worker unit. Bizarre but I figure tis only a matter of time before they're out the game completely. Also this has doubled the uk's number of cities and should with time provide a good factory base to churn out units. As for my units in Russia it's fast becoming my thought that they are in a superb position. Just outside of Russian territoy in Northern Siberia, with an airfield....They are in a unique and powerful place for aircover and strikes against the commies if it comes to that.

Got tired of N.Africa somehow snatching my workers on the border and attacking, least I'm assuming it was the N.Africans, one of my colony cities with invisible units. Bombed the crap out of Bechar with vulcans based in Cyprus and Canberra's off one of my carrier's 'somewhere' in the meditteranean. Moved in with four Centurion armoured units and took the city. Royal marine commando's moving in first to secure workers where they could in the lands around the city to bolster my workforce there. N. Afrca is out the game and the British Empire is well on the way to a return to glory!

Oct. 1965.
Rushed a harbour in Tripoli and upgraded 3 destroyers guarding carriers in the med. Planning on bolstering Cyprus air forces and moving both carrier units and their escorts to the Indian Ocean. Leaving the med in the hands of a few subs. It can only be a matter of time before India tries to flex it's muscle again. The long standing Carrier Collossus and it's escort off the south tip of Japan begin to head towards the Coast of N.Africa with the intention of rearming and resupplying before returning to post.

Dec 1966 - Over the past year the chinese have taken a beating from the Russians. Looking at the map, I have no assets in that area, 3 cities north of Shangai lie ruined, burned to the ground. The Chinese have 9 cities left and the Russian might now stretches as far as the Indian northern border. This is going to be a serious problem when war with the reds come.
The british continue to consolidate, and should be in a good position to grab a couple more cities in Africa shortly. Plans to wrest Cairo from the Arab league are under way and mi6 are reconoitering central africa, looking at the odds of invasion.

Oct 1967. Central africa move troops into northern africa. I immediatly tell them to withdraw or declare war. they declare war. vulcans hit them straightway from cyprus, canberra's from the two carrier's off the west african coast, mopped up with centurions.

WWIII breaks out again. mass mobilisation by all countries.

The last collossus has been sunk at sea. An italian destroyer has taken prime position slap bang in the middle of the suez canal with no intention of moving and due to this it was a sitting duck. Canberra's from centra africa I believe and heavy russian bombers finished it off over the last two turns as I could get none of the fresh escorts sitting in the med to it. :s bloody italians!! It's escort, heavily damaged, is heading towards the airbase off india with the intention of holing up there until the route is clear. Russian bombers have also been trying to destroy two transport ships of mine off the coast of Ireland. Generally things going well but need reinforcements from the uk soon to consolidate in north africa and take Dakar, first central african city I've been targeting.

Both Italy and Brazil have landed troops in Cuba of all places! Very impressed with the pair of them and curious to see how they'll fare. Had some problems with insurgents in n. africa but strategically placed royal marine commando's and intelligence operatives have been successful in limiting such raids. A mixture of armour and royal marine commando's has been moving up until at the outskirts of Dakar, moving down the coast road. Again the French land troops outside the city trying to capitalise on my success.

With a combination of fleet air arm and raf firepower Dakar was reduced to 1 infantry and two damaged armour units. An elite Centurion took the first armoured unit and gave me a Corps much to my happiness. Immediatly placed it and another slightly damaged centurion in the Corps and took out the last two units. Dakar is in British hands!! The french can do their own bloody fighting. In other news Santiago del Cuba is in Brazillian hands!

Bah, peace declared before I can do anymore damage. instead of trying to continue on my own I pull back and regroup. June 1968.



After this despite all efforts game won't continue to next turn. I'm not fussed about resurrecting the game, it was on a lower difficulty setting than I'm on at the moment for a start. Africa does seem the most attractive place to invade though as NATO or USA. They just dont have the the troop quality, quantity or allies needed to repulse a large scale invasion. The only real difference between my current game and the report above in terms of strategy is I took N.Africa West to East instead of the other way around. The Canadians managed to take Tripoli and have just lost it to the Central Africans which I plan on taking full advantage of. The only real problem I'm having with my current game is SAM sites in cities are decimating my bombers. So much so that I have virtually stopped bombing cities and go instead for troops moving about and strategic resources.

Cheers for the info on the rebase range btw.

Subs + cruise missiles - nope, non-loadable in any UK ones. I suppose the other way you could get around this would be to enlarge the Swiftsure's bombardment range to simulate sub fired missile attacks.

Have a few more queries and the like but will wait till I have a suitable selection as before before presenting them. :)

De Begerac.

Wow what an epic.

ADDIT: I want to make you guys aware of an awesome game by Matrix Games:

http://www.digitalriver.com/dr/sat5/ec_Main.Entry17C?SID=45905&SP=10023&CID=0&PID=832786&PN=1&V1=832786&CUR=124&DSP=&PGRP=0&ABCODE=&CACHE_ID=0

Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III (TOAWIII). If you enjoy miltary strategy games, this game is fantastic. There are about 200 scenarios in this one game package (which BTW, you can Download via credit card order).

The scenarios range from 8 turns to hundreds, and range in scope from simple battles on the order of 15 x 15 hex maps of 4km hexes, to massive epics. One such example, which I recently won a PBEM at (playing as the Warsaw Pact against a fellow from Winnipeg playing NATO) is "The Next War: Tension 1979" which is an alternate history scenario lasting between 17 and 34 turns set in summer 1979 to spring 1980, a period (supposedly), when the Cold War was most at risk of turning hot.

I anticipate that eventually, the stalwarts of TCW mod for C3C will start to work on a mod for Civ4, and this scenario in this game might be a fruitful source of ideas, details, and inspiration. It only covers part of Europe, but the detail is stunning.

Also, I really like the combat system in this game engine. It strikes a very nice balance between tactical and strategic. I'm not sure how much of it might be useful for a Civ4 mod, but in any event, it is interesting. Some interesting possibilities:

Engagement: when your unit is adjacent to a hostile, you cannot simply turn around and walk away. If your unit has a recon rating, it has a chance to pick up and leave without being hurt, but if not it will likely be routed, or if it is not the last unit to leave a hex. Enemy interdiction of a retreating or moving force doesn't always happen, and it depends on the level of commitment of the adjacent enemy, the ratio of force, etc. Possibly something like this could be brought into Civ4 mods.

Remaining Movement points influence combat outcomes: if you attack with a 41 strength unit that only has 3 of 15 movement points left, it will not attack as effectively as if it had all 15 left. This might not have a big effect in Civ4, and it might unbalance game but worth a thought.

Only thing I can think of right now.

In case you missed something this is civ3 not civ4......

He's saying that El J should make this for Civ 4, which he should, and I would be willing to help. :mischief:

He's saying that El J should make this for Civ 4, which he should, and I would be willing to help. :mischief:

Going to be awhile before this is ported over to Civ IV.
Trust me, there are conversations going on about when/how, but it will be quite some time.

Actually as far as I know it isnt possible to "port" Civ 3 to Civ 4 it has to be redone from scratch and personally I think El Justo has better things to do than work on Civ 4 projects.

Actually as far as I know it isnt possible to "port" Civ 3 to Civ 4 it has to be redone from scratch and personally I think El Justo has better things to do than work on Civ 4 projects.
Seconded. C3C is the king of the Civ series, especially when it comes to modding. We have just poked the surface of the Civ III capabilites.

There is a Civ4? Blimey. I only just got this new Conquests expansion for Civ2.

This was how my orignal game went, up until the crash. Don't know how much interest or help it will be to folks.

Game opened and all was peaceful for a few turns.

India declared war on china - I laughed.

War for a few turns, then peace, no land swopped sides.

Somehow I end up at war with china/n.korea. Carrier group in that are starts to pummel land targets.

China manage to smuggle two infantry units through europe, on foot(!) and attack my airbase in the south of spain! Destroying units there.
Far eastern airbase starts launching raids against chinese targets. Several infantry units including royal marine commando's airlifted in to bolster airbase defences.

game continues like this for a while, uk has very limited cities so cannot produce a large army quickly. Also the distance to ship troops is huge. It looks like it's just going to be air raids for the time being.
retake southern base in spain with a couple of centurions and an apc.
Lack of a far eastern city/port/base shows, my carrier group is taking some serious hits and it's a long way back over open sea to resupply and regroup.
Peace declared finally.

Somehow end up at war with the arab league. Bombers based in Cyprus, including canberra bombers start to pummel damascus and cairo. Still not in suficient quantities to do more than be a nuisance though.
have been steadly building up fleet over this time, all carriers but the one on chinese coast upgraded to hermes class. Slowly building up fleet air arm to take advantage of this.

WWIII breaks out.

Russian subs pour into north sea. Australian, american, italian, turkish and greek ships head for the chinese/russian coastline. Russian subs taken out by a mixture of aircraft and subs, though with a sub or two lost in the process.
Such units as I have in europe sent to german border to help our allies. In retrospect an error. They are quickly hammered by incoming soviet units.
Generally I don't play a huge part in this first major conflict. I sink a few subs in the chinese sea, and lose a couple of destroyers in the bargain.
eventually peace is declared, but not before russia has managed to snag 3 chinese cities.

Also peace not declared by me. I assume this a result of the alliance system but there was a mass declaration of peace and no bugger asked me, yet I'm at peace with everyone but china/n. korea and the arab league.
China/n.korea send occasional armour unit against my airbase in far east but have enough infantry present and being cycled through safer locales when injured to repel them everytime.

Finally have enough troops present to try an invasion of the arab leagues. Or so I thought. One transport of Centurions and an apc don't go quite as far as I'd hoped. I do damage but not enough. Am pushed back and forced to regroup on the coast. Gradually these units are picked off before I can bring reinforcments. Partly because of the distance, also because of the time to create units.

As I've actually had troops on arab soil though N.Africa decide to join in and declare war.

Another mass outbreak of war declarations occurs.

Life continues like this for a few turns until a mass outbreak of peace happens. Howver at the end of this I am still at war with China/N. Korea and N.Africa. Go figure. I shrug, think Africa's a good a place as any to hit and my now vulcan bombers start knocking the hell out of cairo, aided by 2 canberra bombers off my carrier group in the mediterranean. Tripoli starts to take major damage.

In the Irish sea meanwhile I've been building up another carrier group, and another transport full of centurions and an apc. Once both are fully stocked this group, led by HMS Vanguard, proceed to the coastline of Tripoli, all the while Tripoli is being hammered by fleet air arm and the base in Cyprus.
Once Vanguard's group is in the area full aerial and naval bombardment commences before I drop the armoured units on the coastline. Again, the next turn full aerial and naval bombardment commences before the tanks move in. Resistance is suprisingly and gratifyingly light. Tripoli is mine! At the lose of one centurion tank, lost in mopping up some close by infantry units. A british african empire looks like it might be on the cards.

Vulcans change target to next city up the coast as transport returns to uk.
Aargh, N.africans must have made a deal with the russians because 3 t-34's just mashed through my armoured units. tripoli recaptured by the N.Africans.
Central Africa has declared war on South Africa, so my mpp means I have to join in. Looks like the first major war will be decided in the African continent.
The sneaky italians taking advantage of my air cover land a tank division next to Tripoli and take the city from it's one highly damaged armoured defenders. I have to say was a bit pissed about that but mighty relieved when the next turn the N.Africans managed to find some more armour from somewhere and kick out the Italians. For the moment Tripoli is back in African hands. Vulcan bombers are now hitting both Algiers and Zarsis. The aircraft carriers are hitting where necessary. Troops in uk nearly finished, with FV-432 armoured units instead of apc's providing the defence this time, hopefully this will make this will make the difference.

SOAB!!! Now the french land one tank and take the city after which peace is declared on a global scale meaning the french took tripoli while I put all the effort in. Not impressed. Redeclared war on N.Africa, bombers ressume pounding of Zarsis as transports arrive in med.

zarsis taken at the loss of one Centurion division. Would have liked Tripoli as well but this does prove some consolation. As long as I can hold the place.
Zarsis held, Algier taking heavy bombing raids. Further up the coast, american long range bombers and naval air units begin to hit african cities.

N.Africa begin to move infantry through terrain surrounding Zarsis. I allow this as I have an idea their heading for Tripoli. Maybe I'll have the city yet.
I was right. The french didn't reinforce their position and their armoured unit went down. I promptly shifted bombing raids to Tripoli, beat the hell out the defenders and moved in with royal marine commando units. City taken then reinforced with much infantry.

Unable, due to friendly ships in the way, to land units at algiers landed and took Rabat instead. N.Africa is crumbling. Have moved two armoured tank units and one apc unit to outside algiers in the hope of snatching the city and immediatly airlifting heavy reinforcements in.

Algiers falls! Although this triumph is somewhat lessened by SE Asia not wanting to renegotiate a right of passage with me. Something to do with a sneak attack on the Arab League. ¬¬ As a result I lose my far Eastern base. Units there are moved to some bloody awful spots. All my infantry there are moved to Siberia as the nearest neutral piece of terrain!!!! :s Thankfully had a worker with them. Plonked an airbase down and will airlift them out over the next few turns.

Damn these mass outbreaks of peace. Was about to move in and take the last N.African city of Bechar when everyone jumps in bed with each other. :s Still will give me time to regroup and consolidate.
Finally research advanced naval warfare. This means will finally have some semi decent air cover for my ships and transports and I'm moving on to research Advanced espionage, to give me spy planes. Can never have enough recon imo.

Workers beginning to bring N.Africa colony infrastructure back on line and up to uk standards, despite the differences in climate! Somehow despite peace N.Africa manages to plunder terrain in my territory with a worker unit. Bizarre but I figure tis only a matter of time before they're out the game completely. Also this has doubled the uk's number of cities and should with time provide a good factory base to churn out units. As for my units in Russia it's fast becoming my thought that they are in a superb position. Just outside of Russian territoy in Northern Siberia, with an airfield....They are in a unique and powerful place for aircover and strikes against the commies if it comes to that.

Got tired of N.Africa somehow snatching my workers on the border and attacking, least I'm assuming it was the N.Africans, one of my colony cities with invisible units. Bombed the crap out of Bechar with vulcans based in Cyprus and Canberra's off one of my carrier's 'somewhere' in the meditteranean. Moved in with four Centurion armoured units and took the city. Royal marine commando's moving in first to secure workers where they could in the lands around the city to bolster my workforce there. N. Afrca is out the game and the British Empire is well on the way to a return to glory!

Oct. 1965.
Rushed a harbour in Tripoli and upgraded 3 destroyers guarding carriers in the med. Planning on bolstering Cyprus air forces and moving both carrier units and their escorts to the Indian Ocean. Leaving the med in the hands of a few subs. It can only be a matter of time before India tries to flex it's muscle again. The long standing Carrier Collossus and it's escort off the south tip of Japan begin to head towards the Coast of N.Africa with the intention of rearming and resupplying before returning to post.

Dec 1966 - Over the past year the chinese have taken a beating from the Russians. Looking at the map, I have no assets in that area, 3 cities north of Shangai lie ruined, burned to the ground. The Chinese have 9 cities left and the Russian might now stretches as far as the Indian northern border. This is going to be a serious problem when war with the reds come.
The british continue to consolidate, and should be in a good position to grab a couple more cities in Africa shortly. Plans to wrest Cairo from the Arab league are under way and mi6 are reconoitering central africa, looking at the odds of invasion.

Oct 1967. Central africa move troops into northern africa. I immediatly tell them to withdraw or declare war. they declare war. vulcans hit them straightway from cyprus, canberra's from the two carrier's off the west african coast, mopped up with centurions.

WWIII breaks out again. mass mobilisation by all countries.

The last collossus has been sunk at sea. An italian destroyer has taken prime position slap bang in the middle of the suez canal with no intention of moving and due to this it was a sitting duck. Canberra's from centra africa I believe and heavy russian bombers finished it off over the last two turns as I could get none of the fresh escorts sitting in the med to it. :s bloody italians!! It's escort, heavily damaged, is heading towards the airbase off india with the intention of holing up there until the route is clear. Russian bombers have also been trying to destroy two transport ships of mine off the coast of Ireland. Generally things going well but need reinforcements from the uk soon to consolidate in north africa and take Dakar, first central african city I've been targeting.

Both Italy and Brazil have landed troops in Cuba of all places! Very impressed with the pair of them and curious to see how they'll fare. Had some problems with insurgents in n. africa but strategically placed royal marine commando's and intelligence operatives have been successful in limiting such raids. A mixture of armour and royal marine commando's has been moving up until at the outskirts of Dakar, moving down the coast road. Again the French land troops outside the city trying to capitalise on my success.

With a combination of fleet air arm and raf firepower Dakar was reduced to 1 infantry and two damaged armour units. An elite Centurion took the first armoured unit and gave me a Corps much to my happiness. Immediatly placed it and another slightly damaged centurion in the Corps and took out the last two units. Dakar is in British hands!! The french can do their own bloody fighting. In other news Santiago del Cuba is in Brazillian hands!

Bah, peace declared before I can do anymore damage. instead of trying to continue on my own I pull back and regroup. June 1968.



After this despite all efforts game won't continue to next turn. I'm not fussed about resurrecting the game, it was on a lower difficulty setting than I'm on at the moment for a start. Africa does seem the most attractive place to invade though as NATO or USA. They just dont have the the troop quality, quantity or allies needed to repulse a large scale invasion. The only real difference between my current game and the report above in terms of strategy is I took N.Africa West to East instead of the other way around. The Canadians managed to take Tripoli and have just lost it to the Central Africans which I plan on taking full advantage of. The only real problem I'm having with my current game is SAM sites in cities are decimating my bombers. So much so that I have virtually stopped bombing cities and go instead for troops moving about and strategic resources.

Cheers for the info on the rebase range btw.

Subs + cruise missiles - nope, non-loadable in any UK ones. I suppose the other way you could get around this would be to enlarge the Swiftsure's bombardment range to simulate sub fired missile attacks.

Have a few more queries and the like but will wait till I have a suitable selection as before before presenting them. :)

De Begerac.
bonjour Monsieur De Bergerac :)

that's a nice report you put in the spoiler :goodjob:

wrt the crash - was there an error message? (ie "Missing entry blah-blah-blah")

and yes - Africa is usually the most attractive spot to target first.

i will address the SSBN glitch in the next version. thanks for sharing.

feel free to post your queries here as we're more than happy to answer them (and enjoy reading them!)

Wow what an epic.

ADDIT: I want to make you guys aware of an awesome game by Matrix Games:

http://www.digitalriver.com/dr/sat5/ec_Main.Entry17C?SID=45905&SP=10023&CID=0&PID=832786&PN=1&V1=832786&CUR=124&DSP=&PGRP=0&ABCODE=&CACHE_ID=0

Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III (TOAWIII). If you enjoy miltary strategy games, this game is fantastic. There are about 200 scenarios in this one game package (which BTW, you can Download via credit card order).

The scenarios range from 8 turns to hundreds, and range in scope from simple battles on the order of 15 x 15 hex maps of 4km hexes, to massive epics. One such example, which I recently won a PBEM at (playing as the Warsaw Pact against a fellow from Winnipeg playing NATO) is "The Next War: Tension 1979" which is an alternate history scenario lasting between 17 and 34 turns set in summer 1979 to spring 1980, a period (supposedly), when the Cold War was most at risk of turning hot.

I anticipate that eventually, the stalwarts of TCW mod for C3C will start to work on a mod for Civ4, and this scenario in this game might be a fruitful source of ideas, details, and inspiration. It only covers part of Europe, but the detail is stunning.

Also, I really like the combat system in this game engine. It strikes a very nice balance between tactical and strategic. I'm not sure how much of it might be useful for a Civ4 mod, but in any event, it is interesting. Some interesting possibilities:

Engagement: when your unit is adjacent to a hostile, you cannot simply turn around and walk away. If your unit has a recon rating, it has a chance to pick up and leave without being hurt, but if not it will likely be routed, or if it is not the last unit to leave a hex. Enemy interdiction of a retreating or moving force doesn't always happen, and it depends on the level of commitment of the adjacent enemy, the ratio of force, etc. Possibly something like this could be brought into Civ4 mods.

Remaining Movement points influence combat outcomes: if you attack with a 41 strength unit that only has 3 of 15 movement points left, it will not attack as effectively as if it had all 15 left. This might not have a big effect in Civ4, and it might unbalance game but worth a thought.

Only thing I can think of right now.
ahh- it's my war-mongering pbem comrade :p

that's some interesting stuff you post. and the ideas are intriguing.

i'd thought about that for TCW - that is - a host of scenarios built around the TCW folders. it's lots of work though - even for civ3. however, it does seem appealing and could be something to consider in the future.

He's saying that El J should make this for Civ 4, which he should, and I would be willing to help. :mischief:
heh - not so fast there young padawan http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/mini/small-smiley-018.gif

I_b is right though. i've been thinking of converting it over for civ4. i mean, there's lots of promising stuff that could be done. however, that is quite a ways off i'm afraid. there's some gigantic flaws wrt civ4 that are so monumental (to me at least) that they prevent me from firing up even an epic game of civ4.

Mr Kharma is right also - i've got much better (and constructive which is my buzzword) things to do w/ my civ time than fool around w/ civ4 atm http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aktion/action-smiley-027.gif

and trust me - by the time i'm finished w/ civ3, i'll have put together, at least in my own little modding world, a de facto version of civ3.5 http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/cool/cool-smiley-010.gif

Oh, I see, much better plans.

Actually as far as I know it isnt possible to "port" Civ 3 to Civ 4 it has to be redone from scratch and personally I think El Justo has better things to do than work on Civ 4 projects.

OK, looks like El Justo has already answered, but I agree that "port" is a bad choice of word.
I have looked at Civ IV, played it some (and disliked its base game), and kept tabs on the various excellent Civ IV game mechanics mod's out there.

EL Justo and I have had a few discussions about if/when TCW will be created for Civ IV, and it will be many months.
I think that the key will be how good these mod's out there are(Dale's combat mods come to mind), how easily they can be integrated into the game engine, and how many unit graphics are out there.

And of course how much time El Justo has.
:)

I have a ton of ideas floating around in my head for more realistic play that can only be incoroprated into Civ IV.
An example: No amount of tweaking in Civ III allows for subs of different countries to share the same tile, let alone when they are enemy subs, or allow for percentage chances of discovery of subs.
Or how about ASW aircraft, that have a percentage chance to spot a sub.

These are things that I believe are possible only with the open CIV IV engine.

On another note, within CIV III, I want to get some discussion going about the ability to build an airport in a city.

Since airtrade is removed from TCW, (OK, one wonder does allow it), I am thinking that airports only have a military component left.
So how about we remove airports from the build list?
The only military transport then would be to airbases. In a perfect CIV III world, we would not allow any military units to use a city as a base of operations.
You could have an airbase parked one tile away from a city.
Is that realistic? I don't know.
I think most major cities don't have an air base in the middle of the city (actually, my own town, Toronto, does have have a military reserve base , Downsview, inside a very urban area).

What I am trying to get at it is that not every city on the map should be able to support military air units. Somehow I don't think that a fully loaded F-111 or F-14 or Backfire bomber can take off and land on some little town's local airstrip.
And air bases would gain a great deal more strategic value to capture and defend.

I don't even know if this is possible to control within the game engine, but want to put it out there for discussion.

And the same goes for the improvement air base.

As many of you know, I am prone to ranting about the Civ 3 engine, in particular the combat calculator. Well, since it happened in this scenario, here I am, ranting and ready.

I am playing the 2.0 map that Dreadknought modified for the VPs and stuff. As the US, I was, by alliance, at war with the Second World. I saw Cuba as a particularly attractive target, and by all right and reason I ought to have rolled right through the vast majority of their units, being caught up only on their BTR-50 and M-3A1 units.
I landed the entire beginning US Armed Forces (every city has 2 Nat Guard in it, that's it), next to Havanna. 3 Peacemakers and a P-80 Shooting Star bombarded the city, and I went at it.

Cuban Infantry is a 10/13. My attacking forces are
17/18 (American Infantry)
16/16 (Airborne Inf)
22/24 (Marines)
24-18 (Shermans)
12/22 (M3A1)

Cuban Infantry walked all over my boys. I got some of their units down reasonably low, like those freakin armies (they have 3 of them in Havanna! why is Cuba so damn powerful?!), but the Barracks just put them back at full health, and I had about 3 guys left, all Half-tracks, and they lost probably 3 or 4 men.

Needless to say, I was pissed.

Why is this capable of happening? I can understand the occasional fluke or two, but this happenned to over 30 attackers!

On the other hand, we had Crabcakes tonight, so it kind of made up for it.


Alright rant over. You may now continue with civilized and directional conversation.

I-batman: I think it's a good idea with two caveats-

I: I highly doubt if its possible to make it impossible for air units to base in a city. It's probably hard coded into the game

II: If you remove the airport improvement, how would you make veteran air units?

Cheezy-
Remember that defenders get huge bonuses. Specifically, in metropoli, they get 100%, plus 25% for fortification, and a few other bonuses based on the specific size of the city, and improvements constructed there. Disregarding those last two, the 13 def of the Cubans has suddenly increased to 26 + 4 =30. This is more than a match for anything in your lineup there. The base rule for cities (and I find even more important for TCW) is that if you're going to take a city, you need at least one of three things.

I: Massive bombardment. EVERY unit should be at half strength or lower.
II: Massive numbers. A superiority of three or even four to one is imperative.
III: Massive tech lead. If you got your M1 MBT, then go ahead and pound those 1950's infantry. But if you can't outgun them like that, don't be surprised if you lose.

In all, it wasn't a fluke that you lost. It really was a result of the numbers--and not just the random ones at that.

I hope you learned something from this, and that my pointing it out isn't salt to your wound. I really am just trying to help. Really. :)

The answer to the Cuban nut is the USS New Jersey nutcracker.

As for the airports, I agree, not every single town should be able to have a military airbase. Those things are very costly, and they annoy locals. But I'm not sure city size should matter that much. In some instances, they are in the middle of big cities, in others they are in the middle of almost nowhere. I think the main reason in real life that they are not more numerous is simply that they do not need to be, and they are costly.

Why not limit each tribe to a maximum number of airports that depends on number of cities, number of pop, something like that? IIRC, that is something you can do fairly easilly in the C3C editor.

Along these lines, one other thing that I'd LOVE to see if it could somehow be worked in: Giving roads an Anti-Aircraft warfare capacity! Not a huge one mind you, but maybe 85% of what the ground units that have it have, and 55% of what the actual AA units have?

The answer to the Cuban nut is the USS New Jersey nutcracker.

Nothing like having a battlewagon off the coast to soften targets.

That is one of the reasons I give the Iowa BBs and my new Des Moines CAs blitz capability in my games. However, it gives the US player somewhat of an advantage. Actually I give any battleships and gun cruisers blitz to represent the amount of ammo they carry, and to best represent around the clock bombardment capabilities.

I'm sorry, I'm just partial to gunboat diplomacy.

I know that sea trade is turned off for a reason, but it cripples indonesia! Could they maybe have a unique harbor that lets them have sea trade with their own cities?

I know that sea trade is turned off for a reason, but it cripples indonesia! Could they maybe have a unique harbor that lets them have sea trade with their own cities?
in terms of luxuries you mean?

There was no error message. On the final turn as I press return there's a pause, a couple of french units in africa move around and then nothing. 30 mins on still nothing and ctr-alt-del shows the game is not responding. May just have been the state of my computer at the time, have had something of a clear out of non-essential crap since. It may also have been that I was at various points alt-tabbing between document and game to write the game up as a report while playing! :P Either or I wouldn't worry about it, everything seems to be going ok now.

Two queries:
Trade, thought it was all turned off? Certainly I can't build every type of unit in the Falklands for example. However have been increasingly facing demands for 'UK' resource. This has led to the current world war situation. What would happen if I did give it to them? Russian British Royal Marines and the like?

And one for the modellers I think; Is it possible for a unit to have a different bombardment animation to it's standard attack animation? Just thinking out loud about the subs and wondering whether it would be possible to have, instead of them being able to load cruise missiles, the ability to bombard x amount of squares distance, like the Swiftsure class at the moment, but actually have the model surfacing and firing a missile as opposed to the current situation of them bombarding and the animation showing them torpedoing inland facilities?

De Begerac

One of the Soviet subs, Hotel, Yankee, Oscar?, I think its Oscar, does show a salvo of cruise missles being launched for the bombardment.

the UK resource is considered a luxury and it makes people happy. The units though are designated to each nation so even with the UK resource there would be no Russian British Royal Marines.

One of the Soviet subs, Hotel, Yankee, Oscar?, I think its Oscar, does show a salvo of cruise missles being launched for the bombardment.

the UK resource is considered a luxury and it makes people happy. The units though are designated to each nation so even with the UK resource there would be no Russian British Royal Marines.

The Oscar sub shows salvos of missiles, which is accuate, since it was designed to attack the surface ships in a carrier group.

From www.fas.org, which is a great site:

"The submarine is equipped with two dozen SS-N-19 missiles with a range of 550-kilometers -- three times as many anti-ship cruise missiles as earlier Charlie and Echo II class submarines. The missiles, which are launched while the submarine is submerged, are fired from tubes fixed at an angle of approximately 40 degrees. The tubes, arranged in two rows of twelve each, are covered by six hatches on each side of the sail, with each hatch covering a pair of tubes. The launchers are placed between the inner pressure hull and the outer hydrodynamic hull. The torpedo tubes fire both torpedoes and shorter range anti-ship missiles, and a combination of some two dozen weapons are carried."

Nothing like having a battlewagon off the coast to soften targets.

That is one of the reasons I give the Iowa BBs and my new Des Moines CAs blitz capability in my games. However, it gives the US player somewhat of an advantage. Actually I give any battleships and gun cruisers blitz to represent the amount of ammo they carry, and to best represent around the clock bombardment capabilities.

I'm sorry, I'm just partial to gunboat diplomacy.

I follow virtually the same prescription, my good man! The ships in question are the pinnacle of their types, at least in USN service.

I like employing gunboat diplomacy, especially with BBG-66 USS Kentucky.:D

I like employing gunboat diplomacy, especially with BBG-66 USS Kentucky.:D
Now I'm confused. I haven't paid particular attention to WHAT battleships are in TCW, just where they are, but is Kentucky in here? I thought they never finished Kentucky.

I think Simon took the liberty of reversing the navy's decision to scrap the Kentucky in his version of TCW.

We needed you in the 50's Simon.

Nothing like having a battlewagon off the coast to soften targets.

That is one of the reasons I give the Iowa BBs and my new Des Moines CAs blitz capability in my games. However, it gives the US player somewhat of an advantage. Actually I give any battleships and gun cruisers blitz to represent the amount of ammo they carry, and to best represent around the clock bombardment capabilities.

I'm sorry, I'm just partial to gunboat diplomacy.
That is a very interesting idea and I think also far more accurate I'm going to add it also. What are you using to represent a Kentucky class BB?

That is a very interesting idea and I think also far more accurate I'm going to add it also. What are you using to represent a Kentucky class BB?

The Kentucky was the 5th or 6th can't remember which Iowa class BB.

The Illinois would have been BB65 of the Iowa class, but was cancelled in August 1945 and scrapped in 1958.

The Kentucky would have been BB66 of the Iowa class, but her incomplete hull was launched in 1950 to clear the building dock. Her bow was used to repair collision damage on the Wisconsin BB64, and the rest of Kentucky's hull was scrapped in 1958.

In some of my books, it is stated that there were ideas to finish the Kentucky and make her a BBG.

What are you using to represent a Kentucky class BB?

I would assume he is just using the Iowa class battleship graphics. Am I correct Simon ?

Yes, Vingrjoe, simply utilizing an Iowa, not being able to simulate some of the more extreme ideas for Kentucky that were mooted.

It is taking historical licence, but I feel this is well within the nature of the beast - we are changing history in this game. El Justo has mentioned future variants, and perhaps one may include some 'what ifs', providing the units can be garnered; it is not an urgent, nor pressing thing, as such.

Illinois was not completed to anything near the stage of Kentucky, so slipped gently away into that good night. Pity

There are many interesting books with details of her - Friedman's masterful works, among others.
http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index.php?mforum=warshipprojects in its various incarnations, including the present one, has had a lot of good material relating to the topic.

Effectively, the main proposals included removing at least one main armament turret to be replaced with two long range missile launchers - Talos, with further capacity for Terrier. In some design scenarios, one or two forward turrets remained. AAA suites would be massively revamped, with more modern weapons included. Regulus and then Polaris missiles based amidships, along with a star tracker.
The notion of basing strategic nuclear missiles on surface ships was reasonably prevalent in the 1950s and even into the 1960s; there are details in the 1967 Janes I shall dig out.
How such a vessel would appear in the 1980s if still in service is an interesting point of conjecture.

Other plans were considered for a Hawaii CB conversions (Alaskas had a lot going for them after their time), Des Moines being altered to missile ships or assault ships, along with the additional Baltimore CAG conversions that were cancelled.

Alternate military historical fiction, particularly of a naval bent, is one of my consuming passions, so one does give a fair bit of thought to it. The wondrous tool that is TCW allows a fairly nice degree of simulation of some ideas, along with a bit of Harpoon (not long until I get the ultimate version...).
This is just one reason as to why this great project is one that I keep a more than intrigued eye on.


Vingrjoe, I would have loved to have been in high naval echelons in the 1950s, but would certainly have been shouted down and viewed as a strange throwback for supporting ship concepts that had no clear role; brown shoes and the nascent glow-in-the-darks had the day then. However, the wonders of hindsight do permit us to see that many of the assumptions and beliefs of then were to some degree erroneous.

Perhaps a version of the Foresight War...?

However, to keep battleships at sea, let alone building, you need: a valid threat (Stalin's heavy naval units); a valid primary role; the necessary philosophy, and indeed a very different one from OTL; concentrated support for ongoing development; powerful political sugar daddies. In short, a rather different world, but not unrecognizable. Earlier developments in longer range gunfire and improved targetting wouldn't hurt, along with the necessity of developing viable missile deployment facility.

Edit Further: This has got me thinking on some issues and ideas to do with gun based AA armament, and its potential. Today, it has great potential if put together right. In the 1950s, there is even more room for manouver

wow - you guys've been busy!

i'm not opposed to adding in some more 'battlewagons' as vingrjoe likes to say ;)

however, my only thing is that if the US gets any new BBs (or any other captial ship for that matter), the other top-end civs should get something as well in order to 'even' it out a bit. i recall that i left out a soviet BB or 2 in all versions. this could be re-examined in conjunction w/ adding in more to the USN. same could be said for the RN and some others as well. of course, this will all be a part of the TCW naval revision come autumn and all are welcome to take part :) so keep the ideas flowing gentlemen...

Mmm, there is a need to balance OTL orbats and gameplay...any more USN merits either anti ship weapons, better subs, tinkered techs or Soviet heavies. Balance of power in regards to playability is a paramount concern

Read recently of the British BB program going on after the cessation of the USN one, with some work done up until 1949 (this is apart from Vanguard). It has been simulated in some AHs and ship designs.

For any naval revision, a few ideas that in many cases would require further work, but can be bandied about:

a few Allen M. Sumners, Gearings positioned early, along with Fletchers; the capability to FRAM them.
Later entry of Tomahawk missile.
DLGs, simulated CAG conversions, USS Long Beach, and the DLGNs
CVN-65, plus the mooted Kitty Hawks.
Some of the French, Italian, Dutch and Swedish 1950s and 1960s cruisers
Old battleships for Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Sweden, similar to the Turkish major unit.
RN Tiger class cruisers, additional post war cruisers
Possibly, possibly 'never-were' units: CVA-58, CVA-01, CSGN, BBG versions of KGVs, some of the 1950s RN proposals.
Kidd class DDGs.
Arleigh Burkes and Sovremennys; late entries, but can come in earlier, what with a player initiated DXG etc program.
Modernization possibilities for Richelieus into AA BBs.
(Very alternative: Italy retains some BBs, rather than scrapped)
(SD and NC BBEs)
Regulus cruise missile (no really new icon needed)

I guess one thing to look at is this: TCW starts in the 1950s. So, I'm assuming from that point on, history can be altered to what we know of it now, but we cannot change what happened in history up to that point, if we want to stay somewhat historically accurate. So, I guess, since we, the players are controlling our preferred nations, we ultimately make decisions, which may be contrary to history. However, I like to have *some* historical constraint, but that is my preferred way. Someone else may prefer no constraint to history at all, which is perfectly fine, this is after all, a game.

:confused: I've lost my train of thought...happens alot after you pass 30.

Okay, I think my brain is back online. So, a BBG configured Kentucky is plausible as alternate history from 1950 onwards, since it was not scrapped until 1958. I would have to look through my books, two excellent ones are Friedman's US Battleships and Garzke/Dulin's Battleships to get an idea what final configuration the Kentucky may have been. I'm thinking it may have been made with AAW as one of the primary mission roles ?

Another thought about controlling history from 1950 onward, would back the decision by El Justo to allow for more than four Kirovs. The USSR was strapped for cash, thus only being able to complete four. However, with this being a game, and the player controlling a countries expenditures, it is perfectly plausible for the USSR, under different leadership (me), to have been prosperous enough to make a fleet of Kirovs.

Well, I think that is enough babbling for now. I have to go on a walk with the wife and kids.

I think one of the more common conversions of the battleships was removal of number 3 turret and a revamp of the super structure. Bascially, I think you look at the early Baltimore conversions (removal of number 3 turret and addition of surface to air missiles for single ended cruisers) and that is what would have happen with the battleships.

One other point on ship construction. Ship construction was changed after the missiles came into play. Ship superstructures became aluminum and other light alloys. No armor was carried. There was no real ship confrontation (beyond the occasional tests against old ships) until the Falklands war. The British never lost a ship to a missile strike. They lost ships to the fires that followed and a lot of notes were taken. I know the US changed quite a bit and armor was worked back into ship designs along with other changes.

It was also realized that missiles were not unlike the kamakazies of WW2. You are talking about a device that impacts the ship with a explosive warhead, but the bigger issue is the fire that follows, which both missiles and kamakazies were good for. In several instances, kamakazies hit battleships and none suffered any significant damage from such hits. This made the Iowas even more potent from a survivability standpoint. Part of the issue is there is a big difference between the amount of damage to put a unit out of action and the damage to sink it. Bismark was put out of action rather easily in her final action. Sinking her was extremely difficult. The Iowas are vulnerable in that it is far easier to destroy a ships sensors these days than in the past. A cluster munition doing an air burst over the ship would effectively destroy any offensive ability other than line of sight with the guns.

At any rate, it should be very interesting.

nice comments fellas.

balance is probably my first pre-req wrt to adding in more ships, especially if they're pre-placed. however, i'm not married to the idea of sticking strictly to the historical notions and not deviating from them. so if it's modernization of existing vessels ala the king flag (the setup w/ the iowas - vingrjoe's excellent breathrough btw ;) ) then by all means, i'm all ears. it's just that if we 'audit' 1 or 2 navies then we should 'audit' them all imo.

one factor that plays a great role in considering when or if to add more units in is the appearance of new gfx on the boards. by this i mean that if i see that our resident shipbuilder has created a new unit, i try like hell to get it to fit into the grand scheme of things [hint-hint] :mischief:

I_batman and i have had some recent discussion regarding possible alterations to the sea units. one of the interesting things he mentioned to me which i hadn't really thought about was ramping up the missile capacities of the SSBNs. they're paltry right now iirc. he suggested setting them at the RL capacity. so, for example, if an Ohio class SSBN can carry 24 warheads in RL, why not allow for it's civ3 facsimile to carry the same? is it excessive? i don't know for sure. what would need to be clarified would be the value of each missile in game terms (ie is a tomahawk cruise missile equal 1 missile in-game? 2? 3? ~ what about the RoF or our ability to integrate this into the value?). all of this would give a homongous increase to the strategic value of these ships and as it now stands, they aren't all that valuable in game terms. so to give this feature of the game a boost would be a good thing imo.

i think the main thing i want to adress w/ the upcoming naval audit is to actually beef up the navies of the world. by this i mean that i want to see the AI build more sea units on the whole. it always seemed to me that once i engaged an enemy fleet that i would no longer have a threat hanging over me (iow - once a fleet was destroyed, the AI simply didn't care to replenish it - and this is unfortunate :sad: ) so considering that, i will try to vick a page out of my AoI book and try to 'entice' the AI into building more sea units. i'm happy to report that i was overwhelmingly successful in this regard w/ AoI...moreso than any other scenario i've been a part of. so that is extremely, extremely promising (to say the least!)

also among the audit specs will be a re-examination of HP allotments according to a neat scheme Klyden came up w/ for the AoI ships - movement points too according to actual ship speeds. A/D values could also be looked at some (espcially the subs). AA values also (in possible conjunction w/ the 'modernization' mentioned earlier). price tags for the ships will also be ramped down some in accordance w/ my AoI revealations. i may even investigate the feasibility of introducing some sort of 'return the flag' set-up for TCW (ala AoI). this VP scheme clearly has a humongously positive impact on AI navies.

lastly - i'm pleased to report that i am now unencumbered w/ regard to adding in more wonders into the TCW biq file. in the past, i had a devil of a time gettng more of these imp's/wonders into the file w/out it crashing and/or acting strange. so this means that possible autoproducers could be introduced for some sea unit classes (not to mention the 'raze stunting' that it so successfully accomplishes).

lots of stuff for sure - but all food for thought as they say :D

Page 399 of Friedman's has a sketch, and there are some other documents about.
Definitely had an AAW focus, with a secondary role on strategic strike. Later capacity for Sea Sparrow, and then Standard.


Long range missiles provide a raison d'etre for battleships, giving a range longer than carrier aircraft. However, smaller vessels - cruisers, destroyers and submarines can carry these babies. There need to be more factors for the benefits to outweigh the costs.

These could be: cost benefit analysis shows that large units carrying large amounts is preferable to a spread out load (unlikely); a mixed force is desired (more likely); added capability to gunfire range (needs to be a dramatic increase from 25nm, but big ranges only come much later, and even they come from the partisan NSFSA - weapons under development in late WW2 and 1940s were the likes of Highball, Tiny Tim and Helmover, rather than long range shells...Peenemunde Arrow Shell along with early deployment of JB-2?); tactical utility of nuclear shells (possible); fast flagship operations (possible).
What is really needed is different lessons from WW2, which means alternate experience of Coral Sea and Midway, and that is well before the 1950 "point of departure".
However, some poetic licence can be granted, with a combination of those factors and eccentric leadership resulting into alternative historical outcomes.


Tsk. Alternate history is a complicated business, which is why I shoved my POD for a 2010 scenario way, way back. But that is another story altogether.

I think one of the more common conversions of the battleships was removal of number 3 turret and a revamp of the super structure. Bascially, I think you look at the early Baltimore conversions (removal of number 3 turret and addition of surface to air missiles for single ended cruisers) and that is what would have happen with the battleships.

One other point on ship construction. Ship construction was changed after the missiles came into play. Ship superstructures became aluminum and other light alloys. No armor was carried. There was no real ship confrontation (beyond the occasional tests against old ships) until the Falklands war. The British never lost a ship to a missile strike. They lost ships to the fires that followed and a lot of notes were taken. I know the US changed quite a bit and armor was worked back into ship designs along with other changes.

It was also realized that missiles were not unlike the kamakazies of WW2. You are talking about a device that impacts the ship with a explosive warhead, but the bigger issue is the fire that follows, which both missiles and kamakazies were good for. In several instances, kamakazies hit battleships and none suffered any significant damage from such hits. This made the Iowas even more potent from a survivability standpoint. Part of the issue is there is a big difference between the amount of damage to put a unit out of action and the damage to sink it. Bismark was put out of action rather easily in her final action. Sinking her was extremely difficult. The Iowas are vulnerable in that it is far easier to destroy a ships sensors these days than in the past. A cluster munition doing an air burst over the ship would effectively destroy any offensive ability other than line of sight with the guns.

At any rate, it should be very interesting.


Yep, that was mooted for the Stage 2 Iowa conversion, along with some of the 1950s and 1960s plans. Removing superstructure does land the armored conning tower, but such is the way of conjecture.
The abandonment of armour was driven by the notion that nuclear weapons made it obsolescent, which did make sense at the time. Also, BB armour is not in the places where it needs to be for non-capital ship surface action - a belt is well and good, but not if the projectiles/bombs are going for the deck, or for a mission kill.

Indeed. As mentioned, a mission kill these days is most effective.

El Justo - I like the sound of the audits!
SSBN loads can be improved, perhaps to 6,8 or even 12 of a Polaris missile (unit is out there, IIRC). The problem with the higher amounts is balance, the AI not knowing how to use it, and somewhat lack of utility except in nuclear warfare.
More sea units are the go, definitely, as one has mused on previously. A mixed Soviet fleet, along with the ChiComms presents a challenge...maybe even rogue subs?
Good news on the wonder impasse.

A balancing factor could be prepositioned Soviet bombers on the Kola peninsula that one day upgrade to Backfires.

Just something out of left field...the gigamap does have an awful lot of Southern oceans and the Antarctic verge that do not serve a purpose. Most of the action is up north. Perhaps that could be contracted and Europe stretched a bit (a few more UK cities, larger Fulda Gap, victory points in Northern Norway and Norwegian Sea and other little tidbits).

If we add more American BBs to the list, should we give USSR any Persovanny BBs? Did they have any left? I don't know if we sunk all of the Lorraine class or not, but if they had any left France ought to have them too.

if they fit the bill, yeah, definitely.

i'd have to do some pre-lim research to see if or when the ships were decommissioned/scrapped/whathaveyou...

I would pass on including WW1 era ships for the bigger powers (this would include the Italian ships as well as the French Lorraines). Many had been rebuilt once already and several nations had newer hulls to work with (The Italians had 2-3 I think along with the French having 2) and this should be an adequate number to work with. The Russian battleships (in addition to being old) were a disaster as far as condition. The ones in Leningrad really suffered from being isolated for so long not to mention one was sunk by Rudel (although its after turrets were still used as a gun platform). The Yavuz would be good to leave along with looking at the SA naval units. The biggest issue with these ships was the manpower it took to run them along with their slow speed. (Hard to imagine how a ship that runs at 21-24 knots is going to be worth a lot in a more modern era).

Downloaded game before starts the following appears.

ERROR READING FILE

Missing entry in "text\PediaIcons.txt": ICON_BLDG_Theater

:mad: WTF!!!!!!!!!!!

Downloaded game before starts the following appears.

ERROR READING FILE

Missing entry in "text\PediaIcons.txt": ICON_BLDG_Theater

:mad: WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
hi there Ghost443.

this is a common error. no worries.

be sure that the large folder named TCW is not a 'folder within a folder'. by this i mean that when you DL it and extract it, make sure that the file path directory does not look like this:

Civilization III/Conquests/Scenarios/TCW/TCW

the solution is easy - just 'cut' the 'folder within a folder' and put it in the following directory:

Civilization III/Conquests/Scenarios

the reason this error occurs is b/c it disrupts the continuity of the scenario search path. let us know if you have any other issues or if you can't get it to run b/c we can ensure that you do get it running :)

welcome to CFC too! :goodjob:

E-J,

Clear u're mailbox, U're full. LOL

Hard to imagine how a ship that runs at 21-24 knots is going to be worth a lot in a more modern era.

An interesting issue, but arguably one that is of less importance post WW2.
Fleet operations in the manner of the big blue water navies is not the alpha and omega of all naval forces; carriers were difused to the lesser navies in time, but most fleets did not have to concern themselves with such tasks, and ASW has its own demands.
Amphibious forces move at 15-20 knots, as do many convoys. Older South American battleships were not called upon to venture far out of their waters, and did not need the extra 8-10 knots that more modern units did.
Furthermore, the necessity to operate at 30 knots comes from carrier operations, and there are many other naval operations for all and sundry.

Precluding the US Standards is sensible, given that some went out in the late 1940s, and the balance were scrapped by 1959, as is the notion of leaving out their counterparts in other blue water fleets.
Leaving Turkey, Sweden and others some slower coastal defence ships works.


If necessary, the Red Fleet can have a mixture of old slow dreadnoughts modernized - Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya, Novorossiysk, Sevastopol, Arkhangelsk/Royal Sovereign ( a slight tweaking of history to keep her past 1949), Petropavlovsk/Marat/Volkhov (raised in 1950) for Black Sea and Baltic Sea operations. This can be complemented by improved Sovyetskiy Soyuz super dreadnoughts, Kronstadt/Stalingrad battlecruisers, Kirovs and Chapaevs (with Murmansk possibly) and improved Sverdlovs for a decent 1950s surface fleet; this does not venture into the realm of planned aircraft carriers, hybrids and the like.

Many modern ships have a top speed of 27 or 28 knots, which does make me lean more to the side of not finding utility in anything without the capability for carrier escort.

For the MN, Dunkerque and Strasbourg are more likely than the Lorraines, even though they would need to be raised and repaired; Lorraine and Paris do work for the notion of slower amphibious forces as previously mentioned, which gives her some utility off North Africa and Indochina.
Give them the ability to restart Clemenceau and Gascogne? Difficult, very difficult. More important to give them their carrier arm.

Thanks guys I didnt realize the Kentucky was an Iowa class non completed:blush: . E-J the revisions you are looking into sound great especially ways to increase naval combat. Simon I would agree most of the world took notice of the lessons learned during WWII and changed their thinking concerning blue water navies. Simon I agree developing Frances carrier arm should be important.
There are so many possibilities with TCW if you really think about it. I know Wyrm is planning a Kittyhawk CVN which would be a nice addition. I think the number of missles carried on both surface ships as well as submarines should be increased although 24 does seem excessive maybe some kind of balance could be struck.

I think the number of missles carried on both surface ships as well as submarines should be increased although 24 does seem excessive maybe some kind of balance could be struck.

I have started work up again on a huge map biq based on El Justo's 50's biq.
(Some guys have every right to snicker at this point).
It is being designed to be played solely as an 8 man PBEM, and looks to start in 1965.

Now, when I discussed with El Justo radically increasing the missile capacity of subs and surface ships, it was only for human vs human play. Since the AI won't load missiles on boats, the concept is useless for a human vs AI game.

The concept would be to create capacity/firepower for each vessel class as it was historically. I would also want to create several generations of nukes and cruise missiles to accurately describe the evolution in range and firepower.
The original Polaris A-1 had a range of 1000 nm, while a Trident II D-5 has a range in excess of 4500 nm.
The first Soviet SLBM (R-11Fm) had a range of 150 nm, R-39's on Typhoons had a range of 6000 nm.
I am not even going to start about payloads.
Same concept applies to conventional sea-based cruise missiles.

Naturally, I am having a heluva time getting the editor to allow me multiple nukes, but it must be possible, since El Justo has tagged Chemical warheads as Nuclear weapons, while still having medium range and ICBM's.

I know this path leads to micromanagement, and a real attention for detail when is required when playing a position, and is clearly not what everyone wants to play.

But I think I know of a few TCW guys who love sea-based strategy and combat who will likely eat this up.

BTW, sea-based combat and strategy is WAY better on the huge map.
Just finding subs on the map is murder, let alone fighting.
And the US advantage of having their carrier based planes as aircover really hits home on the huge map when compared to the Soviets.

Soviets have never had a comparable carrier like the US has had until the Ulynavosk is introduced late in the game (never really built, historically)
The Moskva carried helos only in an ASW role. The Kiev class originally carried some VSTOL fighters, but they were crap compared to the US planes.
That changed when the Mig-29 and Su-27 were modified for carrier duty, but the Kiev could only carry a small quantity)

Well, so long as we're all discussing how to improve the navy...

The Skipjack class sub doesn't have stealth attack, which I think it ought to.

Which I found out by starting up a new game as the Yanks. 1956, Cuba is eliminated, and the Soviets have taken Hamburg. But that doesn't bother me, I resolved not to get involved in Europe until I have exhaustsed all other methods of expansion. If my dreams are fulfilled, the Reds will take over all of Europe and I'll get to launch Operation Overking to free Europe a second time. :D

Okay, so I'm a WWII Buff. But getting to take on the Red Giant without the hinderance of those stupid allies is tempting, you must admit. :P

Right, so, back to the topic at hand; A lot of these ideas are great guys. Although, some of you *wink wink* need to play someone aside from the US while still having the additional Iowa and blitz. Preferably someone who will be on the receving end of such a barrage. ;)

As a very random thought, and to add more interest to subs, and possibly to goad the computer into using them more; What about allowing the subs to carry a unit? I.e, Spies or Special Forces units? (I don't know if this is even possible without it being abused and a division of tanks rolling out the fore hatches but would certainly make for some interesting raids and beach head scenario's)

Cyrano

My greatest and most humble thanks.
You sir are :king:

Although, some of you *wink wink* need to play someone aside from the US while still having the additional Iowa and blitz. Preferably someone who will be on the receving end of such a barrage.

Funny you should mention that. Now I haven't played any PBEM games yet, although the next one that comes along I would be more than happy to participate in. However, I have played two games, on the most difficult settings, as the Soviets. The Iowas, including all the gun cruisers (the Sverdlovs as well), and foreign battleships have blitz. I make it my priority to shadow the Iowa battlegroups with my subs and/or aircraft. When my fleet is strong enough to defend my coasts, I make it high priority to sink the Iowas. I feel it makes for a challenging naval goal. My only problem is the AI is too stupid to pull a damaged Iowa back to port for repairs. I had the AI use an Iowa to sink one ship after another in one of my battlegroups, only to lose hitpoints after each successful encounter until one of my Kievs was able to defend itself and knock off the last couple of points the Iowa had.

Regarding additional ASMs carried on surface combatants: I feel that the bombardment value and attack value should take into account that the ship is using it's ASMs. Some consideration should be given to Anti Ship Cruise missiles being equalizers for the third world countries, and less so for the major powers. In my view a bombardment from a ship would consist of it launching ASM/Cruise Missiles and firing it's naval guns, the same goes for the Attack. I don't quite know why Firaxis even added the cruise missile specifically. It is, after all a munition. Just like the Harpoon, the Styx, the JDAM, and artillery shells are all munitions. I can see using Scuds and other theater ballistic missiles however.

As a very random thought, and to add more interest to subs, and possibly to goad the computer into using them more; What about allowing the subs to carry a unit? I.e, Spies or Special Forces units? (I don't know if this is even possible without it being abused and a division of tanks rolling out the fore hatches but would certainly make for some interesting raids and beach head scenario's)
Thats easy to do tag them as transport foot only and you cant load tanks on them........however they really cant carry alot of units they generally carry 1 SEAL or SF team consisting basically of a squad sized unit.
I have started work up again on a huge map biq based on El Justo's 50's biq.
(Some guys have every right to snicker at this point).
It is being designed to be played solely as an 8 man PBEM, and looks to start in 1965.
Sounds interesting what size huge or is it actually a giga? The only thing I can think of starting so late in the cold war is you lose a lot of early jet units.

Sounds interesting what size huge or is it actually a giga? The only thing I can think of starting so late in the cold war is you lose a lot of early jet units.

Map size is 362 x 325.
Against the AI, peace time turns run at 30 plus minutes, though the CPU maxes out at 50%, and maybe 30% of memory. I have a very powerful rig, so on a smaller machine I imagine wait times are an hour.
Hence, all-human PBEM game only.

And starting later in the game allows for pre-built infrastructure, a lot more powerful units faster, plus more pre-placed units overall.
I think 1965 is a fairly reasonable start date.

The current 8 man pbem some of us are in started in 1950, and we have played for 11 months, and just started first hostilities.
Starting in 1965 would give a lot more options.

OK....well that is a giga map leaves me out :(

Regarding additional ASMs carried on surface combatants: I feel that the bombardment value and attack value should take into account that the ship is using it's ASMs. Some consideration should be given to Anti Ship Cruise missiles being equalizers for the third world countries, and less so for the major powers. In my view a bombardment from a ship would consist of it launching ASM/Cruise Missiles and firing it's naval guns, the same goes for the Attack. I don't quite know why Firaxis even added the cruise missile specifically. It is, after all a munition. Just like the Harpoon, the Styx, the JDAM, and artillery shells are all munitions. I can see using Scuds and other theater ballistic missiles however.

Well Vingjoe:

And that is the crux of the matter.
(Keep in mind the following thoughts only work for an all-human game.
For a human-AI game, my proposals totally break down.)

I see it as two differing philosophies:

1. An abstraction of the firepower of a warship, which we have done with the varying attack/defence values, bombard capabilities, and hit points.
This is what pretty much every scenario has done, as well as the base Civ game.

2. A much more literal, and specific representation of each class of warship in the scenario.
We know that with the warships that do battle by gun only, attack/defence/HP is fine, and bombard capabilities are used for landbased attacks. Post war Iowa class would be a good example of that, same with the Sverdlov gun cruiser.

But I think that in an all human game we can be more creative with the stats of more modern missle-carrying surface ships and subs.

Imagine an Adams guided missile class that has a reduced attack value from what it currently is (it actually had 2 single 5 inch guns, and 2 - MK 32 triple tube mounts w/ six Mk-46 torpedoes), but had the capability to carry ASROC's and Harpoons.

So now a human loads the Adams with ASROC's and Harpoon, and starts his tour as escort in a carrier group

At the same time, a human contolled Oscar class sub with very minor attack and defence values starts out from Murmansk, loaded with a quantity of SS-N-19's and a few Stallion ASROC's.

All these missiles have varying ranges, as per their RL ranges.

I think this gives the human players more options, since they can attack from a distance, if they want.

Also, to attack at a distance, the human would have to have a substantial recon satellite network to have long range engagements, once again like in RL.

It would also mean that no longer can a carrier task force be a stack.
Los Angeles class subs would have to be running a screen in front of the carriers, just as they do in RL, to protect the carrier from missile attacks.

Granted, the same thing could be handled by upgrading the bombard range and damage stats on a ship, but I think actually having missiles onboard makes more sense, since he can launch at multiple units in the same turn, or launch multiple missiles at the same target.

Also, since there is a finite amount of missiles onboard, a ship could not stay at sea in battle conditions forever.

This is battle system I am kicking around.
I am not saying it will work, because it is a lot of micromanagement for the human, but I think it would add a lot to the strategy in a human-only game.

I think the only way to check it out is to try it on a very small scale, human vs human.

Say a 40 x 40 grid, one side has a standard U.S. carrier task force circa 1965, other side a couple Charlies, maybe a Kydna, an Alfa, a Victor, whatever.

And just see if it makes sense.

OK....well that is a giga map leaves me out :(

Like I said, the turns are deadly slow in a human-AI game.
But in a human-human game, the wait times are only when the saved game is loaded, which will take some time, but it is simple enough to start loading the game, then walk away for 10 minutes. Saving the game should only take a minute or two, and the actual save file is only a few meg.

Very interesting reading I_batman, very interesting indeed.

Unfortunately, there is no way to really make an ASROC different from a Harpoon in this game with the exception of range and damage, since ASROC is an ASW weapon and not a ASUW weapon. This of course, is just another Civ3 shortfall, that we have to work around. However, it is the range and damage settings that can set one ASM apart from another.

I like the concept you propose, but the only drawback is the micromanagement, which I believe you did admit to in a previous post.

For a human-AI game, my proposals totally break down.

Cursed imbecile Civ3 AI !

Very interesting reading I_batman, very interesting indeed.

Unfortunately, there is no way to really make an ASROC different from a Harpoon in this game with the exception of range and damage, since ASROC is an ASW weapon and not a ASUW weapon. This of course, is just another Civ3 shortfall, that we have to work around. However, it is the range and damage settings that can set one ASM apart from another.

I like the concept you propose, but the only drawback is the micromanagement, which I believe you did admit to in a previous post.



Cursed imbecile Civ3 AI !
LOL the AI is always the shortcoming. A more involved naval air combat game during the cold war would be alot of fun for PBEM I think the main thing that might prove a problem on a map that size though is number of cities....or do you have an enlarged ocean area world map with continents sized from a smaller map?

Very interesting reading I_batman, very interesting indeed.

Unfortunately, there is no way to really make an ASROC different from a Harpoon in this game with the exception of range and damage, since ASROC is an ASW weapon and not a ASUW weapon. This of course, is just another Civ3 shortfall, that we have to work around. However, it is the range and damage settings that can set one ASM apart from another.

I like the concept you propose, but the only drawback is the micromanagement, which I believe you did admit to in a previous post.


Yup, a cruise missile is a cruise missile. And that is one of the micromanagement problems.

An ASROC should only be used against subs, and Harpoons against surface ships, but unless the human knows that, and plays by stated rules........it would be waste of time to create different missiles.

So this does become a micromanagement issue.
Plus, I have been imagining what the stack would look like on the screen.
Say you have 4 surface ships with each carrying say, 10 missiles.
Now you have a list 44 lines long, that you have to select missiles from.

A pain to choose from, but might be worth the trouble.

very nice banter going on here gents :goodjob:

i'd given some thoughts to diversifying the missile unit lines. i've taken some shorthand notes regarding the suggestions. i agree to a certain extent that it's sort of splitting hairs but we'll determine that for sure once we're able to adequately audit the existing inventories.

i'm afraid that the AI will never quite be able to truly grasp the intracacies of naval air combat. it's just one of those things i s'pose. however, w/ the much needed boost in naval builds (forthcoming in TCW v2.0), who knows for sure? i mean, i've been surprised in the past. so i won't rule anything out until i see it w/ my own eyes.

one aspect i've been giving lots of thought on is to try and implement a flag unit for VPs for the future version. by this i mean that i may try and brainstorm about some possible 'resources' which could serve as the flag units like the 'raw materials from the colonies' unit in Age of Imperialism. things such as oil and uranium are the first such resources that come to mind. i'll have to hash it out and see if i can come up w/ something that's plausible. after all, the AI responds ridiculously well to having to ship these flag units back to the cpaital.

El Justo-FYI, I added this to the file database for you as well as Age of Imperialism, even though that will be replaced soon.

Titanium might be another resource you could use or you could just make it something generic and call it trade goods.

LOL the AI is always the shortcoming. A more involved naval air combat game during the cold war would be alot of fun for PBEM I think the main thing that might prove a problem on a map that size though is number of cities....or do you have an enlarged ocean area world map with continents sized from a smaller map?

Actually BadKharma, everything is expanded, but the oceans seem to have expanded by a greater degree.
Hence lots of room for naval activities.

I will try to post some interesting sceenshots next couple days to give some kind of reference points.

i'm afraid that the AI will never quite be able to truly grasp the intracacies of naval air combat. it's just one of those things i s'pose. however, w/ the much needed boost in naval builds (forthcoming in TCW v2.0), who knows for sure? i mean, i've been surprised in the past. so i won't rule anything out until i see it w/ my own eyes.

one aspect i've been giving lots of thought on is to try and implement a flag unit for VPs for the future version. by this i mean that i may try and brainstorm about some possible 'resources' which could serve as the flag units like the 'raw materials from the colonies' unit in Age of Imperialism. things such as oil and uranium are the first such resources that come to mind. i'll have to hash it out and see if i can come up w/ something that's plausible. after all, the AI responds ridiculously well to having to ship these flag units back to the cpaital.

And don't forget the magic that now allows fast fast turns in AoI.
If that could be duplicated on a huge map........

Okay folks, an update on my American game on Dreadknought's huge VP map.

This is actually that same game I ranted on eariler for getting totally owned in Cuba.

I decided, since I've never actually played all the way to the end of the tech tree, that I'd do it this time. Since it's my first time, I figured I'd get aquainted with it via America, arguably the easiest of the civilizations to play as.

Now I modified this map a wee bit, just to suit my own twisted interests.

I pulled Argentina, India, China-NK, and Yugoslavia from their respective alliances. I also created a Centurion unit so the Brits can have a decent tank in the first tech age. It is virtually identical to the M26 Pershing stat-wise, and upgrades to the Centurion MKIII.

First off, we, the Allies, have a huge VP lead, somewhere around 5000 points or so ahead of the Reds. I went straight for Manufacturing Plants, and built every factory-style improvement I can thus far, and am pumping out units like it ain't even funny anymore. An Essex in 11 turns? Oh, yes, it can happen.
Anyhow, I have been in repeated wars with Warsaw Pact, and each time my heavy bombers take out more and more infastracture. There are no improved tiles on Cuba (this is mostly for revenge), and no rail or roads leading to Eastern Europe, the line of this destruction mostly follows the Brest-Litovsk Line, if you follow me there. Also, the Trans-Siberian stops about halfway, and Vladivistok has been hung out to dry, subject to round-the-clock bombardment for no reason whatsoever.
Many cities have been taken, and this is odd.
Leningrad fell to the Scandanavians. In the latest war, the Reds took it back, though.
Ivan took Hamburg, but the Spanish took that back, so they have a city in Germany now.
He also took Hanoi, and has about three corps worth of IS-2's camped out in those fortresses.
The Brits took Basra, Iraq, too.
Canada has taken the westernmost city on Cuba.
Several cities have been razed, too. The city between Mosul and Baghdad is gone, as is the Iranian city on the Caspian Sea.
After I got my Pattons and M113s, I defintely overran Cuba very fast. I had unexpected help, though. A Brazilian, a Brit, a Canadian, and a Mexican Army all are present on Cuba, bashing up their BTR-152s for me. I took your suggestion to heart, and brought an Iowa over from Pearl Harbor to join the fun.
Now that I have my war machine rolling, I can pump out units like there's no tomorrow. My economy is absolutely through the roof, I'm at 10% tech slider and still pulling in the minimum reaseach time. Net gold per turn is in the area of 3500-4000 a turn, more than enough to rush my Sherman DDs and Patton tanks when I need to.
Now for a note on Naval warfare.
I have a great many battle groups. Six Oriskany Class roam the seas, with four Essex, these tend to sit in harbor in Okinawa most of the time. I sent an Oriskany and her battlegroup up to the top of the Kola to harass Murmansk and the Northern Fleet, but ran into an unexpected problem. A (and forgive my spelling on this) Severdlovsk Crusier wandered out and attacked my battle group, all by his lonesome. Now, in that group are three Fletcher Class DD and Four Sherman DDs. A few Nautilus and a nuke-laden GW are around up there too, but mostly for interdiction purposes (the GW obviously not). My point: so who defends against the cruiser? The Oriskany Carrier! USS Indiana Jones was lost in the Barents Sea, with all hands, including a Super Sabre and two Skyhawks. :sad face:
So I know why the carrier defended, by why give them so much defence? With the Oriskany's 30 defence, I have to wait until Ticonderoga DDGs before another ship will defend in a stack first. I would give them lots of AA, but lower their defence, because they defintely get pwned by Red cruisers.
Also, I have seen some of these Svederlovsk Cruisers wandering about, especially around the Sea of Japan ( they are Skipjack food :) ), but the AI hasn't hardly built any new sea units, much less sent them out to engage me. Granted, I have not put my fleet in a position that such an attack would be imminent, but I haven't seen a Red sub yet, much less any real naval presence anywhere.
On the other hand, Allied battle groups wander with impunity, I see them all the time. The Brazilan fleet makes regular rounds through the Caribbean, which is much appreciated.
I think we ought to give the Reds more sea units. I know it's not historically accurate, but I have no competition at all to keep building sea units. I want to, since I have such great potential, but this isn't Civ 2, so with no navies to engage or worry about engaging, why bother? I can wander around with Charles F Adams DDs in the Eighties for all I care.

It is April 1958 now in my game.

I figure, since Cuba now enjoys joint occupation by Canada and myself, my next objective ought to be one of two places in the Far East.
1) I go for North Korea, and just take the rest of Manchuria with it.
2) I build up some more, and then 'ava-go at cracking the Vietnam nut.
I am more leniant towards the latter, since I sure as hell cannot do both, and all those VPs would surely secure my victory.
Also, it gives me a reason to build more planes, Vietnam is going to be hard, and this time I won't misunderestimate the value of CAS and battlewagons cruising off the coast.

I have one question, though:
does either the B-2 or F-117 Plant replace the B-1B Plant? I sure hope not.

Cheezy, I have come across the same probelm as you with regards to the AI not replenishing it's fleets. I've played as the US and have wiped out the Red fleet with no real threats to my own afterwards except for bombers. I've also played several games as the Reds, and the US doesn't seem to go to great lengths either to replenish it's lost ships.

Silly AI...:crazyeye:

Regarding the carriers, I'm of the opinion they should have very low attack and medium defense. The planes they carry are their offensive power, so IMO the ships themselves shouldn't be in the fight if it is avoidable. IOW, they should be toward the bottom of the stack when being attacked, and the tincans and cruisers should be taking blows first.

Regarding the carriers, I'm of the opinion they should have very low attack and medium defense. The planes they carry are their offensive power, so IMO the ships themselves shouldn't be in the fight if it is avoidable. IOW, they should be toward the bottom of the stack when being attacked, and the tincans and cruisers should be taking blows first.

I am currently Playing a game as the U.S. and I think I have found a solution to this chronic problem of carriers taking the brunt of an enemy naval engagement. In reality, carriers were the first to targets that enemy planes and ships aimed to sink. While this method of mine takes a load of ships to preform effectivly and is seriously only for the micromanagers out there. In the same square as your fleet carrier(s), put a few tincans and AA ships and if necessary a couple subs. Then in the 9 squares around the main carrier group, put even more tincans and cheaper vessels. They are mostly there to delay an attack and act as a metal sheild for your carriers to get away, engage the enemy with their plane, or even both. This method reduces carrier losses but reduces the number of blue water fleets you can support at sea, what with all the ships needed for this to work. In my game right now, I only have 4 carrier groups, 3 in the pacific and 1 in the atlantic.

I am currently Playing a game as the U.S. and I think I have found a solution to this chronic problem of carriers taking the brunt of an enemy naval engagement. In reality, carriers were the first to targets that enemy planes and ships aimed to sink. While this method of mine takes a load of ships to preform effectivly and is seriously only for the micromanagers out there. In the same square as your fleet carrier(s), put a few tincans and AA ships and if necessary a couple subs. Then in the 9 squares around the main carrier group, put even more tincans and cheaper vessels. They are mostly there to delay an attack and act as a metal sheild for your carriers to get away, engage the enemy with their plane, or even both. This method reduces carrier losses but reduces the number of blue water fleets you can support at sea, what with all the ships needed for this to work. In my game right now, I only have 4 carrier groups, 3 in the pacific and 1 in the atlantic.

This is the ideal situation for a Carrier Battle Group, the only problem is the huge pain that it is to move this CBG around; unless of course you're camping out in one spot, ten you can fortify it all you want. Indeed, I did this with my CBGs in CIv II, when you were at the danger of losing the whole stack if one was lost. They provided a shield against cruise missles, which the AI loved, and I stood the risk of losing around 20 planes per carrier.
This is Civ III however. I don't think you need the tincans IN the carrier's square, but an AA Cruiser or two works, and of course having one or two interceptors up for interdiction purposes (on air superiority mission), but then outline the square with the tincans, like you said.
Of course, the best possible defence for a CV would be one of the Battlewagons, but I'm hardly dumb enough to put one in the Barents, even if it's with a Battle Group.

El Justo-FYI, I added this to the file database for you as well as Age of Imperialism, even though that will be replaced soon.
hey thanks man. :goodjob:

Titanium might be another resource you could use or you could just make it something generic and call it trade goods.
that's a good idea w/ the titanium. what i want to try to put on paper is working model that has several different types of resourse acting as flag units. we shall see though - it's still a little ways off.

I will try to post some interesting sceenshots next couple days to give some kind of reference points.
yes! please do! :D

This is Civ III however. I don't think you need the tincans IN the carrier's square, but an AA Cruiser or two works, and of course having one or two interceptors up for interdiction purposes (on air superiority mission), but then outline the square with the tincans, like you said.


The reason I put tincans in the same square as the carrier is just in case the enemy sinks some of the outer ring ships. Its really only there as a second wall of defense.

Okay folks, an update on my American game on Dreadknought's huge VP map.

This is actually that same game I ranted on eariler for getting totally owned in Cuba.

I decided, since I've never actually played all the way to the end of the tech tree, that I'd do it this time. Since it's my first time, I figured I'd get aquainted with it via America, arguably the easiest of the civilizations to play as.

Now I modified this map a wee bit, just to suit my own twisted interests.

I pulled Argentina, India, China-NK, and Yugoslavia from their respective alliances. I also created a Centurion unit so the Brits can have a decent tank in the first tech age. It is virtually identical to the M26 Pershing stat-wise, and upgrades to the Centurion MKIII.

First off, we, the Allies, have a huge VP lead, somewhere around 5000 points or so ahead of the Reds. I went straight for Manufacturing Plants, and built every factory-style improvement I can thus far, and am pumping out units like it ain't even funny anymore. An Essex in 11 turns? Oh, yes, it can happen.
Anyhow, I have been in repeated wars with Warsaw Pact, and each time my heavy bombers take out more and more infastracture. There are no improved tiles on Cuba (this is mostly for revenge), and no rail or roads leading to Eastern Europe, the line of this destruction mostly follows the Brest-Litovsk Line, if you follow me there. Also, the Trans-Siberian stops about halfway, and Vladivistok has been hung out to dry, subject to round-the-clock bombardment for no reason whatsoever.
Many cities have been taken, and this is odd.
Leningrad fell to the Scandanavians. In the latest war, the Reds took it back, though.
Ivan took Hamburg, but the Spanish took that back, so they have a city in Germany now.
He also took Hanoi, and has about three corps worth of IS-2's camped out in those fortresses.
The Brits took Basra, Iraq, too.
Canada has taken the westernmost city on Cuba.
Several cities have been razed, too. The city between Mosul and Baghdad is gone, as is the Iranian city on the Caspian Sea.
After I got my Pattons and M113s, I defintely overran Cuba very fast. I had unexpected help, though. A Brazilian, a Brit, a Canadian, and a Mexican Army all are present on Cuba, bashing up their BTR-152s for me. I took your suggestion to heart, and brought an Iowa over from Pearl Harbor to join the fun.
Now that I have my war machine rolling, I can pump out units like there's no tomorrow. My economy is absolutely through the roof, I'm at 10% tech slider and still pulling in the minimum reaseach time. Net gold per turn is in the area of 3500-4000 a turn, more than enough to rush my Sherman DDs and Patton tanks when I need to.
Now for a note on Naval warfare.
I have a great many battle groups. Six Oriskany Class roam the seas, with four Essex, these tend to sit in harbor in Okinawa most of the time. I sent an Oriskany and her battlegroup up to the top of the Kola to harass Murmansk and the Northern Fleet, but ran into an unexpected problem. A (and forgive my spelling on this) Severdlovsk Crusier wandered out and attacked my battle group, all by his lonesome. Now, in that group are three Fletcher Class DD and Four Sherman DDs. A few Nautilus and a nuke-laden GW are around up there too, but mostly for interdiction purposes (the GW obviously not). My point: so who defends against the cruiser? The Oriskany Carrier! USS Indiana Jones was lost in the Barents Sea, with all hands, including a Super Sabre and two Skyhawks. :sad face:
So I know why the carrier defended, by why give them so much defence? With the Oriskany's 30 defence, I have to wait until Ticonderoga DDGs before another ship will defend in a stack first. I would give them lots of AA, but lower their defence, because they defintely get pwned by Red cruisers.
Also, I have seen some of these Svederlovsk Cruisers wandering about, especially around the Sea of Japan ( they are Skipjack food :) ), but the AI hasn't hardly built any new sea units, much less sent them out to engage me. Granted, I have not put my fleet in a position that such an attack would be imminent, but I haven't seen a Red sub yet, much less any real naval presence anywhere.
On the other hand, Allied battle groups wander with impunity, I see them all the time. The Brazilan fleet makes regular rounds through the Caribbean, which is much appreciated.
I think we ought to give the Reds more sea units. I know it's not historically accurate, but I have no competition at all to keep building sea units. I want to, since I have such great potential, but this isn't Civ 2, so with no navies to engage or worry about engaging, why bother? I can wander around with Charles F Adams DDs in the Eighties for all I care.

It is April 1958 now in my game.

I figure, since Cuba now enjoys joint occupation by Canada and myself, my next objective ought to be one of two places in the Far East.
1) I go for North Korea, and just take the rest of Manchuria with it.
2) I build up some more, and then 'ava-go at cracking the Vietnam nut.
I am more leniant towards the latter, since I sure as hell cannot do both, and all those VPs would surely secure my victory.
Also, it gives me a reason to build more planes, Vietnam is going to be hard, and this time I won't misunderestimate the value of CAS and battlewagons cruising off the coast.

I have one question, though:
does either the B-2 or F-117 Plant replace the B-1B Plant? I sure hope not.
nice work there Mr. Wiz :)

that tile bombing you're doing was sort of a no-no in the house rules we made for oursleves last summer. i mean, yeah, it's certainly w/in the bounderies of warfare and all. however, it puts the AI back into the Stone Age b/c he just can't recover from it (shields, food, and transport networks). so a few of us have adhered to a rule where we won't smash the poop out of the AI tile improvements. ;)

i will have to look into the 'zone of control' tag for the sea units so that the proper ship is at the front lines of defense.

wrt the city razing:
that will be cured for the most part in the next version as i now have a tactic in mind that greatly reduces AI city razing (the 'phony wonders' in AoI ~ Rocoteh's breakthru btw). we've had tremendous succed w/ this for AoI and it's going to get put into TCW v2.0 as well.

concering the lack of the AI replenishing her fleets:
this will also be cured in the nxt version as autoproducing wonders will be strategically placed and arranged along the tech tree that will pop out certain units for the AI. iow, we will achieve naval diversity in due time :D

i don't think that the b-1 plant expires Cheezy. i'd have to check though...

I am currently Playing a game as the U.S. and I think I have found a solution to this chronic problem of carriers taking the brunt of an enemy naval engagement. In reality, carriers were the first to targets that enemy planes and ships aimed to sink. While this method of mine takes a load of ships to preform effectivly and is seriously only for the micromanagers out there. In the same square as your fleet carrier(s), put a few tincans and AA ships and if necessary a couple subs. Then in the 9 squares around the main carrier group, put even more tincans and cheaper vessels. They are mostly there to delay an attack and act as a metal sheild for your carriers to get away, engage the enemy with their plane, or even both. This method reduces carrier losses but reduces the number of blue water fleets you can support at sea, what with all the ships needed for this to work. In my game right now, I only have 4 carrier groups, 3 in the pacific and 1 in the atlantic.
hi otacon 22. welcome :)

your method seems sound :goodjob:

once we're able to replenish the fleets some by the autoproducers, that we'll really have that feeling again (civ2!) where we've really gotta watch our ass-necks on the high seas. as it now stands, this isn't the case i think (at least after the first engagements). of course, this isn't really our fault perse as the AI just refuses to build ships. we will change this though :D

hey thanks man. :goodjob:

I got you and Sarevok covered for all your scenarios. ;)

thanks Al. i couldn't be bothered w/ that stuff actually :)

Okay, all of your scenarios are in, you got a good number of downloads already as well.

well - it's come to my attention that it appears an expansion or 4th release of civ3 is in the works. i find this astonishing actually - and it appears that they're including user/fan-made stuff in it. this is all i know at this point - and i found it here on these forums...

well - it's come to my attention that it appears an expansion or 4th release of civ3 is in the works. i find this astonishing actually - and it appears that they're including user/fan-made stuff in it. this is all i know at this point - and i found it here on these forums...

El Justo,

Sounds to good to be true.
Are you sure?

Rocoteh

El Justo and Rocoteh, my both favourite scenario-makers :)

It can be found here:

Pinktilapia, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, page 146, post 2920.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=111682&page=146

and Drift: Master of Myrror Fantasy Mod 2.0, page 77, post 1539:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=79607&page=77

These vague reports in my eyes don´t state that it really comes, but they state, that it is at least considered by Take Two. And we should do all to encourage them, that it comes.

And please take into account, that there are still interesting features in the hacked civ3-editor (charm-attack and teleport), that we haven´t seen yet in the still existing releases. ;)

wow Civinator. thanks man :)

that'll really stir the pot as they say!

I hope this is true, however, if this expansion comes out, I hope it is more than some additional units and scenarios. The Civ3 C&C community has proven itself just as, if not more capable than the artists for Civ3 and it's current expansions. So we don't necessarily need more units and canned scenarios, what we need is a more powerful editor !

Just in case one, or even some of the people who may be involved with the possible furture Civ3 expansion are reading these forums, I want to post some features I feel the current Civ3 edito needs.

-Blitz limit: This would be a user adjusted number on how many times a unit with the blitz flag may attack per turn.

-Sea and Land Bombardment options: Right now we have lethal sea and lethal land bombardment. What we need in addition are flags that allow a unit to be able to bombard sea or land or both. A good example for this use is non missile carrying submarines. This would limit their bombardment (which can represent a torpedo attack) to sea units only.

-Unit Type Cap: This would set an all time cap on how many of a certain type of unit may be produced over the period of the game. This is not where you are allowed four of X type units, where you lose one, and you can build another one to bring your total back to four. No, this would be where you can only build x amount of a type of unit total. A good example is right in TCW with the Iowa class battleships. Only four where built, but to keep it historically accurate at four, and to allow them to be upgraded, they have to not only be preplaced, but also be flagged as king units and be unbuildable.

-Possible unit versus unit capabilites: This would be somewhat like Civ4 unit bonuses, but not exactly. I'm thinking where you would want destroyers to be able to attack subs, but heavy cruisers and battleships couldn't. This could possibly be a flag option, or better yet, similar to the stealth attack list. You would choose from a list of what units, the current unit could or couldn't attack.

-Adjustable LOS. This would be handy for recon units.

Sorry to stray off topic here El Justo, but as I said, if any of the people who may develop this new expansion ever come to these forums, I want to voice what I feel the editor needs. TCW has brought out this defficiencies in the Civ3 editor.

[/B]excellent comments vingrjoe :thumbsup: and by all means - it is certainly not straying. this is potentialy fantastic news and leaves one to wonder (to say the least!).

in addition to what you've posted:

"shut off razing" flag: oh man - how this would make my job so much easier!

'smart' AI arty usage: imagine if the AI rolled up on 'ya w/ a SOD loaded w/ arty pieces?!

"nuclear differentiation": by this i mean that i would like to see a scaled range of sort wrt to the effects of a nuclear bomb. i mean, the "Fat Man" over Nagasaki was much less powerful (by a huge margian really) than say a "Peacekeeper" ICBM.

a "shut off pollution" flag: again, this'd probably give me a few less headaches.

ability to allocate a specific movement rate for rails: ie - none of the 'insta-move' aspects of the existing rails. sure you could leave it in there (sort of like the 'infinite bombard' flag for air units). but to be able to eliminate that 'insta-move' aspect would be a good start.

additional culture groups: duh!

enhanced 'alliance-war' settings: say, for example, i want to flag one nation as 'never declare war against country x' but not be in a 'locked alliance'. more allowable alliances through the editor would be nice also.

more differentiations in terrain tile bonus-maluses: say i want to flag LM Mountains as impassable but allow for the standard Mountain to be traversable.

there's probably dozens more stuff i could think of - and i know a few of you guys would be able to rattle off a buch as well. all food for thought :D

El Justo, here is the place to post these wishes:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=181825

Padma made a new thread out of my posting in the general discussions forum.

And if I have a look on your wish list, I have to smile: The same priorarity for both of us. Kill city razing ! :)

Hey what about doing smth so we can use Amphiby units the right way as well.

Love to beable to use a Tarawa the right way. Or amphi tanks as well.

OH and a diff for planes as in bombing. Like dive, bomber, torpedo.

But all of these are wishes we'll never see.

Back to naval warfare briefly; Surely the idea of missiles for subs would only work for the USA and the Soviets? Does any other country have the industrial infrastructure to build up a complete fleet, armed properly while still building all other units and upgrades?

De Begerac

ps: Congrats on the news. :)

If they rewrie the code in a new expansion that would really make a golden age for Civ3.

De Begerac,

I have been thinking about ideas that are related to the issue you bring up. I think third world countries should get frigates or coastal ships like they do in real life. Alot of those ships carry Soviet designed ASMs. The ships and boats could have either a high bombard power, with low ROF-to represent the small amount of missiles carried. Or, the ships and boats could carry seperate ASM as I_batman has suggested. Also, coastal missile batteries come to mind, but they could be used for land attack as well since there is no specific land/sea bombard option.

If one were to employ I_batman's ides, I feel one missile should represent two to four missiles, ie: a bombard ROF of two to four.

VJoe those sound like excellent ideas. I guess the main issue is how historical or alternative history things should be.

I have surfed the Take-Two website, and 5 minutes ago emailed what I think is the most appropriate address.

I asked if there was any truth to these rumours.
I don't expect a response either way, but we shall see.

Depends how customer freindly they are they may surprise you.

Depends how customer freindly they are they may surprise you.

Somehow I think Take-Two is doing this for the money. :p

De Begerac,

I have been thinking about ideas that are related to the issue you bring up. I think third world countries should get frigates or coastal ships like they do in real life. Alot of those ships carry Soviet designed ASMs. The ships and boats could have either a high bombard power, with low ROF-to represent the small amount of missiles carried. Or, the ships and boats could carry seperate ASM as I_batman has suggested. Also, coastal missile batteries come to mind, but they could be used for land attack as well since there is no specific land/sea bombard option.

If one were to employ I_batman's ides, I feel one missile should represent two to four missiles, ie: a bombard ROF of two to four.

I will post what I have done by the end of the weekend.
I am going to focus first on the Soviet and US fleets.
However, the UK fleet clearly has modern missile capabilities, as do I am sure most any navy after 1970.

So my work is two-fold:

1. Continue rebuilding the huge map I started many months ago.
When I say rebuild, I mean replace huge chunks of cities and civ's that disappeared when I took previous work Kylden and El Just had done, and altered the order of the turns of the 8 civ's.

I wanted to set the game order up so WP does not get hammered by successive NATO members without possible intervention from a WP ally.

The order should be Commonwealth, WP, US, Indo-China, EU, ME/Africa, SEATO, Latin America. (or the reverse)

2. Build a small scale ocean map, say 50 x 50, that would have US and Soviet fleets circa 1965/1970 face off, with my concepts implemented.

Then I can send this small scale biq off to people, who can examine it and see what they think about the results.

A few ideas and some information:

Possible Wonders:
A.)Additional boosts to Soviet fleet, as mentioned before, with an attempt to simulate the strategic value of the Kola Peninsula area and add to the capabilities of the Northern Fleet; works best on the big map, although multiple wonders could be inserted into Murmansk and Archangel even on the little map. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/map-rus-north1.htm


Polyarny Base/Shipyard Number 10: Autoproduces nuclear subs
Northern Fleet Base, Severomorsk: Autoproduces DDs, CLs and CGs
Severodvinsk: Autoproduces SSNs
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/severodvinsk.htm
Voyska PVO/PVO Strany HQ: Autoproduces interceptors to balance out USAF and RAF bombers. Several nodes positioned, allowing a lead in time before big growth over the 1950s.
Komsomolsk-on-Amur: Autoproduces SSNs for Pacific Fleet.
Sevastopol: Black Sea Fleet. Autoproduces CL/CG and DD/DDG. Odessa and Rostov to complement this.
Nikolayev/61 Communards Shipyard: Builds big ships. BBs, and later CVs and perhaps Kirov CBGNs. A bit inland, but not of importance in terms of placement of a square or so.
Kronstadt Naval Base: Autoproduces DDG, Sverdlovs, etc.
Kaliningrad, Riga, Talinn et al provide extra Baltic production.
Baltic Works, Leningrad: Builds big ships - Stalingrads, modernized Kronstadts or even Sovyetskij Soyuz BBs
Possibility of Soviet bases outside of choke points, with an encouragement to maintain and use them. This can include making use of the Soviet-Arab alliance to simulate a Mediterranean Eskadra, as well as other places (Guinea, Konakry, the Horn of Africa). This is a bit difficult for a 1950 beginning, but they can be little places to begin with, and only later permit building of unit producing wonders.

Here's a little nice reading: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/soviets_giants.html

Mutual Defense Assistance Program: Buildable by some NATO and Western allies, this gives a boost, as well as creating some surplus DDs, SSs and CLs. [A more hearty version could simulate distribution of some old USN Standard BBs to the South American powers... (maniacal laughter echoes through the halls) ]

FRAM: Allows construction/modernization of some old DDs. Not sure if this is workable, but the notion is worth rendering in some fashion. This would give a purpose to the Fletchers, and a point to including Gearings and Allen M. Sumners; all three classes fill 9 pages of 68-89 Janes!

A challenge is to make sure that the USN has more than simply battleships and carriers. We do not face a block obsolescence problem of the 1960s in the game ;)

US Shipyards can autoproduce SSNs, DDGs, CGs, DLGs. Only some can do DLGNs and later CGNs. I advocate the inclusion of DLs, DLGs and DLGNs under their pre 1975 labelling, so that a fleet can have a big mixture of WW2 modernized cruisers, true cruisers, frigates and later guided missile cruisers.

This does rest on the units in question being created prior to any inclusion. I know of CGN-36 USS Californias, CGN-38 USS Virginias and the included DLG-16 Leahys. Albany CG conversions have been mentioned previously.

The 9 strong Bellknap class are similar to the Leahys, with the difference being the 5 inch gun aft, and extra Terrier capacity plus a helo deck. Truxtun is a nuclear half sister, but not possessed of an inordinate cosmetic difference in my experience.
Bainbridge, DLGN-25, could merit a go, and is also similar to the Leahys, but without the need for tall mack.
CGN-9 Long Beach was a one off, but needn't be that way in TCW, and should have a big capability.
The 10 Farragut DLGs (later badged as DDGs) and the 4 Mitscher class DLs they are derived from are an interesting bunch.
DL/CLK-1 Norfolk presents some limited potential as an early ASW platform.

Garcia DEs and Brooke DEGs?

It has been mentioned that there is a Kitty Hawk possibly on the horizon. This is a cause of joy. Are there Enterprise models out there?

The current game allows somewhat of a simulation of the division of the Essex class - Oriskany CVAs, Essex CVSs.

Allow DDG modernization for all Forrest Shermans, not just the lucky four.

Allow conversions of CAs to CAGs, CLs to CLGs, CBs to CBGs, and even have an intermediate 1960s Iowa BBG. (maniacal laughter once more peals)

SLEP for older carriers and NTU for DLG/DLGN/CG/CGN in 1980s.

Some early British SSNs.

Other naval thoughts: Give the French a couple more bases scattered about the world; Djibouti, Martinique, maybe something in the blue Pacific.

'All we are saying is give Japan a chance!' - a potential for more vigorous JMSDF reconstruction to match a newly rampant Soviet Union. It is too much to dream for a reordered Super Yamato, but give them a bit more crunch than some cast off destroyers until the modern age.
'Think of all the hate there is in Red China...' - In @, Mao of course kept all back with his great leaps forward in between virgin bedding. This leaves the ChiComms at a disadvantage. Does the Sino-Soviet split have to happen in TCW in the same way? An option is to give Red China the potential to 'build' (simulate receiving) decent surface vessels and subs prior to their historic move that way in the 1980s and 1990s.

Random: Casablanca!

Active and Reserve USN Fleets as of 25th July 1950 (outbreak of Korea):

fleet carriers (CV/CVB)
active: 8
reserve: 20

light carriers (CVL)
active: 4
reserve: 5

escort carriers (CVE)
active: 4
reserve: 62

battleships (BB)
active: 1 (Missouri)
reserve: 14 (3 Iowas, 4 South Dakotas, 2 North Carolinas, 2 Tennesses, 3 Colorados. All inactivated 1947.
New Mexicos*, Pennsylvanias, Nevadas all scrapped or sunk in 1947/1948.
*USS Mississippi converted to weapons testing vessel - a very interesting unit concept.
5 oldest all scrapped in 1959.
Washington scrapped 1961, mainly because she was stricken on east coast, and tow not affordable.
South Dakota and Indiana stricken and scrapped in 1962

cruisers (CB/CA/CL/CLAA)
active: 15
reserve: 64

destroyers (DD/DDE)
active: 142
reserve: 211

Interesting stuff Simon.

I think that the bulk of what you are suggesting would go in TCW 2.0, where there is human-AI competition.

I believe that for a human vs human game, we maintain the status quo on auto-produced units.
We all know a human will produce a much more efficient mix of units than any AI.

As for upgrading the arsenal of the units, I am hoping to post by tonight a small biq that gives some idea of what I would like to see in naval combat.

Just don't hold your breath on that one yet. :)

There will always be a difference between those who wish this game to be true to history and those who like to be able to take a starting point and then run history as they see fit. The above issues raised as to what country has what type of units available is a good example.

As a possible solution, and I appreciate the workload I'm suggesting, why not create a series of small wonders which offer a player more possibilities if they choose to build them. Let me elaborate.

Lets say I'm playing as North Africa, an unenviable starting country out of the selection if ever there was one. Historically not known for it's industrial might, adherence to human rights conditions or military quality. However lets say as a ruler I wish to be benevolent and improve human rights conditions. So we have a small wonder entitled 'Equal Rights' as an example. To simulate the effort and time and resources it would take the ruler to bring about such a radical change give it a high build cost however to demonstrate the fresh standards of living and the improvements it would bring give them a suitable ingame bonus, whether increased science, happiness and money outputs or whatever.

Now lets also say that as the ruler of that country you realise what an important aspect it is to build a strong airforce. Again of course, because it is not a country known for it's innovative military products create a small wonder entitled 'Jet Interceptors' or some such. Again to simulate the amount of resources and time it would take for such a radical shift in the aims and goals of the country from the norm give it a high build cost but of course as a bonus when it's finally created North Africa gets a reasonable Air interceptor built every x turns.
Of course if you want your scenario to be true to history you dont have to build them.

This might also be a way of getting around the issue of what countries get access to missiles and special munitions. Take the USA, UK, the Soviets and any country which has an appropriatly advanced navy. Then create a small wonder called 'Missile Plant' or whatever which churns out missiles every x turns. This would mean the countries could go on advancing as normal and you could still expand the naval combat aspect by adding in missile boats and such like without it being at the expense of the rest of the gameplay. It would also add a more strategic level to the game in the form of trying to locate your opponents industrial cities housing such plants and taking them out to turn the tide of the war.

Just a thought.

De Begerac

Simon: I like. I had thought about suggesting a USS Kitty Hawk, since we consider the Oriskany to be it's own class in TCW (it really being a long-beam Essex).
I think the notion of auto-produced Red ships on the level you suggest is truly scary, I wouldn't know what to do. I can say, though, that Yavuz Sultan Selim won't be blockading the Bosporus in 2.0! It does that in all my games.

You said "give the Fletchers a purpose: but they do have one. They upgrade to Charles F Addams and then Ticonderogas.

On the note of Ticonderogas, is there a possibility of a Ticonderoga class CV? Even if it's a start-off0only unit, like the Baltimore CAs are.

I would love North Carolina class BB, I think I remembered this while on the road one day, along with the Kitty Hawk (you can see the connection), and naturally forgot, seeing as I was driving and all.

French bases in, say Martinique, Madagascar, and French Polynesia, combined with the possibility of Clemenceau and CVN Charles De Gaulle and Lorraine could make the French very very fun to play as.

Off the top of my head, what about a B-47 Stratojet, or a B-66 Destroyer? Seeing as neither was a real long range bomber (at least not on the level of the B-52 or B-36, the big ones that would be aroud at that time in the game), we ought to be able to build them, and not have them autoproduced. Throughout the 1950s, the only effective bombers you get are the B-36 and B-52, of which you have probably 5. The A-4 is the next thing after that, and they have 12 bombard. You have to wait until the A-6 Intruder in the next era before Air to Surface combat becomes reasonable.
Another possibility would be the PBY Catalina. We'd obviously have to make it carrier-based, and since the first aircraft you get that has a recon mission is the U-2, it would fill in that air intel gap that we have for the first 50 turns or so.

:goodjob: Lots of Info there Simon all 4 Iowas served time during the Korean Conflict.

BadKharma: Indeed. Only ever one at a time, for a number of reasons - effectively, the manpower was not there, and Korea was not seen as the main theatre of war (this was the reason the Midway CVBs were deployed in the Med and Atlantic at this time).


Cheezy:

The vagaries of the computer do require that the foe gets certain advantages, as we cannot have a perfect representation of all the factors influencing war at sea and the developments pertaining to it of the Cold War. As such, it needs to be manipulated into building a fleet, deploying it, and using it with some modicum of decorum.

Oriskany represent in my view the Ticonderoga class Essex birdfarms, with appropriate SCB modernization enabling them to play as CVAs. Unmodified Essex carriers I think of as CVSs and use them as such.

An upgrade line exists, certainly, but it is not the optimum one. If we are considering and interesting naval alterations, then it is better that the Fletchers and other war built DDs do not somehow mutate into a new and larger hull. Rather, there is a good notion that allows them to stay around as valuable fleet assets in the 1960s, not give too much power and upgradability, reflect real developments and give some power to hunter-killer groups.

B-66 barely made it into service in a few wings in Germany et al. It was more of a success in its variants, and certainly no B-57. Light bombers were an obsolescent concept in that form by the time they entered service. B-47s, on the other hand, were the main strength of SAC for the 1950s, and have an interesting potential.

North Carolina battlewagons, whilst great in theory, would require a fairly large departure from reality, as we mentioned in a discussion about 35 pages ago, due to fleet ops speed and other factors. The blueprints and means for modification were there, requiring only a real need. I know some would eschew such goings on in their games, and I am mainly with them, but would not find myself unable to countenance a naval battle royale with them; that is one reason I like to build up the various Red challenges, and think evil thoughts.

French bases are nothing to sniff primly at, I agree; CDG is probably for the 1980s/90s version of TCW in combination with them, though. Still find it difficult to countenance a Bretagne in extended service in a global scenario beginning in 1950.

PBYs were not in carrier service or USN deployment in the 1950s, and a recon role can be filled by others of the time - S2s, Avengers, Rainbows, RB-36s.
Extra strike power is always nice, and SOE could offer more than a bit for the beginning. The Corsair/Super Corsair, Tigercat, B-45, B-47, B-50, B-26, AJ Savage are all good options. I don't know if Skywarriors, Super Savages made it. The capabilities of the Adie can be enhanced easily enough to reflect their reasonable capability.
There are plenty of naval options, including some of the WW2 planes that kept soldiering on into the jet age, and other tidbits, such as the Sea Wolf and the Skypirate.
Hustlers come later.
B-56 and B-60 variants of the B-47 and B-36 (particularly the latter) also have potential. XB-53, XB-46 and XB-48 are decent also for ideas.

Is this mod going to be done with CivIV?

There is nothing really great so far for modern era timeline.

Is this mod going to be done with CivIV?

There is nothing really great so far for modern era timeline.
i doubt it - unless the major and undeniable flaws of civ4 can be fixed. i ain't holdin' my breath though.

however - i'll never say never...

I'd be more than willing to make this for Civ 4 once Lord Olleus (another user here) teaches me code.

it's not the learning of the code so much as civ4 just being a poor game...i don;t want to get into a pro & con debate. it's just that until some of the more obvious glitches are fixed w/ it, a TCW for civ4 as i envision it just ain't possible.

I see now. Seems fair to me.

it's not the learning of the code so much as civ4 just being a poor game...i don;t want to get into a pro & con debate. it's just that until some of the more obvious glitches are fixed w/ it, a TCW for civ4 as i envision it just ain't possible.

El Justo, you should check out some of the new mods that have been built, in particular Dale's Combat mod 2.0.

You and I have had this conversation, and I think Civ IV TCW will be possible.
Granted, you don't have the time right now, and my coding skills need a major brush-up, and I don't have the time either, but I really do believe it will be possible to start work on something like this early next year.

Problem is the massive amount of coding that will be required, plus the lack of good graphics, but the graphics issue is weakening, since every day I see a new Civ IV Cold War era graphic posted.

And I'm learning 3ds Max, so I can possibly make some units too.

I thinks it's very possible, but right now, the focus should be on 2.0.

well - that's all well and good and of course you guys are my 'boys' and all -- however -- what about the civ4 deficiency of not being able to have large scaled maps and scenarios. that is the #1 killer imo (aside from the wretched gfx and other oddities).

PS- i just saw your post in the nfl thread Al. that hurts me and my keeper league team :sad:

well - that's all well and good and of course you guys are my 'boys' and all -- however -- what about the civ4 deficiency of not being able to have large scaled maps and scenarios. that is the #1 killer imo (aside from the wretched gfx and other oddities).

PS- i just saw your post in the nfl thread Al. that hurts me and my keeper league team :sad:

I think Rhye's map (the one we would probably base it on) is 124 X 68, and then we would have a lot of those high-poly tanks and fighters. It is possible though. :mischief:

And Portis going down is very sad for me. :cry: I bet he'll play in Week 1 though. He's a tough guy like that.

I think Rhye's map (the one we would probably base it on) is 124 X 68, and then we would have a lot of those high-poly tanks and fighters. It is possible though. :mischief:

And Portis going down is very sad for me. :cry: I bet he'll play in Week 1 though. He's a tough guy like that.
I thought Civ 4 used low poly models the higher the poly count the more stressfull it is on the GPU. Now take into account the GPU has to process every single unit on the map when a 3D engine is used and I fear you are looking at some majore lag which is why most true 3D engine games limit the number of units.

Also a 124 X 60 isnt exactaly large scaled for a map so it would be difficult to represent the scale of the Cold War.

I thought Civ 4 used low poly models the higher the poly count the more stressfull it is on the GPU. Now take into account the GPU has to process every single unit on the map when a 3D engine is used and I fear you are looking at some majore lag which is why most true 3D engine games limit the number of units.

Also a 124 X 60 isnt exactaly large scaled for a map so it would be difficult to represent the scale of the Cold War.

Yes, but the newly created models are very high poly. I think we're looking at major lag no matter what.

124 X 60 isn't big, but it takes care of a lot lag.

I think Rhye's map (the one we would probably base it on) is 124 X 68, and then we would have a lot of those high-poly tanks and fighters. It is possible though. :mischief:




There are much larger maps for Civ IV, I have one that is 180 x something, a world map. Granted, that can take a while if we have a lot a lot of units, but then again I've never played a Civ IV game with massive unitage before, not on the scale that TCW would have.

That's right, its 180 wide, my computer runs it fine.
Intel Pentium M760
Radeon x700
1 GB RAM

The turns are a bit long for a typical civ 4 game, but its really just a couple more seconds, and since we are used to long turns in Civ III, it's still a shorter turn time overall.

We ought to focus on 2.0, though, and tacle the IV beast later.


Thanks Simon, for that eval. I can see where things like North Carolina and the Catalinas just wouldn't be right. I couldn't think of the name for the 50's carrier-born recon plane, so I threw one out there. I still can't remember it, it's very long, and from the side looks a wee bit like a U-2. I know, real descriptive. I was simply noting that until we get the U-2 the US doesn't know what the hell is going on outside of it's LoS.

Okay, can someone re-iterate the house rules for me? I already know that we can't bomb their roads and whatnot into the stone age, I found that out the hard way (I'm paying for it now, now that we've occupied Cuba). Now, however, I'm going after the mess of VPs and VCs (ha thats funny :crazyeye:) that is North Vietnam, can I bomb their forts away?
I have also refrained from basing non-carrier planes on carriers, although I don't know if the F-100 was USN, I don't think it was. However, it upgrades to the F-4, so I'm okay with it, it means I don't have to build a lot of A-4s.

A suggestion for 2.0, or a PBEM map that we might use: can we have some Destroyers and Cruisers able to carry one air unit? You would be on your honor to only base helos on it, but it would bring an added ASW element to the game, and be kinda fun, in the same way that subs carrying a foot unit would be.

And Portis going down is very sad for me. :cry: I bet he'll play in Week 1 though. He's a tough guy like that.

He took that guy OUT though, didn't he? Seriously, when did Clinton Portis start playing defence?:lol:

He took that guy OUT though, didn't he? Seriously, when did Clinton Portis start playing defence?:lol:

Portis is never one to give up on the play.

i agree Cheezy. a TCW for civ4 is a long way aways...

my first opinion about extra US BBs is no. however, it shall be part of the overall sea unit audit. which leads me to think...if anyone is willing to begin the sea unit audit now instead of waiting until the fall. by this i mean that it takes me quite a while to dig through unit lines and researching them and all. iirc, overall research (all units ~ land, sea, and air) on the 1st 2 real versions of TCW took roughly 5 months. no kidding. anyhow - i anticipate a v2.0 review would take roughly 1-2 months. again, this would include all classes of units. my point is that i just don't have the time budgeted right now to do this. in the fall - yes. but not for at least another month or 2. so if any of you guys want to begin any particular unit class audit then it'd be a great help to me (as well as getting the next version going). i have a series of spreadsheets that i use as a reference point. i guess PM me if any of you guys would be interested in this...

as for the recon units - the first one in the game is the spy plane and u2. an earlier recon unit could be considered.

bombing forts is ok i guess. it's just the systematic destruction of AI road/irrig/mine improvements that is devestating to the AI b/c he ain't too good at rebuilding it.

there's a way around the 'bomber on a carrier' thingie and it's the 'tactical missile' flag. it would mean flagging the carriers as 'transports tactical missile' flag. however, instead, this feature could be awarded to a new set of helos for ASW/recon work. just a thought...

although i ain't much of a skins fan, Portis is one of my $$ backs for my keeper team. he'll be back...

there's a way around the 'bomber on a carrier' thingie and it's the 'tactical missile' flag. it would mean flagging the carriers as 'transports tactical missile' flag. however, instead, this feature could be awarded to a new set of helos for ASW/recon work. just a thought...

Actually, there is an easier way. Just give all non-carrier based planes the ability to transport a unit, and check the "only transport foot units" flag AND the "transports only tactical missle" flag. Thus, it will not be able to transport anything, but because it technically can transport a unit, you won't be able to place it on a carrier. :cool:

Sorry, repeat post, could a moderator delete this?

There are much larger maps for Civ IV, I have one that is 180 x something, a world map. Granted, that can take a while if we have a lot a lot of units, but then again I've never played a Civ IV game with massive unitage before, not on the scale that TCW would have.

That's right, its 180 wide, my computer runs it fine.
Intel Pentium M760
Radeon x700
1 GB RAM

The turns are a bit long for a typical civ 4 game, but its really just a couple more seconds, and since we are used to long turns in Civ III, it's still a shorter turn time overall.

We ought to focus on 2.0, though, and tacle the IV beast later.


I think that if you check most of the unit graphics threads on Civ IV, posters are looking for low poly units.
I have a powerful beast of a computer, and the last Civ IV game I played started with 18 civ's, huge map.
I quit in 1997 because I was bored, and the lag was a grand total of 6 seconds.

Now, like I said, I think my PC is in the top 10% of power out there currently, which makes it top 40% in 8 months, bottom 30% in 12 months.

So if we actually start work on a Civ IV version in 6 months, and it takes 8 months to finish, we are talking a completion date of 14 months, which will be a new generation of computers and graphics cards capable of handling large maps.

I think it will be worth discussing this again come late fall, early winter.
But you are right, there is enough in Civ III to keep us busy for the next months for sure.

Oh, and naturally, even the simplest of biq's are tough to build.
For some reason, that mini-biq that is only 2 civ's , that was a test of my naval concepts, fails as soon as I choose one of two civ's to play and try to actually get the game going.
It auto-exits right out of Civ, with no error message, so it may be some time before I can figure this one out.

El Justo, I am going to screw around with it for a couple more days, then maybe bug you to if you can see something obvious.

A suggestion for 2.0, or a PBEM map that we might use: can we have some Destroyers and Cruisers able to carry one air unit? You would be on your honor to only base helos on it, but it would bring an added ASW element to the game, and be kinda fun, in the same way that subs carrying a foot unit would be.

Cheezy, somewhere in this thread I thought I described how to make a cruiser and/or destroyer carry an ASW helo. I'll go over it again.

Tag the helo as an air unit and a tactical missle. Then flag the ship with carry air units and carry tactical missile. This will make it so the ship cannot carry jets. I have no idea how the AI would respond to this.

EDIT* Sorry El Justo, I posted this before reading ahead. I see that you described what I just posted. That'll teach me for putting the cart ahead of the horse.

post what you wish my friend :p

I_b,
let me know how that goes and if i can be of any modest assistance.

I don't want to necessarily toss cold water on things here, but from a game play standpoint, I think using helos off destroyer/frigate type ships is a mistake.

The scenario already suffers from too many units in game as it is. Now, in order to be a effective platform, you have to build both a destroyer and a helo for it. The helo is likely never to get shot down as it goes trolling for subs and while you could build helos for shore base work to deal with subs, there would almost never be a need for them to be built for replacements. In addition, you toss the scale off in the game. Destroyers/frigates are single ships and usually aircraft are groups of aircraft and not a unit of 1 or 2. How do you reconcile the cost on them for what they do?

ASW helos based on ships have a very short range/endurance as well. How much range would you give one given the scale of the map? Probably about 2 is max. Is that going to be very effective given ships with radar see 2 hexes anyway?

Don't get me wrong. I think the idea is a good one and how the mechanics of it are well thought out, but given the scale of this scenario and the downsides of it (more units and scale issues), I think it would be far more appropriate for a scenario that is more tactical in nature.

Now, some ASW planes (Orion comes to mind) might be a bit different in that their primary mission is hunting subs and they are usually based in squadrons or detatchments. In addition, they also have anti-ship capabilities. (Orions are capable of carrying a couple of harpoons). They also have a range that makes sense on the scale of map being used.

Given how easy it is to detect subs in the game (automatic basically if you see invis), I don't think many sub specific assests would be needed by any particular nation, especially given the scale of the maps.

My 2 cents

I don't want to necessarily toss cold water on things here, but from a game play standpoint, I think using helos off destroyer/frigate type ships is a mistake.

The scenario already suffers from too many units in game as it is. Now, in order to be a effective platform, you have to build both a destroyer and a helo for it. The helo is likely never to get shot down as it goes trolling for subs and while you could build helos for shore base work to deal with subs, there would almost never be a need for them to be built for replacements. In addition, you toss the scale off in the game. Destroyers/frigates are single ships and usually aircraft are groups of aircraft and not a unit of 1 or 2. How do you reconcile the cost on them for what they do?

ASW helos based on ships have a very short range/endurance as well. How much range would you give one given the scale of the map? Probably about 2 is max. Is that going to be very effective given ships with radar see 2 hexes anyway?

Don't get me wrong. I think the idea is a good one and how the mechanics of it are well thought out, but given the scale of this scenario and the downsides of it (more units and scale issues), I think it would be far more appropriate for a scenario that is more tactical in nature.

Now, some ASW planes (Orion comes to mind) might be a bit different in that their primary mission is hunting subs and they are usually based in squadrons or detatchments. In addition, they also have anti-ship capabilities. (Orions are capable of carrying a couple of harpoons). They also have a range that makes sense on the scale of map being used.

Given how easy it is to detect subs in the game (automatic basically if you see invis), I don't think many sub specific assests would be needed by any particular nation, especially given the scale of the maps.

My 2 cents

We could un-flag "radar", and possible "see invisible" for Destroyers, and thus create a new need for ASW helos.

I don't think unit numbers will be a problem, the AI usually doesn't understand such things, thus only other humans would use it, and unit number is not really a problem with PBEM, from what I understand.

If a sub-hunting helo is still cast to the wind, and S-3 Viking could fill the anti-ship/ASW gap that the helo and a P-3 Orion would. It has slightly less range than an Orion, but it is carrier-born, and it's just neat. Give the S-3 "see invisible" and two moves, to again be used by the human primarily. The idea is that move one is the recon move (dipping sonar or sonar buoys, this works for ASW helos too), and the second would be the attack move.
I did something similar in my game, I gave the E-2 Hawkeye multiple moves, to allow better recon from my carriers, to simulate it being up for a long time, and because you cannot increase the LoS.

I don't want to necessarily toss cold water on things here, but from a game play standpoint, I think using helos off destroyer/frigate type ships is a mistake.

The scenario already suffers from too many units in game as it is. Now, in order to be a effective platform, you have to build both a destroyer and a helo for it. The helo is likely never to get shot down as it goes trolling for subs and while you could build helos for shore base work to deal with subs, there would almost never be a need for them to be built for replacements. In addition, you toss the scale off in the game. Destroyers/frigates are single ships and usually aircraft are groups of aircraft and not a unit of 1 or 2. How do you reconcile the cost on them for what they do?

ASW helos based on ships have a very short range/endurance as well. How much range would you give one given the scale of the map? Probably about 2 is max. Is that going to be very effective given ships with radar see 2 hexes anyway?

Don't get me wrong. I think the idea is a good one and how the mechanics of it are well thought out, but given the scale of this scenario and the downsides of it (more units and scale issues), I think it would be far more appropriate for a scenario that is more tactical in nature.

Now, some ASW planes (Orion comes to mind) might be a bit different in that their primary mission is hunting subs and they are usually based in squadrons or detatchments. In addition, they also have anti-ship capabilities. (Orions are capable of carrying a couple of harpoons). They also have a range that makes sense on the scale of map being used.

Given how easy it is to detect subs in the game (automatic basically if you see invis), I don't think many sub specific assests would be needed by any particular nation, especially given the scale of the maps.

My 2 cents


Klyden, you know you are on my list to critique my expanded naval concepts for the huge map.

I totally agree with you that on a small map, the abstraction done with units works fine.

But on the huge map, I think differently.
The Atlantic and Pacific are easily 10 times more surface area when compared to the small map.
This extra space I think lends itself to a richer, more detailed navy.
More details does not necessarily mean more units, though I plan on adding a list of missiles if the guys think it has merit after testing.

I managed last night (OK, 3:00 am this morning) to get my little 100 x 100 ocean biq working in hotseat mode, which is all I need to test concepts.

In the beginning, I am not giving destroyers and cruisers capability to carry helos, but am giving that to carriers. No question the Moskva and Kiev class carriers get this, since they were designed to carry a squadron of ASW helos.

I want to see how it works human vs human. It will never be allowed in a human vs AI biq.

With any luck, I will have something out tonight.
I got bogged down on Sunday with a work related crisis that ate up my evening. Even scheduled power downs at data centres are never good. :)
So that promised date was toast, but last night was encouraging.

I think it would be a good idea to have the Moskvas carry ASW helos. After all, that's what they were designed for. Flagging the Forgers to only be carried on the Moskvas is something to consider as well. Although, I believe they only tested deploying the Forgers on the Moskva, and then went back to hauling the ASW helos. As it stands, the Moskvas can carry any aircraft, which is not correct. The Soviet navy wasn't built with the idea of projecting power like the USN. They highly depended on land based fighters for their aircover, at least that was their early doctrine.

I'm curious how the AI would handle the proposed setup...something I may test.

We could un-flag "radar", and possible "see invisible" for Destroyers, and thus create a new need for ASW helos.

I don't think unit numbers will be a problem, the AI usually doesn't understand such things, thus only other humans would use it, and unit number is not really a problem with PBEM, from what I understand.

If a sub-hunting helo is still cast to the wind, and S-3 Viking could fill the anti-ship/ASW gap that the helo and a P-3 Orion would. It has slightly less range than an Orion, but it is carrier-born, and it's just neat. Give the S-3 "see invisible" and two moves, to again be used by the human primarily. The idea is that move one is the recon move (dipping sonar or sonar buoys, this works for ASW helos too), and the second would be the attack move.
I did something similar in my game, I gave the E-2 Hawkeye multiple moves, to allow better recon from my carriers, to simulate it being up for a long time, and because you cannot increase the LoS.
I really like that idea for the vikings.

think it would be a good idea to have the Moskvas carry ASW helos. After all, that's what they were designed for. Flagging the Forgers to only be carried on the Moskvas is something to consider as well. Although, I believe they only tested deploying the Forgers on the Moskva, and then went back to hauling the ASW helos. As it stands, the Moskvas can carry any aircraft, which is not correct. The Soviet navy wasn't built with the idea of projecting power like the USN. They highly depended on land based fighters for their aircover, at least that was their early doctrine.

I'm curious how the AI would handle the proposed setup...something I may test.
That is a good idea and much more historically accurate unless alternative history wants to be investigated.

I think it would be a good idea to have the Moskvas carry ASW helos. After all, that's what they were designed for. Flagging the Forgers to only be carried on the Moskvas is something to consider as well. Although, I believe they only tested deploying the Forgers on the Moskva, and then went back to hauling the ASW helos. As it stands, the Moskvas can carry any aircraft, which is not correct. The Soviet navy wasn't built with the idea of projecting power like the USN. They highly depended on land based fighters for their aircover, at least that was their early doctrine.

I'm curious how the AI would handle the proposed setup...something I may test.

Yup. Agree with everything you say.
Soviets were extremely preoccupied with two things, sinking ballastic missile subs and carriers. Pretty smart, actually.

I am still messing about with this naval sandbox biq.
Trying to set up Moskva's to handle helos precisely as you described.
Taking longer than expected. as usual.

Would love to set up Kiev's to handle precisely one VSTOL unit, and one ASW KA-27 helo unit, but just can't see how that is possible.

I agree the map scale of the large map would better lend itself to this type of thing as there are so many extra sea hexes a sub can hide in.

The Italians had a helo carrier that had 6 or 8 helos on it. I would consider them capable of a unit of helos as well. You may consider 2 units of helos only on the Moscow and Leningrad. VToL were tested on them, but never deployed. The same is true of the earlier US Iwo Jima Helo class. Harriers worked fine, but have never been operationally deployed. Of course, a US carrier has launched and recovered a F111 as well, which could make for some interesting possibilities if we are talking a fictionalized future from the 50's. ;)

Speaking of the Iwo Jima class, you won't be able to duplicate that unfortunately as you can't have something that can carry something else on something as a "passinger", so no troop transport helos can be on the helo carriers. The numbers are a bit small anyway as far as game representation goes.

I mention my concern about the overall numbers of units in play because it absolutely does make a difference on game performance as far as how fast the turns go. If you can keep the overall numbers down, the result is faster turns.

El Justo.
DL this last night. Looks good!
Began an US game. And I have an question. Is it correct that the USS Iowa and Wisconsin are immobile?
Redman

Yes, it is, as they were mothballed and so it is simulated.

Adler

I mention my concern about the overall numbers of units in play because it absolutely does make a difference on game performance as far as how fast the turns go. If you can keep the overall numbers down, the result is faster turns.

I dunno Klyden....I mean, in AoI testing, I had over 1000 units bopping about, as did most other civ's, and turns were lightning fast.

So when you say overall numbers, do you mean total numbers of classes, or overall quantity of units?

And keep in mind, most of what I am suggesting is for a huge map only.
Wait times are already incredibly long, and only the very patient will play against the AI on a huge map.

I am and I try to stay at war all the time, since peace time waits are 30 minutes plus.

So everything I am suggesting that would add to the order of battle would only be for an all-human PBEM huge map game, where wait times should be irrelevant.

Unless El Justo can transfer the magically fast times of AoI 3.0 to a huge TCW map, I see very limited appeal in the huge TCW maps for a human-AI game.

So when you say overall numbers, do you mean total numbers of classes, or overall quantity of units?

A bit of both I think. Each unit should have value and players should want to build that unit for a reason, but not to the exclusion of all other units. I think that is one of the successes behind both TCW and AOI is that there are not a lot of "fluff" units that don't ever get built. The build ques are pretty clean. Providing 5 destroyer or escort options at once is not very good because the vast majority of players are going to build 1 or 2 and ignore the rest as an example. Same for aircraft.

Even on the big map, the situation remains that you are building individual helos for the escorts compared to units (or detachments) of the same type of unit. In game terms, how deadly should that 1 helo be compared to a squadron off of a larger ship or a squadron of ASW planes?

Okay gents, I have some exciting news. Between last night and this morning I have been doing testing with the ASW Helo idea. I took the carrier to simulate the Moskva. I flagged it with unload, carry only air units, and carry only tactical missiles. I then assigned the following flags/attributes to the ASW helo : Immobile, Detect Invisible, Tactical Missile, Air unit, Bombing mission, Recon Mission and Rebase.

I set up a map and preplaced the Helo Carrier with a DD escort. I plopped down some cities for the AI. I preplaced three ASW helos in one of the coastal cities. I then gave myself a handful of subs and a destroyer, and placed them around the AI's coastal city. First off, as expected, ASW helos attack my subs. The AI then moved it's Helo Carrier and DD to the city. The AI appeared to load up the ASW Helos onto the Carrier. I trailed the Carrier with it's DD escort some squares away from the city. The AI used the ASW helos to attack my subs some distance from the city, proving for sure that it loaded up the helos !

Now, some observations.
-The ASW Helo has to have very low A/D numbers. I used an A/D of 1/1.
-Do not give the ASW helo Lethal Sea Bombard
-I gave the helo a low bombard, but high enough to do damage to the subs

The reason for the three above mentioned criteria is to keep the AI from using the ASW Helo against ships with AAW defenses. With a low defense, low hitpoints, no lethal sea bombard, and lower bombard, the AI seems reluctant to risk an ASW against a surface ship with formidable AAW rating.

I propose allowing wonders to auto produce HormoneAs for the Moskvas, also have a wonder to autoproduce the Moskvas as well. They would have to be in the same city, and of course, a coastal city. Also, you could have two different small wonders producing the same units so the Soviets could have them on the Pacific coast as well as the Barents Sea or North Sea.

One question, can small wonders auto produce ?

On a somewhat related note, I have been reading two books lately; Soviet Warships by John Jordan and Guide to the Soviet Navy by Norman Polmar. Both are fascinating books about the Red navy, it's ships, the designs, the missions, etc. Very interesting reading about the Soviet Navy which is/was somewhat of an enigma.

:mad: poop! my internet connection keeps crapping out on me here at my office :mad: i just lost a real long post...

anyway - i like the ideas vingrjoe. and i don't think that it's too excessive to add in some sort of sea based ASW/recon units for the Reds. of course, it will be a core part of the naval audit. nobody wants to get a head start on that btw? any help getting that stuff going will save me a crap load of time.

I propose allowing wonders to auto produce HormoneAs for the Moskvas
agreed :) however, available gfx has always been a hinderance [hint! :p hint!]

can small wonders auto produce?
yes, all imp's and ownders can autopro' stuff. which also reminds me that i can now safely say that i (we actually - Savas_cafe cracked that nut for me!) am finally able to max out on the city imps/wonders. so the problems of AI fleet replenishment are going to be a thing of the past :love: the possibilities are staggering actually (wrt what we can have autopro'd)

as for the turn times - well - i will try my damnedest to carry over the turn times from the new AoI to TCW v2.0. I_b asked me some time ago what exactly i did differently. there are a few things that stand out but i'm not certain altogether. i mean, like Kly said, there's thousands and thousands of units on the AoI map, dozens and dozens of turns in (like 150 or so), and turn times are like 2 or 3 minutes. it's truly unbelievable and perhaps my own personal favorite as far as 'pushing the envelpoe' is concerned. so considering all of that - we shall see...

agreed however, available gfx has always been a hinderance [hint! hint!]

Forgive me El Justo, by no means do I want to hijack this thread, nor switch attention from it to myself. However, in regards to graphics, I thought I'd post this. I hadn't planned on releasing any previews, at least not this soon. Anyways, to assure you and others that TCW shipyards are still at work, here is the link to my latest WIP.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182522

Okay, new update for my huge US game.

I just got the notice last turn, 20 turns to mandatory retirement. Man, that sucks, I was just getting things wound up, too.

I have pummeled the NVA into the ground, five carriers, two battlewagons, four Baltimore CAs, and my heavy bomber fleet of B-36s and B-52s are laying absolute ruin upon Vietnam.
Once again, my allies have proven not only smart, but very useful. A British Battle Group sits just east of Saigon, and is bombarding Vinh with what seems to be Gloster Meteors, a battlewagon also dispenses indiscriminiate justice upon VCs every turn, making easier B-52- Iowa kills for me!
The French still have M-24's harassing the Reds and VCs around Hanoi, and brought a Richelieu class over to join the fun.

This is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my Civ history, an allied super battlegroup. If Moscow wanted to eliminate the vast majority of the NATO sea capability, it would only have to lay a few nukes down on the Gulf of Tonkin.
USS Indiana Jones' battlegroup has been remade, and is again on the Kola, ready to pummel Murmansk.
My allies in SE Asia are proving useful still, an Indonesian and an Australian Army are ALSO in North Vietnam, this is truly an allied orchestra of war, I love it.
Turn times have taken a sudden turn for the worst, vey quickly they went from less than a minute to about 5-10 minutes between each turn. It's time consuming, but it gives me time to pump iron, and I'm watching TCM, so it's all good.

Oh, and the Scandanavians took Novgorod, too. Next stop, Moscow? If they take Moscow, then NV will be on borrowed time, I'm going after Eastern Europe!

I am curious to see if:
1) I can get my transports with 100+ troops down to NV in time for retirement
2) how long turns will be when I continue into the sixties (I'm scared, but I'll try it)

El Justo I LOVE THIS SCENARIO more and more each time I play it. If they made this the normal civ game, I wouldn't complain.

I think, for purposes of going beyond 1960, I'll do this again on the small map.

vingrjoe great news on the ASW helos. I'm glad to see the AI can figure some things out.

A small update, after numerous tries, I couldn't get the AI to load up the helos again, (remember, I only had the load option checked, but no rebase). So, I gave the helos rebase, and what do you know ? The AI loaded/rebased them on the helo carriers and proceeded to attack my subs.

Good idea, but I still would add lethal sea bombardment to them, as helos are still able to sink ships. Even a heavily damaged cruiser can be sunk by small Sea Skua missiles fired from a helo. So give them low bombardment, but still lethal sea.

Adler