The Cold War Deluxe; 1950-1991 [Archive] - Page 15

Simon Darkshade

Aug 29, 2006, 05:05 AM

Very interesting and it renders well the different priorities of the navies in question. It comes close on the heels of some very interesting tales of Cold War era surface fights I have read on another terrific board, which give a great deal of tactical detail and analysis.

Certainly my latest TCW USN 6th Fleet (c.1965) * is a bit bigger and nastier than the RL equivalent, but the lessons remain to be learnt, the important one being that it is necessary to have AAW defence in depth to overcome to old mass SSM attack. Preemption with airpower, ASTORs, multi-use missiles and nuclear 16" shells is always an option.

* = 2 Iowas, 3 Des Moines, 1 Baltimore, 8 Forrest Shermans, 8 CFAs, 5 Leahy DLGs, 1 Midway CVB, 2 Essex CVS, 2 Oriskany, 1 Forrestal, 6 Sturgeon and 4 Skipjack as the centre, with a destroyer screen; five SSBNs nearby patrolling. Ideally, it would have a lot more AAW ships, such as converted cruisers, CGN-9, a BBG, DLGNs and more DDGs, plus modernized DDs, DLGs and ocean escorts.

Also doing some looking into Operation Mainbrace (52), which had a lot of interesting participants - Wisconsin, Vanguard, Wasp, FDR, Midway, etc. Trouble getting more than simply UFO nonsense, as it seems an interesting exercise.

http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,822470,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,935734,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,889541,00.html
http://www.luftfart.museum.no/Forskning/kaldkrig/dokumentasjon/Allard.rtf

(Final file has some very interesting commentary on evolution of Northern Front doctrine and operations)

"Operation Holdfast climaxed a month of the most ambitious maneuvers that NATO's small, green but growing forces have so far staged. On the north German plain, east of the Rhine, 150,000 British, Dutch, Belgian and Canadian troops were holding off a theoretical mass attack from the east. Britain had contributed three armored divisions, equipped with the 52-ton, Korea-tested Centurion tank. Belgium had one division of obsolescent U.S. Shermans.

Three weeks ago, U.S.-French maneuvers aimed at holding several Rhine crossings alarmed the West Germans, who got the impression that NATO's strategic thinking is centered on a defense at the Rhine (which would mean giving up most of West Germany, including the Ruhr). But last week's exercise should have reassured the Germans. The basic idea of Holdfast is that a relatively small Western force—with good weapons and air support, and with the right tactics—could stop a massive Russian drive east of the Rhine. How? Not by an old-fashioned linear defense based on rivers, mountains, etc. (which would require more divisions than NATO is likely to have for years), but by means of "hedgehogs."

By hedgehogs NATO planners mean mobile defense units which would be free to dig in almost anywhere, surrounded by their own armor and infantry perimeters and by minefields. Aim of the hedgehogs is to break the enemy mass and to direct it into channels. The defenders would counterattack with atomic weapons, harry the canalized enemy laterally from the hedgehogs, blast him from the air.

Holdfast's strategists had developed their plan after studying German tactics in the long retreat from Stalingrad (in which the Germans first used the word "hedgehog"), Britain's experiences with Rommel in Africa, and NATO Commander Matt Ridgway's own mobile defenses against enemy masses in Korea. The maneuvers were commanded by General Sir John Harding, a veteran of Britain's desert battles in World War II and a hedgehog pioneer. Neither General Harding nor anyone else suggested that NATO's present divisions (hopefully estimated at 47 by year's end) could actually stop a Soviet attack. But Harding said: "This is how, at this stage, we feel we can approach the problem."

Operation Mainbrace, the NATO sea exercise (TIME, Sept. 22), ran into foul weather off the Norwegian coast last week. The allied fleets broke off operations in the north, headed south into Kiel Bay to interdict a simulated enemy attack across the Kiel Canal into Denmark. Since the east end of the canal is only 40 miles from the East German frontier, Mainbrace's planes were unarmed and the pilots were sternly warned to avoid Soviet territory.

The Russians were unmistakably interested in both Mainbrace and Holdfast. A group of very quiet Soviet military observers appeared at a Dutch command post and asked to be shown around. On instructions from Sir John Harding, the Dutch commander told his visitors that if they did not withdraw at once they would be tossed out. They withdrew."

"The enemy armies from the east have overrun the plains of Western Germany and are pouring into Denmark. General Ridgway's armies are holding along the Kiel Canal, but the enemy has already penetrated northern Norway and is threatening to send an amphibious landing force around the North Cape.

This is the fictitious situation set for Operation Mainbrace, NATO's first big naval exercise. Mainbrace was conceived last year by General Eisenhower to convince NATO's Scandinavian members (Norway and Denmark) that their lands can be defended in the event of war with Russia. One morning last week, 85 men-of-war (including the U.S. carriers Midway, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Wasp, the Royal Navy carrier Eagle and battleship Vanguard) steamed in stately grey lines out of the Firth of Clyde. On the F.D.R.'s bridge, Skipper George W. Anderson made an announcement: "Any man who spots a periscope before it attacks gets special liberty to London."

When the fleet reached open waters, it formed quickly into battle array. British ships went one way, U.S. ships the other, until the two had formed into separate task forces like two huge targets on the water, the carriers in the bull's-eyes of each. Side by side the two forces steamed along, code flags dipping and bobbing, signal lights blinking. One problem of the exercise was to develop a "joint language of command" understandable by both tars and bluejackets. On Mainbrace, U.S. signalmen no longer reported signal pennants "two-blocked" when they are hauled to the end of the yard. Instead they used the British term "close-up." In return, the Royal Navy has agreed to spell words like "harbour" without the u.

The first clash with the "enemy" (ten submarines and one cruiser) brought on an intra-fleet rhubarb. A Russian sub (H.M.S. Taciturn) got through the destroyer screen and promptly claimed hits on four carriers, but the umpires (on the surface ships) ruled her sunk. Such differences will be resolved when the two-week exercise is finished and the commanders gather in Oslo for a review. Meanwhile, "sunken" carriers and subs fight on.

Other unrealities characterize Main-brace. Neither side, for instance, has made any effort to simulate atomic attack. Nevertheless, the exercise will provide practical experience for NATO's men and officers in combined operations, help its navies to standardize their systems of gunnery, supply, refueling.

As the operation continues, carrier planes will strike at Bodo in northern Norway to drive the enemy back. Then the fleet will turn south to hit the aggressors near the Kiel Canal, while U.S. marines establish a beachhead in Denmark. By the time the two-week exercise is done, the imaginary enemy will inevitably have been defeated. The real one will have had, at least, a good show of strength."

dreadknought

Aug 29, 2006, 08:58 AM

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.

Hi El Justo--cheesy, Just saw this and thought it was quite funny, yeah Cuba is tougher in that version, esp. with the army modifycations but assuming Soviet help works out well.

You should try the last add-on if you play the U.S. /nato which gives the starting points advantage to Warsaw and I never got to play all that much...Hope everyone is well.

El Justo

Aug 29, 2006, 09:58 AM

Cheezy the Wiz

Aug 29, 2006, 01:48 PM

I_batman

Aug 29, 2006, 05:24 PM

I have one burning question, and the more I find it, the more pissed off I am:

Why does the AI have so many armies?

Everyone except for me has multiple armies. These are the ones I've seen thus far:
Central American
Brazilian
Soviet
Australian
Canadian
North Vietnamese
Chinese
Cuban
and I'm sure there are more to come. Most of these guys have more than one army, too. If I didn't know better, I'd say everyone except for the US has auto-produced armies! But I know Dreadknought doesn't hate me THAT much...do you?

What version are you playing?
Most of the versions out there pretty much cap it at one per civ. At least, I have never been able to create a second army for my civ's.
Besides, even if the AI can produce multiple armies, it is too dumb to properly use them. I don't know how many times I have seen an AI army consisting of one tank and 2 spies.

BadKharma

Aug 29, 2006, 06:45 PM

dreadknought

Aug 29, 2006, 07:27 PM

I have one burning question, and the more I find it, the more pissed off I am:

Why does the AI have so many armies?

Everyone except for me has multiple armies. These are the ones I've seen thus far:
Central American
Brazilian
Soviet
Australian
Canadian
North Vietnamese
Chinese
Cuban
and I'm sure there are more to come. Most of these guys have more than one army, too. If I didn't know better, I'd say everyone except for the US has auto-produced armies! But I know Dreadknought doesn't hate me THAT much...do you?

Well yes, you see its nothing personnel at all, You can still get an army w/ some bonus points by spawning a leader as far as I know, The ai armies was a way to offset the human artillery advantage and to help the smaller civs put up a delaying action since the game is timed.

dreadknought

Aug 29, 2006, 07:33 PM

What version are you playing?
Most of the versions out there pretty much cap it at one per civ. At least, I have never been able to create a second army for my civ's.
Besides, even if the AI can produce multiple armies, it is too dumb to properly use them. I don't know how many times I have seen an AI army consisting of one tank and 2 spies.

He is referring to the modded 50s huge map version that I worked on, there is a Warsaw VP advantage version, and a nato VP advantage version. I added alot of ai tweaks to it for fun. The armies, well lets just say I figured out a loophole and yes the ai loads very well (though Im not sure exactly how I got that to work), they can be devastating against the human player.

dreadknought

Aug 29, 2006, 07:38 PM

hi d-k. long time no see!

we're actually going to revisit a bunch of stuff for a TCW v2.0 for civ3. it is some time away but now onto the real good news (which should probably go into another thread but i don't care!):

we've been given the 'green light' to release AoI v3.0 once the CivP file is ready. you see, there's a handful of SOE units in this new version of AoI and out of respect for the designers, i was holding back until they thought it ok to release it. what the hell does all of this have to do w/ TCW you ask? well - it's simple - once AoI is released, i can focus my energies on the TCW revision (after a little R&R though :) )

El Justo, Im glad you are well, took a break from Civ 3 but am going to roll up my sleeve and play a bit. I will report whats going on here and for sure I will get into your Aoi V 3.0 as soon as it ready. Your work is much appreciated and I know the new AOI will be the best ever .

Noticed my download count was messed up, 2138 or something like that, 38 is more like it. Some kind of bug I guess, wasnt like that when I was here before.

Cheezy the Wiz

Aug 29, 2006, 09:51 PM

Well yes, you see its nothing personnel at all, You can still get an army w/ some bonus points by spawning a leader as far as I know, The ai armies was a way to offset the human artillery advantage and to help the smaller civs put up a delaying action since the game is timed.
I know it's nothing personal, I was just joking. I would have suspected AI Great Leaders, but it's countries like Brazil, and it's on like turn 20.

He is referring to the modded 50s huge map version that I worked on, there is a Warsaw VP advantage version, and a nato VP advantage version. I added alot of ai tweaks to it for fun. The armies, well lets just say I figured out a loophole and yes the ai loads very well (though Im not sure exactly how I got that to work), they can be devastating against the human player.

I don't know how you figured it out, but the AI uses and abuses those armies. They're smart with it, too. Canadian, Australian, Brazilian, and Indonesian armies have all joined me in combat, both in Cuba and now in Vietnam, being very effective in both theaters, with a great sense of timing.
I don't know if you messed with the Aircraft Carriers, too, or if I'm just unobservant, but the AI also has sent battlegroups to aid in my theaters of conflict WHEN I NEED THEM. A RN fleet showed up in the Greater Antilles to bombard Cuba, and now there are two Colossus Carriers and HMS Vanguard in the Gulf of Tonkin, shelling away at Vinh. The Cardinal Richelieu is also in the Gulf of Tonkin, shelling away at Ke Sahn, and even protected my battle group in the South China Sea from a Kara Cruiser.
Oh yes, the Gulf of Tonkin is very crowded. I have two Oriskanys, two Midways, four Baltimore CAs, two Iowa BBs, and a whole crapload of Forrest Sherman and Fletcher DDs.
Back to my point: AI armies work, and very much so.

nc-1701

Aug 30, 2006, 07:49 AM

He is referring to the modded 50s huge map version that I worked on, there is a Warsaw VP advantage version, and a nato VP advantage version. I added alot of ai tweaks to it for fun. The armies, well lets just say I figured out a loophole and yes the ai loads very well (though Im not sure exactly how I got that to work), they can be devastating against the human player.

Do you atleast have ideas of how it happend that we could test? Anything? If we could figure out how to mod that into all games then civ3 would be incredibly benifited. I mean no ideas of what caused it at all?

El Justo

Aug 30, 2006, 10:15 AM

Cheezy the Wiz

Aug 30, 2006, 07:34 PM

the time is near gentlemen!
It's not as if we don't have an ocean of ideas to use.

I'm going to have to ask this: why is Soviet production so crazy? In my 1.6 Soviet game, I can shell out things like Kara Cruisers from Murmansk in about 9 turns. My best production is in Siberia and the North; Murmansk, Archangel, Petropavlovsk, Kabarovsk, and Yakusk plus Moscow sum up to my greatest production cities. I don't know THAT much about Soviety history, is that realistic? Either way, I love it. My war machine is rolling, all I need is to be able to pay gold to rush and not citizens, and the world is mine, Vodka* or not!
I think I asked this before, but why do none of the prop planes for anybody upgrade? I always have all kinds of Yak-9s, A-1 Skyraiders, and Spitfires, depending on who I am, and wind up having to just disband them to help out with Bear or Oriskany production. It would be very nice to have say, A-1s upgrade to A-6s, and Spitfires upgrade to the F-86 NATO export, and the Yak-9 go to the MiG 19 Farmer.

Also, I found a nice way to keep the peace as WP. I managed to not get involved in one war for the entire duration of the 1950s. I give you the RoP. Make one with every Western Ally and China, and watch them wade across your country to kill each other around the Kazakhstan area. It's hilarious, it ruins both sides ( easier pickings for you), it keeps NATO liking you and less likely to just walk up and declare war, and when you DO wind up at war, their forces are scattered throughout the Soivet Union, and you can pick them off peacemeal, which means you don't have to worry too much about counterattacks while you pummel their cities into the ground.

I did have one problem, though. When this war came, and I did everything I just described, I was besieging Helsinki. My T-55s were really putting a pounding on the defenders, as were my artys, but I just wasn't getting through. I finally freed up my TU-95s and TU-16s, of which I had about ten of both, and brought my Karas and Sverdlovsk's around for some sea shelling. I'm not sure what has such a high AA value that the Scandanavians can get in 1960, but I lost 7 Bears in a row, no questions asked, to AA fire. So what the hell happened?
Oh, meanwhile Vladivostok is being bombed into the ground, which I don't appreciate, by B-52s and B-36s, of which they have areoun 4 or 5 of each, and my 10 MiG 19s and 7 MiG 17s won't do a damn thing about. I think I got one Peacemaker, that's it.

*There's a joke, a quote by somebody, I forget who, but it goes like this: " God invented Vodka so that Russians could not rule the world."

psweetman1590

Aug 30, 2006, 09:39 PM

I'm not sure what has such a high AA value that the Scandanavians can get in 1960, but I lost 7 Bears in a row, no questions asked, to AA fire. So what the hell happened?

That would be a pre-placed AA battery of some sort. Annoying, aren't they? Best thing to do is to bombard with a cheap bomber or fighter first, and if it says that it was downed by AA, then it's a flak gun or something, but if it says SAM, or if the plane just disappears, DON'T GO NEAR IT AGAIN with anything you want to keep. Those things have, as far as I can see, 100% of shooting down EVERYTHING. Once I knew a city has one, I have NEVER seen a bomber escape it.

El Justo, if I may make a recommendation, please either tune these things down drastically, or pull them out altogether and replace them with AA units. These things really unbalance the airwar, and can make advances nearly impossible at times. Plus, the AI doesn't learn, and will consistently bash itself against these beasts, depleting its airforce in one turn.

Simon Darkshade

Aug 31, 2006, 03:33 AM

Early 1950s AAA is an interesting area, as this is the time when it was at its technological zenith - the US deployed hundreds of 90mm and 120mm guns, along with the automatic 75mm Skysweeper. The Soviets had their arsenal, which unfortunately could not shoot high enough to get the B-36s, which were unmolestable for some time.
The British had improved 3.7" guns and some rather good 5.25" placements, with developments in the bag such as Ratefixer and Green Mace.
A glorious sunset towards the end, right before the missiles got into real action with Project Nike and what not. Expanding AA guns and missiles is a thought, even if only for some of the shorter games variants.
I like the idea of 12 twin Green Mace mounts and 24 twin Skysweeper mounts on an AA battlewagon, along with missile goodies...

dreadknought

Aug 31, 2006, 07:28 AM

i'm not exactly sure what d-k did either. but my first thought is that since the 'Corps' units (aka army units) are spawned or buildable that the AI has a different logic wrt using them. on the big map, i think this is great b/c of all of the coverage on the map. however, i reckon that it could be a little overwhelming on the smaller map. we'll see though - i mean, i never rule anything out and it is indeed a neat idea to kick around (the notion of the AI using them 'wisely').

i've been thinking some over the last days about the possibility of adding in (maxing out really) some 'phony wonders' to the biq file. this concept seems weird on the surface but try and follow me here...

by adding these 'phony wonders' in we can accomplish 2 primary things:
1. essentially stop AI city razing since the AI puts high emphasis on retaining cities that have wonders in them.
2. a diversification of AI navies - ie we can make wonders that spawn SSs, SSNs, SSBNs, CVs, CAs, etc, etc.

now, thanks to Rocoteh's great breakthrough w/ the pre-placement of the 'phony wonders' :goodjob: AI city razing can be effectively neutralized. what i was thinking of would be to name these wonders after shipyards, etc and --VERY IMPORTANT-- allow any civ to 'capture' said wonder (effectively nullifying the AI razes).

so this is where i'm at wrt to brainstorming. also on the pallete is a slight revision of the naval stats according to Kly's great method he came up w/ on the AoI ship lines. these are preliminary thoughts of course as i'm in the process of launching AoI. but the time is near gentlemen!

Hi, El Justo, The fake wonders were used in the civil war scenario I was involved in and Rocoteh was consulting/working on also and it was being used to pre-build certain units that the ai wouldnt build on its on. The idea to use it to stop razing cities though is a new application for it as far as I know.

The only possible downside is you must be careful to not allow the captured cities to continue to auto-build units for the wrong army but I believe there is a workaround for that using govt. types or something along those lines.

I have some notes on how to give the ai extra armies but Im still researching as to why they use them so well in the huge map modded biqs. I not sure yet why they load them so well and use them well, but have a theory I need to test out in a different scenario. You will have to try one of the modded biqs to see if you like the armies in it. Ive started a game with huge map biq. 4.1 with Japan but not much action to report yet as the 2 world powers are peaceful thus far.....more later...

BadKharma

Aug 31, 2006, 07:55 PM

If the AI is using armies intelligently that is of utmost importance.

El Justo

Sep 01, 2006, 07:06 AM

It's not as if we don't have an ocean of ideas to use.

I'm going to have to ask this: why is Soviet production so crazy? In my 1.6 Soviet game, I can shell out things like Kara Cruisers from Murmansk in about 9 turns. My best production is in Siberia and the North; Murmansk, Archangel, Petropavlovsk, Kabarovsk, and Yakusk plus Moscow sum up to my greatest production cities. I don't know THAT much about Soviety history, is that realistic? Either way, I love it. My war machine is rolling, all I need is to be able to pay gold to rush and not citizens, and the world is mine, Vodka* or not!
I think I asked this before, but why do none of the prop planes for anybody upgrade? I always have all kinds of Yak-9s, A-1 Skyraiders, and Spitfires, depending on who I am, and wind up having to just disband them to help out with Bear or Oriskany production. It would be very nice to have say, A-1s upgrade to A-6s, and Spitfires upgrade to the F-86 NATO export, and the Yak-9 go to the MiG 19 Farmer.

Also, I found a nice way to keep the peace as WP. I managed to not get involved in one war for the entire duration of the 1950s. I give you the RoP. Make one with every Western Ally and China, and watch them wade across your country to kill each other around the Kazakhstan area. It's hilarious, it ruins both sides ( easier pickings for you), it keeps NATO liking you and less likely to just walk up and declare war, and when you DO wind up at war, their forces are scattered throughout the Soivet Union, and you can pick them off peacemeal, which means you don't have to worry too much about counterattacks while you pummel their cities into the ground.

I did have one problem, though. When this war came, and I did everything I just described, I was besieging Helsinki. My T-55s were really putting a pounding on the defenders, as were my artys, but I just wasn't getting through. I finally freed up my TU-95s and TU-16s, of which I had about ten of both, and brought my Karas and Sverdlovsk's around for some sea shelling. I'm not sure what has such a high AA value that the Scandanavians can get in 1960, but I lost 7 Bears in a row, no questions asked, to AA fire. So what the hell happened?
Oh, meanwhile Vladivostok is being bombed into the ground, which I don't appreciate, by B-52s and B-36s, of which they have areoun 4 or 5 of each, and my 10 MiG 19s and 7 MiG 17s won't do a damn thing about. I think I got one Peacemaker, that's it.

*There's a joke, a quote by somebody, I forget who, but it goes like this: " God invented Vodka so that Russians could not rule the world."
hey guy :)

yes - there's lots of ideas in my head; some half-baked and others that may actually work :D

the production levels you report seem accurate. however, iirc, it is the Ural region that was most productive for the Soviets. no matter though...

the upgrade paths for the planes can be modified. thanks for reporting them and remind me when we go to do the air audit.

not sure about your travails in the air but i do know that i need to look at reducing the AA values for the SAM city imp. or at the least, look into it some.

El Justo

Sep 01, 2006, 07:07 AM

El Justo, if I may make a recommendation, please either tune these things down drastically, or pull them out altogether and replace them with AA units. These things really unbalance the airwar, and can make advances nearly impossible at times. Plus, the AI doesn't learn, and will consistently bash itself against these beasts, depleting its airforce in one turn.
i'll certainly look into it mate ;)

El Justo

Sep 01, 2006, 07:21 AM

Hi, El Justo, The fake wonders were used in the civil war scenario I was involved in and Rocoteh was consulting/working on also and it was being used to pre-build certain units that the ai wouldnt build on its on. The idea to use it to stop razing cities though is a new application for it as far as I know.

The only possible downside is you must be careful to not allow the captured cities to continue to auto-build units for the wrong army but I believe there is a workaround for that using govt. types or something along those lines.

I have some notes on how to give the ai extra armies but Im still researching as to why they use them so well in the huge map modded biqs. I not sure yet why they load them so well and use them well, but have a theory I need to test out in a different scenario. You will have to try one of the modded biqs to see if you like the armies in it. Ive started a game with huge map biq. 4.1 with Japan but not much action to report yet as the 2 world powers are peaceful thus far.....more later...
hi d-k.

well, all of the TCW versions had some form of autoproducing wonders. however, the main point would be to stunt the AI city razing. that is a huge pain in my ass (to put it bluntly).

you raise a good point regarding the capture of these wonders. specifically, do we want the W Germans capturing the "Mikoyan-Gurevich Factory" in, say, Yaroslavl and then having the German Air Force flying around in MiGs? what about the Yanks capturing Vladivostok and the shipyard wonder there that autopro's Whiskey class SSs? i don't know. but my first thought is that it just may work. however, i believe it'd be best suited for only sea units. or more specifically, lots of the 'phony wonders' would be autopro'ing sea units mostly b/c this is where the AI has such a hard time (ie the 'best buy' mentality wrt AI sea unit builds).

ADDIT: the govt setting won't work btw b/c if a unit is autopro'd, it needs no specs (ie req'd govt, req'd tech, etc). now, if we restricted the phony wonder by govt then the AI civ who would attack and take the city which has this phony wonder couldn't 'keep' the wonder b/c it'd have been restricted by govt type...

i'm definitely interested in getting to the bottom of the AI army use thingy...

I_batman

Sep 01, 2006, 09:10 AM

hi d-k.

ADDIT: the govt setting won't work btw b/c if a unit is autopro'd, it needs no specs (ie req'd govt, req'd tech, etc). now, if we restricted the phony wonder by govt then the AI civ who would attack and take the city which has this phony wonder couldn't 'keep' the wonder b/c it'd have been restricted by govt type...

i'm definitely interested in getting to the bottom of the AI army use thingy...

I am really beginning to wonder if even auto-producving naval units is a way to get the AI more active.
I am still playing that huge game that is your 50's biq.
Currently at 1975.

The U.S. has built 3 Tarawa and 3 Forrestal carriers, and still has the original 4 Baltimores, 4 Iowas, 2 Midways, 2 Essex's.
But the Tarawa's and Forrestal's have NEVER left port.
And check out the jpeg for what is going on in Los Angeles. None of these units as far as I can tell have ever left port. The transports are full but sit there, and the AI builds subs instead of ships to escort them.

As for the units that are at sea and a potential threat, check the second jpeg.
These 3 stacks contain the original 4 WWII carriers, the first 2 Iowa's, all 4 Baltimores, and 4 Fletchers. The AI has kept them parked in the U.S. base, or fortified them where they are now for the past 150 turns.
They have not been involved in any action whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the Aussies, Brazil, Canada, France, have been all sending escorted transports into the Mediterranean, where they have been trying to pound Arab League.

But the 3 Brit carriers have never left their home ports either.

The AI is hopeless.
The only interesting thing that the U.S. AI did was send 52 Sturgeon class subs into the Med when I took the final Turkish city.
None left the Med.

Very frustrating, and I am thinking the key to naval activity lies in examining the settings for the active naval civs (4 listed above) vs the U.S. settings.
Somthing must be different. Perhaps it is also the fact that early in the game the U.S. must have sent an invasion force to China (I could not witness it since anything I put in the Pacific the AI automatically saw and sunk), and captured 3 chinese cities. Since then, as far as I can tell, no transports.

El Justo

Sep 01, 2006, 09:41 AM

I_batman

Sep 01, 2006, 12:43 PM

hmm - interesting info there bud.

my first thought is that the humongo map doesn't really apply to the 'phony wonder/autoproduction' theory i put forward simply b/c of all the sea unit builds that occur on this map. i mean, 52 Sturgeon class subs! that's nuts!

anyhow - my point is that on the smaller map, these sea unit build simply don't occur. and to further drive home the point (learned from my lessons of AoI and it's AI sea unit builds), what i'm looking for isn't so much as pure numbers (in terms of total sea units). instead, it's diversification of AI fleets. that is definitely the most important aspect i want to address.

furthermore, the AI, even when building sea units on its own volition, seems to build the 'best buy' unit which in the case of the Yankees is the Sturgeon (or at least it appears this way). now, what is it exactly that makes only 1 or 2 sea units so attractive to the AI? obviously, there's some sort of internal calculation done by the AI to determine which unit offers the best firepower for the buck. and we don't want only 1 or 2 types of ships roaming the seas if we can help it.

testing AoI has given me a whole new perspective on civ3 naval activities. there once was a time when i simply threw my hands in the air and chalked up the AI's lack of sea unit builds as an unavoidable fact. this is clearly not the case imo and i think we owe to ourselves to explore any and all possible solutions to the problem.

on a sidenote:
i was thinking of the problems the AI has regarding proper usage of carriers (ie loading them up w/ planes). this has always been problematic i think. well - i'm going to go out on a limb and kick around the idea of jacking up the AA defenses and awarding a boosted bombardment # for all AI carrier units so as to simulate these carrier units being 'packed w/ planes' at all times. the hike in AA would simulate the air defense of the planes on board and the bombardment # would represent the ranges of the aircraft. now, these settings would aplly only to the AI and therefore, coutnry versions of a biq file would need to be drafted. this wouldn't entail too much work though as it'd be a matter of adjusting the stats for the carriers in question. also - all carriers could theoretically be autoproduced in the right circumstances...please advise if anyone thinks i'm nuts here.

Interesting thoughts on small scale vs large scale maps.
To be honest, I have not carefully looked at the differences in how the AI handles that on the two scales.

As for cranking up AI carrier's AA and bombard capabilities, I was just about to float the concept of cranking up the quantities of planes each carrier can carry by a factor of 2.
The reason I suggest this is that since Midway, the carrier has been the prime projection of naval power. OK, nuke missile boats are pretty scary, but when you want to control a chunk of ocean, and the coasts near it, a carrier with lots of fancy planes is the most powerful thing out there.

IMO, right now, if you launch an attack with an naval air wing, you cannot inflict the kind of damage on an enemy naval group that would accurately represent what would happen in real life.

I mean, assume you have two carriers in a task force in the game. Each carrier is carrying 3 planes.

With those 6 planes you attack an enemy task force. The maximum damage you would do might be 12 pips of damage. I assume there is a fair bit of missing, and some or your planes getting shot down with AA, enemy interceptors.
Say the task force you attacked had 3 surface ships escorting a carrier. They could have 20-24 pips of HP to start. Is it realistic to think that the firepower of the air wings of two carriers cannot do more damage to 4 ships?
If we doubled the capacity of each carrier in the game, would that more closely emulate the true firepower of a carrier?
I figure doubling the capacity of carriers is easier than altering the bombard capabilities of each air unit.

Am I out to lunch on this one? Can some naval historian set me straight?
I know that the last set of attacks on ships from carrier-based planes occured over 60 years ago, but it was then pretty decisive.

Or is this entire concept something that I should just let lie since the AI never would use naval air power properly anyway?

El Justo

Sep 01, 2006, 01:01 PM

Simon Darkshade

Sep 01, 2006, 08:31 PM

It was the last time that there was almost a carrier vs carrier battle, but the Argie carrier could not get up enough speed to launch its Skyhawks.
In terms of the overall war, it was a war notable for the use of air to surface missiles, whose threat outweighed their actual impact. There were not enough Exocets to be used in the requisite numbers to guarantee battle winning results. Still, the threat to the carriers was a significant one, and the methods used to combat it hearkened back to the Second World War - radar picket ships filling the role of AEW aircraft.

It was a key use of 2nd generation airpower against ships whose design ranged from the 1950s to the 1970s. Iron bombs caused more damage than their advanced successors, but the latter got the attention.

Upping plane loads for carriers is a good idea, and increasing the AA to simulate a permanent CAP plus close in weapon systems (and also the increased damage resistance provided by a very big ship). I'm not sure on the idea of bombarding, but if it is needed to create better AI use, then it can be 'simulated'.

The only thing about the AA is making sure that the cruisers, destroyers, DLGs go up before the carriers, to simulate the ring of protection.

Anthropoid

Sep 01, 2006, 10:15 PM

Hey Batman, you know if you hit debug mode on, you can see every move the AI makes, all the cities, etc. Might be useful for your tests and prototypes and such.

I think the real problem with air planes vs. ships in this game engine is that ships have too much health compared to how much damage planes can do. Unfortunately if individual planes are set to do more damage then they could wipe out whole land divisions and cities too easily.

The other issue is that, the designers tried to make the ship units in the standard game represent both grand strategic level, and more operational level. Meaning, in an epic game, a "BB Unit" might actually represent a BB, plus its escourts, and support ships, and a "DD Unit" might actually represent a squadron of destroyers (plus tankers, supply ships etc.

Versus, in some scenarios, like WWII Pacific, ships are obviously meant to represent specific ships (with support ships considered moot for game purposes). The airplane units also seem to represent squadrons or even larger units in the epic game, and also seemingly in the more operational level scenarios like WWII Pacific scenario, and this is the problem. If the planes are the same "size" in the operational and strategic level scenarios, but ships are not, then you cannot model individual ships without rethinking the numbers a bit.

I don't think Firaxis has ever really given much consideration to how to reconcile the numbers and unit counts for the early ancient era with the modern era, and also how to reconcile a unit portfolio that is meant to serve both grand strategic, and operational or even less inclusive levels of theatre.

I'm no naval historian, but I've read a bit about WWII Pacific carrier battles. Seems like the numbers of planes on one major carrier was in the two or three hundred range. However, ONE plane and ONE bomb could effectively sink a ship, if the hit managed to get below decks and detonate an ammo or fuel repository of some sort. On the other hand, fairly small ships like cruisers sometimes took multiple hits and survived to fight another day. Seems like most of the Japanese carriers sunk at Midway were hit 3 to 4 times, but IIRC there are examples of a single bomb sinking major ships.

So, the problem is how to model these highly variable engagement outcomes given the game engine.

I think for the sort of massive map you are talking about, that BBs, CVs, CAs, and large ships should in fact represent single ships, and maybe DDs as well. Planes on the other hand need to represent groups of airplanes (squadrons, wings, whatever you call them) comprising 6 to 12 or more actual machines and their operators.

One option would be to leave the numbers of planes CVs can base, the production costs, etc, as well as the plane attack/bombard strengths as they are, but lower the health capacity of all ships. For example, make most all ships have only ONE health pip (i.e., they are equivalent to "conscripts"). Maybe give CVs 2 and BBs (or other massively armored tubs) 3. If you want to simulate all the modern rockets, and gatling guns, and other defensive ordance, then just jackup the AA ratings progressively.

I don't know the specific ship classes and such, but just for example, a 1950s DD, a 1960s, a 1970s DD, and a 1980s "missile frigate" (or whatever you call it) might all have only ONE health point. However, they would vary in AA: 1950s = 2; 1960s = 3; 1970s = 5; 1980s = 7 or whatever. Obviously, even if this produced a suitable simulation given the way combat is calculated in the game engine, then you'd still have to play around with the numbers to figure out what the actual relative values should be. This still might not work right, but more ideas for you to consider.

IIRC, for an airplane unit on Air Superiority in this engine, it is actually the "attack" strength that comes into play, but for airplanes that are "attacking," i.e., bombing a ship, it is the defense strength that comes into play? Not sure how AA values for targets are used in the algorithms and if either attack or defense either matter, but assuming that one of the two plane characteristics DOES matter in the AA vs. attacking plane engagements, then it would seem to offer the possibility of modeling more advanced planes that have special modern anti-anti-ship defense systems (e.g., I seem to recall chaff as being something that some of the more modern planes can shoot out to decoy SAM defenses fired from ships??).

Simon Darkshade

Sep 02, 2006, 12:08 AM

Chaff can be fired along with other decoys to attempt to ward off all sorts of missile attacks. Modern anti-ship warfare precludes a lot of this, though, with stand off weapons used in the main.

USN fleet carriers had in total about 96 planes each, the composition of this changed over the war. Towards the end, most were Hellcats, serving as fighters and fighter-bombers.

vingrjoe

Sep 02, 2006, 09:48 AM

Regarding the planes versus ships A/D values: When an aircraft attacks a ship, it is using the bombard strength. If the ship has an AA strength, that is used as an attack against the inbound bandit. That, would be checked against the aircraft's defense strength. If the warship wins, the plane is shot down. If the plane wins, it gets through and bombards. Now, the aircraft's bombard strength is checked against the ship's defense strength. From there, it is determined if the attack/bombard is successful.

Now, after some research into naval SAMs and ship self defense weapons, I have come to the following conclusions regarding ship A/D and AA values in Civ3. They are as follows:

-The attack for a ship represents it's weapons loadout; guns, missiles, torpedoes. Number of rounds, number of missiles and reloads. Bombardment works off the same factors.

-The defense is comprised of more factors. Passive defense would consist of armor, ECM (electronic counter measures), and chaff. Active defense would consist of naval guns( 6 inch and smaller), CIWS, BPDMS (base point defense missile system):this would be NATO SeaSparrow, RAM, SA-N-4 or the equivilant.

-Hit points would be related to the size of the vessel ie: tonnage/displacement and possibly damge control ability.

Now, deck guns, CIWS, RAM, SeaSparrow, SA-N-4 and the like systems, are able to engage and destroy aircraft, but most aircraft carry antiship missiles with ranges far out of the maximum and effective range of those systems. Actually dropping bombs on ships was more commonplace in the early years off the Cold War than it is now, with the exception of the Falklands War. So, if a warship has any of these systems, the above mentioned weapons system's principle role is for self defense against inbound missiles and even bombs. So, these should be factored into the ships defense strength. However, I feel since these systems can engage aircraft, ships equipped with such weapons should get at least a small AA strength, if this is their only AAW weapons.

Ships that carry area defense missile systems (from my reading, assuming a missle with a range of 20 nm or more) should have higher AA values based on the amount of SAMS they carry, and possible performance of radar. Although radar quality/performance would be difficult judeg and to transform into a number value.

I personally don't like the idea of dropping most ships to one hit point or even two.

I think carriers should carry more aircraft. I also feel each plane in TCW should represent a minimum of four, or a maximum of twelve aircraft. Now, maybe increasing their bombard strength is needed. Also, as El Justo has mentioned a while back, one has to be careful on what units get the lethal sea and/or lethal land bombardment.

Simon Darkshade

Sep 02, 2006, 10:06 AM

I agree with you, vingrjoe on the CIWS/BPDMS factors, with the aforementioned idea of advanced AAA possibly providing a very small addition in the 1950s (that is well into the speculative territory).

Another factor in the ship's AA defensive factor (something I am giving thought to while looking through the audit thingummy) is their missile power.
Early SAM armed ships, with their older radar and comparatively early missiles should have a lesser factor than their successors.
In this respect, there is a progression from Terrier, Talos and Tartar to SM-1s, then to the SM-2MR and ER series. In the RN, there is the progression from Sea Slug to Sea Dart and Sea Wolf.
This generational advance can be considered in giving value, as can the amount of missiles carried. Certainly the Albanys carried many more SAMs than a Tico, but the latter has better radar and better missiles. Long Beach (as of this time and to my knowledge unmade as a unit) carried a huge amount of missiles, both Terrier and Talos.
It is an interesting conundrum, but one I am giving thought to.

I_batman

Sep 02, 2006, 10:37 PM

I think that I am onboard with Vingrjoe and Klyden about HP on a tonnage basis, but modified with some common sense. It can't be a strict linear mapping.
Consider a Iowa is about 10 times heavier than a typical destroyer, it would be all out of whack.

I think what is needed is a more logarithmic scale used, and also modified for survivability of the class. That second portion is brutal to factor, and likely subjective.

I also think that the AA capability of ships should defnitely audited, and some substantial modifications made to all ships.

For my naval sandbox, I am also doubling air capacity for most of the standard carriers (NATO, Argentina, Soviet Ulynavosk).
Going to have to check with the ones that were helos/VSTOL to see if it makes sense to double them. Doubt the Moskva will get it, but maybe the Kiev.

On a different note, heading to bed after a long wet day at the Toronto Air Show.
Some some pretty cool stuff, but the F-22 was pulled due to "operational commitments".
Best thing I saw was an F-86, F-15, and F-16 flying in formation, right over my head. F-86 looked tiny when compared to the F-15, and the F-16 is obviously a lightweight size-wise compared to the F-15 when they are wing tip to wing tip.

My buddy took some shots with a digital, and I am praying they turned out well enough to post a couple of the more interesting ones.

I wil know in a couple days.

Hope to post more thoughts tomorrow.

vingrjoe

Sep 04, 2006, 08:45 AM

I honestly do not think the AI even considers the AA strength when choosing what unit to build. I have no solid basis for this. I just know AA defense was an "add on" in one of the expansions. I think it is the A/D and cost factors. It's too bad the AI in Civ3 is so darn stupid. I have the game Command & Conquer Generals, now I realize that is a RTS game, but it's nice how the AI works; you build aircraft, it builds AA units, you build tanks, it builds tanks and A/T infantry, you put up short range defenses, the AI builds arty to attack your base. If only Civ3 AI was as responsive.

Anthropoid

Sep 04, 2006, 09:12 AM

If any of you guys are interested in trying out a really complex set of war games, you should check out Matrix Games. I think I've posted in this thread about this before, so I won't belabor but simply remind that, the dynamics in some of their games might be a wellspring of ideas for how to model post-3GW warfare using the C3C engine.

http://www.digitalriver.com/dr/v2/ec_MAIN.Entry?CID=0&CUR=840&SP=10007&SID=45905&DSP=0&PGRP=0&CACHE_ID=0

For the naval-air side of things, "War in the Pacific" might be interesting to consider. Obviously, it could not be modeled but it might provide ideas, not to mention additional data on OOBs in that time period.

For land forces, Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War is excellent. There are hundreds of scenarios in it, including quite a few Cold War era. Their games are not cheap, but they are fun, and you can get a DL -plus- mailed CD package for the same price. Also, despite the complexity, the lack of ANY real graphics make their games run very easily on modest systems, and without having to stick in a CD once it is installed.

Someone on the Matrix site recommended Paradox games to me when I said I'd like to play something that was a cross between Civ and TOAWIII.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1173428&mpage=8&key=high%2Caltitude

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

[quote]ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Hmmm. Never heard of them. Will have to check them out.

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/

They make a lot of Grand Strategic games;
Crusader Kings (1066-1453 or so)
Europa Universalis II (1415-1820) (there's a III but I've not played it)
Victoria (1836-1936)
Hearts of Iron II (1936-53)

Various utilities allow you to- in theory at least- play a continuous game from 1066 to 1953. Though you'd have a hard time not to conquer the world in that time.

So in short, a 14km tile has been hit with a total of 4,400 kilotons of nuke warheads, which has killed about half of a division comprising about 15,000 guys and 1,498 vehicles, including trucks, and other non NBC vehicles as well as Tanks which are not going to be equipped to carry much more than their crews.

Well, you have to bear in mind the law of diminishing returns. If you quadruple the amount of fissile material, you probably only double the destructive effect.

Because of Nagasaki's hilly terrain, the damage was somewhat less extensive than that in relatively flat Hiroshima. An estimated 40,000 people were killed outright by the bombing at Nagasaki, and about 25,000 were injured

Yeah. But some survived even within a short distance of ground zero.

Cheezy the Wiz

Sep 04, 2006, 10:24 AM

nc-1701

Sep 04, 2006, 03:28 PM

Indeed, it would be nice if in Civ3, the AI got smarter as the difficulty went up, not just the same AI with new handicaps on the human.
Generals can be a very hard game, if the AI wants it to be.

I think the AI does atleast whenever I play the city governors go crazy making mobile SAMs in the normal game.

I_batman

Sep 04, 2006, 09:06 PM

Someone on the Matrix site recommended Paradox games to me when I said I'd like to play something that was a cross between Civ and TOAWIII.
[QUOTE]

I have HoI II and also HoI II Doomsday, which extends the game to 1953.
It has indeed a vastly superior AI to CFC.

It is essentially am RTS, and has some limitations, but is a pleasant departure from a stupid AI.
That is assuming if getting your butt kicked by an excellent AI is pleasant to you.
The game is definitely graphics-averse, but also runs on an low-end system.

Cheezy the Wiz

Sep 04, 2006, 09:09 PM

It has indeed a vastly superior AI to CFC.

CFC has Artifical Intelligence?:confused: :lol:

BadKharma

Sep 05, 2006, 05:05 PM

The finest AI I have ever come across is in the Blitzkreig series of games. The AI will probe for weak points in your defenses as well as flank you whenever possible. As far as ship stats Vingrjoe makes some excellent points. Considering that combat is resolved basically using a modified dice throw in Civ I dont think dropping hit points to one or even 2 is a good idea.

BadKharma

Sep 05, 2006, 05:13 PM

these are good questions dude :cool:

i have no problems ramping up the transport capacities. however, the AI still probably 'won't get it' in terms of how to load and use the carriers properly. this is why i suggested upping the AA defenses and bombardment no's b/c this is more of a 'fool (aka AI) proof' format and it almost ensures that the carriers will be all-out beasts.

comment are welcomed on this...

iirc, it was the faulklands war where the last naval battle took place like that...and the RN was sort of hung out to dry a little from the Argentine anti-ship missiles. Simon, Kly, or vingrjoe could probably comment more on this though...
I think anything that increases AI usage of carriers is a good thing. Considering that each turn represents a week or longer in time I think a carrier should have a bombardment representing air strikes flown from the carrier and additionaly supported by any aircraft carried by the carrier. The same goes for the AA ability.

I_batman

Sep 05, 2006, 06:30 PM

Nice shot of F-86, F-15, and F-16 in formation, plus a cool shot of the C-17 transport. That plane is NOT small.

This is from the air show in Toronto last weekend.

El Justo

Sep 06, 2006, 06:26 AM

ahh - excellent commentary as usual :goodjob:

i'm now back after several days of RL stuff and holiday obligations.

as for the sea unit HP discussion, i see what you mean Anthropoid. however, the RNG would have a brutal effect on those low-end HP setups i think. as a matter of fact, i'm leaning toward a system (Kly's!) that awards 1 HP for every 2500 lbs of displacement. this seems to have worked extremely well for the AoI sea units. so this will likely be a part of the naval revision.

iirc, each air unit is set to represent a squadron of planes. of course, we can look at it all again to see if there's a better way to represent these units in-game (in terms of bombing effectiveness against their targets).

cool pics too I_b. i missed the Atlantic City Airshow a few weeks ago and realized it when a formation of fighters (f16s i think) roared overhead as i was going home for lunch that day :crazyeye: those airshows a pretty cool :)

Anthropoid

Sep 06, 2006, 07:42 AM

. . . as for the sea unit HP discussion, i see what you mean Anthropoid. however, the RNG would have a brutal effect on those low-end HP setups i think. as a matter of fact, i'm leaning toward a system (Kly's!) that awards 1 HP for every 2500 lbs of displacement. this seems to have worked extremely well for the AoI sea units. so this will likely be a part of the naval revision . . .

Here is the Batman quote that led me to suggest lower HP for boats

As for cranking up AI carrier's AA and bombard capabilities, I was just about to float the concept of cranking up the quantities of planes each carrier can carry by a factor of 2.
The reason I suggest this is that since Midway, the carrier has been the prime projection of naval power. OK, nuke missile boats are pretty scary, but when you want to control a chunk of ocean, and the coasts near it, a carrier with lots of fancy planes is the most powerful thing out there.

IMO, right now, if you launch an attack with an naval air wing, you cannot inflict the kind of damage on an enemy naval group that would accurately represent what would happen in real life.

I mean, assume you have two carriers in a task force in the game. Each carrier is carrying 3 planes.

With those 6 planes you attack an enemy task force. The maximum damage you would do might be 12 pips of damage. I assume there is a fair bit of missing, and some or your planes getting shot down with AA, enemy interceptors.
Say the task force you attacked had 3 surface ships escorting a carrier. They could have 20-24 pips of HP to start. Is it realistic to think that the firepower of the air wings of two carriers cannot do more damage to 4 ships?
If we doubled the capacity of each carrier in the game, would that more closely emulate the true firepower of a carrier?
I figure doubling the capacity of carriers is easier than altering the bombard capabilities of each air unit.

My point is this: historically, single planes have sunk ships (not often, but sometimes), which would indeed be a brutal effect. However, as Batman has pointed out, in most instances, when you launch 3 SQUADRONS of planes at a ship with 3 or 4 HP (even a single ship, let alone a stack), you have very little chance to sink it. While the game engine obviously has limitations, this situation, in which boats are basically invulnerable floating islands, except when attacked with an overwhelming number of opponents, seems to be unbalancing. Maybe lower HP is not the solution and would unbalance in other ways, but I think for a huge map, in which each ship unit represents one ship (except perhaps for transports and DDs) ships need to be vulnerable to being killed by single, moderate sized surprise attacks.

El Justo

Sep 06, 2006, 08:23 AM

i think the RoF is what needs to be targeted Anthro/Scipius, not the HPs. i mean, if those 3 squadrons each had a RoF of 2 or 3 or 4 or more then they could most definitely send the ships to the fishes as Adler likes to say...

however, i welcome all discussion on these topics and there is no real right or wrong imo. that is the beauty of these forums in that we can put forward different ideas, etc :)

I_batman

Sep 06, 2006, 09:42 AM

as for the sea unit HP discussion, i see what you mean Anthropoid. however, the RNG would have a brutal effect on those low-end HP setups i think. as a matter of fact, i'm leaning toward a system (Kly's!) that awards 1 HP for every 2500 lbs of displacement. this seems to have worked extremely well for the AoI sea units. so this will likely be a part of the naval revision.

iirc, each air unit is set to represent a squadron of planes. of course, we can look at it all again to see if there's a better way to represent these units in-game (in terms of bombing effectiveness against their targets).

I think we have to look closely at the tonnage each HP would signify, with minimums and maximums on HP.

Assume you go with 2500 tons/HP.
Compare an Adams class with a full load weight of 4500 tons, say to a Kiev class carrier, at full load weight of 43,000-45,000 tons. (and I am not even going near the monster U.S. carriers or battleships). Based on that, we would see a 2 HP Adams, and an 18 HP Kiev.

So if we assign HP on a linear basis, we get some massive skews.
So what about a scale based on logarithmic scale?
I did some some weird and wonderful math.
I won't bore you with the details.
But this is something I would propose using a log 2 scale.

Let's arbitrarily say a 2000 ton ship has 2 HP, and use that as a baseline.
Here is what I come up with:

2000 Ton = 2HP
4000 Ton = 4HP
8000 Ton = 6HP
16000 Ton = 8HP
32000 Ton = 10 HP
64000 Ton = 12 HP
etc.

Anthropoid

Sep 06, 2006, 03:06 PM

I think we have to look closely at the tonnage each HP would signify, with minimums and maximums on HP.

Assume you go with 2500 tons/HP.
Compare an Adams class with a full load weight of 4500 tons, say to a Kiev class carrier, at full load weight of 43,000-45,000 tons. (and I am not even going near the monster U.S. carriers or battleships). Based on that, we would see a 2 HP Adams, and an 18 HP Kiev.

So if we assign HP on a linear basis, we get some massive skews.
So what about a scale based on logarithmic scale?
I did some some weird and wonderful math.
I won't bore you with the details.
But this is something I would propose using a log 2 scale.

Let's arbitrarily say a 2000 ton ship has 2 HP, and use that as a baseline.
Here is what I come up with:

2000 Ton = 2HP
4000 Ton = 4HP
8000 Ton = 6HP
16000 Ton = 8HP
32000 Ton = 10 HP
64000 Ton = 12 HP
etc.

So it would take at least 12 squadrons to sink a Kiev CV? Does that seem "realistic?"

Is tonnage really that good of indicator of a ships survivability within the scope of the way combat is modeled in this game?

Again I'm no expert, so feel free to dispute or correct me if I'm wrong, but, I had the impression that tonnage would be only one factor. Damage control provisions, ship architecture, operational doctrine, etc., could all also play a major role in how well a ship stayed afloat in the face of hits. My main source here is:

http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889230/sr=8-1/qid=1157575203/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8252879-4166234?ie=UTF8&s=books

But I've read quite a few other websites and such about the Falklands war, etc.

I may not remember all the details perfectly, but here is my recollection. The Japanese ships sunk at Midway had a variety of tonnage displacements which reflected their age basically. The Akagi was very thickly armored around the belt because it was an old Amagi class battlecruiser hull that had been adapted to be a flattop under the constraints of the Washington Naval Treaty, in 1922 (31knots, 42K tons).

In short, this was a "heavy." But by virtue of its overall jury-rigged architecture, the wooden flight deck, the arrangement of the elevators, and the lack of sound damage control provisions, all that metal did nothing to save this ship from being sent to the bottom by one measly little one-ton bomb from a Douglas SBD Dauntless. Here is how it is summarized at Wiki

On 4 June she launched an air strike against the island and was attacked by American land- and carrier-based planes. At 10:26 she was attacked by dive-bombers from USS Enterprise and hit by one bomb. This hit set off explosions among the armed and fueled planes on her hangar deck that were being prepared for an air strike against the American carriers. The burning aviation fuel proved impossible to control. The same attack produced two near misses, one of which, by virtue of exploding in the water alongside the stern area, caused the rudder to jam off-center after an evasive maneuver 20 minutes later.

At 10:46 Admiral Nagumo transferred his flag to Nagara. Akagi stopped dead in the water at 13:50 and her crew, except for Captain Aoki and damage-control personnel, was evacuated. She burned through the night but did not sink. On 5 June Yamamoto ordered her scuttled by torpedoes from the destroyers Arashio, Hagikaze, Maikaze, and Nowaki. She sank at 05:20 with the loss of 263 men. Compared to the other Japanese fleet carriers lost in the battle, she was the luckiest, suffering the least casualties

True, bigger ships might be able to take more damage and not sink, but will there be anything worth saving once the fires go out? The answer for Akagi was no, and they scuttled it rather than have it fall into enemy hands.

Kaga, which was similarly heavy to Akagi went like this:

On 4 June 1942 Kaga launched air strikes against Midway before coming under air attack from American land- and carrier-based planes. At 10:22 she was hit by four bombs from dive-bombers from USS Enterprise, setting off explosions and fires among the armed and fueled planes on her hangar deck. Captain Jisaku Okada was killed by a bomb that hit the bridge. The fires proved impossible to control and the order to abandon ship was given at about 14:00.

At 14:10 the submarine USS Nautilus hit Kaga with a torpedo but it was a dud and did not explode.

Kaga's crew were taken off by the destroyers Hagikaze and Maikaze and at 19:25 she exploded and sank. It is not known whether the explosion was a result of the fire or whether she was scuttled by torpedoes. 814 of her crew were killed in the battle.

On the other hand, you have Soryu, which was fast and relatively light (34.5 knots 19.5K tons) which received three direct hits (from the game equivalent of 2 or perhaps 3 squadrons) and sank fairly promptly of her own accord (nine hours after being hit). Hiryu which was equally light and fast faced this fate:

While preparing to launch a third strike, Hiryu was attacked at 17:03 by thirteen dive bombers from Enterprise. She was hit by four bombs, three on the forward flight deck and one amidships beside the bridge. The explosions started fires among the aircraft on the hangar deck. Although Hiryu's propulsion wasn't affected, the fires could not be brought under control. At 21:23 her engines stopped and at 01:58 a major explosion rocked the ship. The order to abandon ship was given shortly afterwards and the survivors were taken off by the destroyers Kazagumo and Makigumo. Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi and Captain Kaku remained on board as Hiryu was scuttled at 05:10 by torpedoes from Makigumo. She sank at 09:12, taking 35 men down with her (another 350 or so had been killed by the bombs, fires and explosions). Thirty-five were rescued by the US Navy and taken prisoner.

The authors of the Shattered Sword book do a good bit of disputing received wisdom about why these boats sank, in particular standard theories about the planes being on the flight deck and this being the cause for the conflagrations that caused them to sink, so some of what is quoted above must be regarded as controversial at best. However, the main point here is that: tonnage was fairly moot as to whether these boats were destroyed, and in fact, you could even argue that it was the massive amounts of fuel and ammo in their bellies (which would correlate with their tonnage) that caused them to be destroyed. The SS book authors put it basically like this: The Japanese CVs, despite being powerful, big and having thick skins, were veritable tinder boxes, and Japanese doctrine made neglible provisions for fire control, either from an architectural, operational, or remedial standpoint, and it was this difference in damage control which caused them to lose their four CVs compared to only one American loss at Midway.

Thirteen dive bombers, that is the game equivalent of ONE squadron, i.e., one "unit" were responsible for sinking both Akagi and Hiryu. IIRC it was more "units" involved with Soryu, and of course, you also have to consider that during the course of Midway, a grand total of perhaps 6 or 7 different "units" engaged the IJN task force (maybe more than that, depending on how large a Civ3 airplane unit is supposed to be) from both American CVs and the island itself.

In sum: though it should not be automatic, it should be possible for one "airplane unit" that is on par with its target in terms of technological era to sink a major big ass ship, no matter how fricking heavy it is.

Achieving this with C3C game mechanics probably will not be easy, and may not even be possible, but to the extent that it can be partially achieved it should be sought I would say.

I_batman

Sep 06, 2006, 05:12 PM

Well Anthropoid, there is no questioning the historical facts.
And I wholeheartedly agree that tonnage should not be the only factor of survivability.

That is why I suggested a logarithmic scale, so the huge ships don't have such a massive advantage over smaller ships.

With my scale here are some examples:
4,500 ton Adams destroyer:4 HP
10,000 ton Ticongeroga cruiser:6 HP
26,000 ton Kirov battlecruiser: 9-10 HP
45,000 ton Kiev carrier:10-11 HP
78,000 ton Forrestal and 97,000 ton Nimitz carrier: 12-13HP.

Now, there are the other factors to consider.

In the Civ III world, we have attack strength, defence strength, AA strength, and bombard ability, plus the ability to carry missiles, if we want it. As I have said before, the missile-carrying concept ONLY applies to a human vs human game, since the AI will botch it up otherwise.

Here how I see the concepts:

Attack strength: Represents guns, torpedos when engaged in a battle where you can lob non-missile projectiles at a sea-based target over distances less than horizon. This also includes the quality of your fire control system.
In general, a ship with 1980 fire control system should be more accurate when lobbing shells than a ship with a WWII vintage fire control system.

Defence strength: Represents armour, guns, torpedos, and anything else that you can throw at an sea based attacker.
This also includes the sea-worthiness of a ship. ie. more water-tight compartments, better procedures to handle explosives, and following strict policies on keeping certain doors latched during battles. (saw an interesting documentary about how the Brits lost a bunch of cruisers at the Jutland becuase they did not follow their own policies).
I know there was a lot of back and forth when AoI 3.0 was being built regarding how to represent the seaworthiness of ships.

AA strength: Represents anything you can throw at attacking air units, and that also includes the sophistication of your radar and AA fire control.
In the TCW, this would also include AA missiles, so some ships should have a very high AA value, even without air cover.

Bombardment values: This is a tricky one, since the AI uses it to hammer land based targets, while I almost always use it on sea-based targets.
I think it should represent the ability of a vessel to bombard long range land-based and sea-based targets, so that means heavy guns, and cruise missiles.

That leads me into the last area which I have avoided, but talked long and hard about before, and that is naval vessels carrying actual missiles.
Because the AI is so dumb, the concept can't be used in a human/AI game.

Since the plan seems to be editing TCW to continue to be a human/AI game, I don't think the discussion about missile carrying makes any sense, except in my human vs human biq I am still creeping along with.

So if you start looking at all these factors, a complete audit of all ships needs to be done.
Something like a Tico may have 6 HP, with a high attack value, a low to medium defence value, and an extremely high AA defence value.
To attack it by air will be very costly, but if an Akula or Oscar gets close, without being detected, it could be lights out for the Tico.

Now, an Iowa, it would have 11-12 HP, very high attack, defence, and medium AA, upgraded to high AA in the later version. It would likely be the toughest thing in the game to sink. Almost identical to what it has now.

In your comments about the Japanese carriers, they would have a low defence value and low AA values.

I personally think that ALL pure carriers (Soviet crusier/carrier Kiev's bristled with tons of missiles and some guns) should have very low attack values, low to medium defence values, and low to medium AA values. (I could be wrong, but it seems that the U.S. fleet carriers AA was tied to its air cap, as opposed to intrinsic AA guns and AA missiles.)
In my opinion, carriers should have firepower and AA abilities tied up in the air units it carries.
Hence my suggestion to increase the amount of air units each carries.
I don't think a U.S. carrier task force is quite as scary if the Nimitz carrier has no planes on it :)

In summary, Anthropoid, these rules would make it pretty much impossible for a single squadron/wing of planes to sink a ship over 4 HP. Is that realistic? I don't think so, but I think concessions have to be made. Now, 2 planes (representing 2 wings/squadrons) would have a shot at sinking a 5-6 HP ship.

I dunno.....I mean all this talk is with us assuming the AI has the sense to use the ships in a realistic fashion.
How many times have we seen the AI just park its ships in harbour?

I have played this game so many times from both Cold War sides, and have seen the Soviet and U.S. AI hide from naval battle, that I am afraid the point may be moot, even if we nail a working set of naval rules within the editor.

BadKharma

Sep 06, 2006, 05:52 PM

I personally think that ALL pure carriers (Soviet crusier/carrier Kiev's bristled with tons of missiles and some guns) should have very low attack values, low to medium defence values, and low to medium AA values. (I could be wrong, but it seems that the U.S. fleet carriers AA was tied to its air cap, as opposed to intrinsic AA guns and AA missiles.)
In my opinion, carriers should have firepower and AA abilities tied up in the air units it carries.
Hence my suggestion to increase the amount of air units each carries.
I don't think a U.S. carrier task force is quite as scary if the Nimitz carrier has no planes on it :)

In summary, Anthropoid, these rules would make it pretty much impossible for a single squadron/wing of planes to sink a ship over 4 HP. Is that realistic? I don't think so, but I think concessions have to be made. Now, 2 planes (representing 2 wings/squadrons) would have a shot at sinking a 5-6 HP ship.

I dunno.....I mean all this talk is with us assuming the AI has the sense to use the ships in a realistic fashion.
How many times have we seen the AI just park its ships in harbour?

I have played this game so many times from both Cold War sides, and have seen the Soviet and U.S. AI hide from naval battle, that I am afraid the point may be moot, even if we nail a working set of naval rules within the editor.
US Carriers have always carried AA defenses other than their CAP. BTW the CAP is normally considered seperately from active squadrons that are carrying out other missions. When you look at that I think carriers should have a good AA value.

Cheezy the Wiz

Sep 06, 2006, 06:53 PM

Klyden

Sep 06, 2006, 09:58 PM

While I think the system I developed for helping determine the HP value of ships for AoI works for AoI, I don't know that it will work for this. There are way too many variables to look at in terms of what type of attack is coming and also in the materials used to build ships. For AoI, I did apply bonuses (Germans get extra HP because of the nature of the subdivision they had) and also penalties (French ships were absolutely notorious for being unstable). You could do the same thing here, but I think in different ways.

There is also another important factor to face here and that is we had actual battles from WW1, the Spanish-American war, and Russo-Japanese war to study to help us make good decisions and what "felt right" based on actual history. When it comes to the cold war, there is far less information available, so more of it becomes opinion and conjecture.

Not to repeat WW2 in the more modern era, but the reason the Japanese carriers got wiped out was because they were absolutely loaded with bombs, torpedos and fueled aircraft when they got hit. In other words, they could not have been more vulnerable. It is very true Japanese damage control was not that good and also true their aviation fuel systems were not shocked proofed or designed very well. However, I would point out that Shokaku got lit up by several bomb hits in the battle of Coral Sea and made it home under her own steam. The USS Franklin almost sank after being hit by two small bombs with a deck load of fueled aircraft. The US almost lost the Forrestel to a deck fire that started when a rocket accidently went off and hit a fueled and bombed up aircraft. The carrier had a deck full of planes at that time and damage to the ship and casualties to the crew were hideous and they did not even get hit by enemy fire. Bottom line for carriers is that in most cases, the biggest determining factor comes down to what the status of air operations is when the carrier gets hit. If the carrier has a deck full of bombed and fueled aircraft, it is going to be hard pressed to survive.

One of the other things that has changed is the deadly nature of getting hit on a average sized ship or smaller. They usually get sunk as a result of how deadly the weapons are these days or at the very least are reduced to hulks. While it is true that the Stark remained afloat after hitting a mine, she was basically a mess and out of action. Her back had been broken and the ship barely remained afloat. Larger ships generally favor being able to survive a hit and remaining afloat. The Tripoli also hit a mine in the gulf and while she was damaged, she had no issue leaving the area for repairs.

I think what will probably happen for TCW is a lot of the ships will have low hps. They get hit, there is a good chance they will sink and that is because the vast majority of the ships are small. Carriers will have a penalty compared to their size simply because of all the ammo and fuel they carry on board. One of the reasons the battleships were brought back was because they were a physically large ship and also armored. Now, while it might be easy to put one out of action (kill the sensors with a air burst), sinking it is another matter.

All in all, it will be interesting to work up a system with the severe limitations that CIV 3 has and then having it make some sense and actually working out.

Anthropoid

Sep 06, 2006, 10:48 PM

There is also another important factor to face here and that is we had actual battles from WW1, the Spanish-American war, and Russo-Japanese war to study to help us make good decisions and what "felt right" based on actual history. When it comes to the cold war, there is far less information available, so more of it becomes opinion and conjecture.

Maybe the paucity of naval engagements for us gamers to refer to in the last 60 years is a reflection of the fact that military leaders have come to the realization that naval vessels are exceedingly vulnerable in the modern age of rockets, chaff, etc.? :mischief:

Cheezy's comment about the single harpoon hit prompted me to wiki the harpoon, and that led me to the Chinese equivalent, the Yingji

The Yingji-82 or YJ-82 (Chinese: 鹰击-82, literally "Eagle Strike"; NATO reporting name: CSS-N-8 Saccade) is a Chinese anti-ship missile first unveiled in 1989 by the China Haiying Electro-Mechanical Technology Academy (CHETA), also known as the Third Academy. Since the Yingji-82 missile has a small radar reflectivity and is only about five to seven meters above the sea surface when it attacks the target, and since its guidance equipment has strong anti-jamming capability, target ships have a very low success rate in intercepting the missile. The hit probability of the Yingji-82 is estimated to be as high as 98 percent. The Yingji-82 can be launched from airplanes, surface ships, submarines and land-based vehicles, and has been considered along with the US Harpoon missile as among the best anti-ship missiles of its generation.[1] Its export name is the C-802.

98% is pretty high! :)

I_batman

Sep 06, 2006, 11:59 PM

Discussion is always good. Glad to see the posts after my last treatise, which followed another wordy poster. Right Anthropoid? :)

I emailed Klyden and El Justo after my last post that I see two differing philosophies emerging regarding naval vessel values.

The extremes of the of the philosophies are:

1. All ships have the same baseline HP and they are differentiated strictly by their attack/defence/AA/bombard values.
2. Tonnage comes into play when deciding on their HP value, but survivability on other factors comes into play, but to a much lesser extent, and would be reflected in the HP of the vessel.

Klyden has quite rightly pointed out that these other survivability factors would very likely be subjective, since we have relatively little historical info to go on.

I am one who falls closer into the first camp than the second.
I understand that a "lucky shot" can easily sink the largest of targets, but we have to look at the long term averages.

I would suggest that if one examines combat over time, the bigger ships have had a higher survivability rate than smaller ships.
Yes, absolutely, a single cruise missle can wipe out a carrier.
In fact, in my naval sandbox I have given both the Soviets and U.S. nuclear tipped cruise missiles (historically accurate) that would trash more than one ship.
But I think the odds are small for that to happen, and we have to look at the larger averages.

Oh, and BadKarma, keep on correcting me if I am wrong. I am not sure I agree with you on carrier AA, but I could easily be wrong.

The traditional armaments on two super-carrier classes are as follows:

Forrestal Class:
Sea Sparrow missiles (not sure on quantity of launchers)
3 Phalanx CIWS 20mm mounts [installed during SLEP]

Nimitz Class:
Two or three (depending on modification) NATO Sea Sparrow launchers, 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts: (3 on Nimitz and Dwight D. Eisenhower and 4 on Vinson and later ships of the class.).

In my opinion, I would think that a Kiev class cruiser/carrier or a Ticonderoga class cruiser is better equipped to handle incoming cruise missiles and bombs/missiles from air units.

If a carrier was so powerful, why not put two in a task force, and drop all other surface ships?
You would still need the Los Angeles subs, but not need the surface screens, if the carrier was all-powerful with intrinsic AA and anti-missile batteries.

And from a gaming point of view, we want the AI and human to build other classes to protect the carriers. If we have to unrealistically weaken them to make the AI build screens, so be it.

I come back to what I said on my last post. I would love to have all naval vessels accurately depict their real-life counterparts, but if the AI won't use them properly, the whole discussion is a waste of time.

Klyden

Sep 07, 2006, 06:32 AM

I find it incredibly optimistic to expect a 98% strike rate on any missile against a ship that has modern countermeasures and is active on defense.

While I have no doubt the Chinese missile is accurate against static ship targets that are not moving, crewed, etc going against the real thing is a totally different matter. I am reminded of Billy Mitchell's tests against the old German WW1 ships in the 20's. The ships were not crewed and at anchor.

This just highlights that there is little real world information available from actual conflict on how weapons will perform. I also believe that the Chinese missile is basically at the end of the time frame (last year), so it can be questioned if it would be in game or not.

El Justo

Sep 07, 2006, 06:51 AM

keep the comments coming gents :goodjob:

the more i think about it the more i begin to believe that the sea unit revision for this will differ slightly from the one we did for AoI. and Kly's points highlight that neatly i think. however, i do indeed think that Mr. 'Poid raises some good points regarding the 'sinkability' of certain ships in civ3 terms. so i reckon that all of this will be considered a great deal when revising the numbers.

as for the AI's notoriously poor naval behaviour...well...i'm also going to try to address this as well. i have a few ideas but i will have to investigate them more thoroughly once i have a chance to really sink my teeth into this all. what i want to try to replicate is the fantastic AI naval behaviour in the new AoI/ by this i mean that there once was a time when i basicly conceded the fact that the AI's use of its sea units was always going to be poor. however, this is clearly not the case (as AoI has righfully shown!) so, considering this, i would like to explore some of these options in order to enhance AI navies across the board.

Simon Darkshade

Sep 07, 2006, 07:29 AM

I personally hold that although mission kills are the way of the world, the system does not lend itself to a simulation thereof.

Anthropoid

Sep 07, 2006, 10:44 AM

I find it incredibly optimistic to expect a 98% strike rate on any missile against a ship that has modern countermeasures and is active on defense . . .

I respect that opinion and don't really have any basis to disagree. I think you are absolutely right about the paucity of info. The other thing is: so what if the missile hits? As you pointed out with the examples of allied ships in the Gulf, with modern damage control, even a waterline hit that might have proven fatal to a 1940s boat might have been survivable to later generations. Basically that boat-bomb that hit the Cole "should have" sunk it correct?

I suppose the sundry naval engagements in the ME over the past couple decades plus the Falklands is the best test case. Vingrjoe, Simon, and Klyden, you guys must know more about the details of the specific engagements in that little war?

Again though, my main point here is that, these architectural, procedural, and other fire fighting and compartment-sealing factors that have increased the survivability of modern ships really have little if anything to do with tonnage. In fact, (and now I'm just speculating) a Nimitz and a missile cruiser or whatever they call it from the same era, might have INVERSE survivability correlated with their tonnage. Even with all the most modern damage control a Nimitz is a floating bomb, filled to the gills with armaments, and fuel, and is expected to operate deployed for months and months. Smaller boats, while having less tonnage, may not be so relatively filled up with explosives (particularly the aviation fuel), and thus be relatively easier to save from sinking. There is of course the issue of sheer size, and the available number of counter-flooding compartments, etc., which a bigger ship (assuming equivalent damage control sophistication) will always have the advantage of.

I think, as always, the main difficulty is the simplistic combat dimension of the game engine. Imagine what we could do if it was a SMAC style engine!? Not to mention if there were elements like flanking, and something like "critical hits" for vessels. There are actually a number of dials and buttons in the editor that MAYBE could be brought into action with respect to tailoring air-sea engagements, but I have not even stopped to think about how they might influence things (e.g., blitz attack, ZOC, etc.).

vingrjoe

Sep 07, 2006, 11:02 AM

I'll have to disagree on high AA for the Iowa BB and carriers. Apart from it's airwing, a US carrier has no area defense for AAW. The CIWS and SeaSparrow are short range self defense weapons. Yes, they can be used against aircraft, but how many attacking aircraft are going to launch ASMs with a 50+nm range within the CIWS or SeaSparrow's range ?

The Iowa's five inch DP guns can also take down aircraft as well, but again, they have a short range compared to SAMs. The 5/38 DP guns on the Iowa have an AA ceiling of 37,200 feet and a maximum range of 8.5 nm @ 45 degrees elevation. So, they could be used against an aircraft coming in, dropping bombs, but it is my opinion based upon what I have read, that ASM are the favored weapon against ships, not bombs.

The CIWS max range is 1625 yds or 0.8 nautical miles. It's short range makes it a definate anti missile system.

The SeaSparrow of the 1980s had a range of 10 nm.

None of the above three mentioned systems are capable of providing area AAW defense, instead, they provide ship self defense against inbound ASMs and ASCMs. As much as I love the Iowa BBs, I want to be somewhat realistic. So, I would give the Iowas, Carriers and Spruances low AA numbers and any other unit that only mounts short range AAW weapons.

I feel apart from their airwing, carriers should not have high attack, bombard, or AA defense strengths. Of course, if these numbers for the carriers have to be fudged, to get the AI to build and use them, then I'm all for it, if it comes to that. I am also for the idea of possibly having carriers auto produced by a wonder, this would definatley put more value on them, at least by the human player.

I think aircraft bombard numbers should possibly be increased to reflect a squadron of aircraft packing large amounts of ASMs and/or bombs. Designate planes that carry anti ship weapons with lethal sea bombard but no lethal land bombard.

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I hope we all can come to some sort of agreement on a system that would work well and best represent combat and weapons within the limits of the Civ3 engine.

I_batman

Sep 07, 2006, 04:01 PM

I_batman

Sep 07, 2006, 04:07 PM

A buddy and I have been debating this one for some time.
Pretty much every modern fighter/interceptor is still equipped with some gun, be it a 50 cal, 20 mm , or 30 mm.

Are these ever used for air-to-air combat, or strictly air-to-ground strafing?
It would seem to be rather difficult to fight with a relatively short range gun in today's high speed/long distance air combat.

von_Clausewitz

Sep 07, 2006, 05:16 PM

The F4 was intentionally designed without an internal gun. It was the belief at the time that all air to air combat would be done using beyond visual range missles. It was realized in Vietnam that radar can't tell the difference between friend or foe, so the fighters would need to close to visual range. The pilots of the smaller and more manuverable MiGs at the time would keep the distance as close as possible to prevent missle engagement, 'knifefighting' tactics. It wasn't until the F4E model that an internal gun was included in the design, until then the older models usually carried a gun pod.

Not all air to air combat is high speed and long distance. If high speed and long range were all that are needed, current fighters would more resemble improved F104s, that and more air to air missles would be like the Phoenix. Turning radius, and manuverability are extremely important in modern air to air combat. The best example is how many of the newest and near future fighters have vectored thrust capability, its almost become as neccissary as radar. That vecored thrust isn't going to do much for a long range/high speed engagement, rather its going to be most handy for a close range gunfight.

nc-1701

Sep 07, 2006, 07:47 PM

Adler17

Sep 08, 2006, 12:33 AM

Well, at first we should add the RAM missiles as a technology for the time of about 1985+. These missiles are a replacement for other CIWS, as they are designed to kill missiles, planes and small boats (only lately).
However the Iowas can only be suited in an area with few aerial threads, as they still lack in a good AA defense, except the 5" guns and the 20 mm CIWS. They can, as two are still in the list of the navy, bomb the hell at shelling the coast and use 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 16 Harpoon anti ship missiles. They are also a great thread to seaborne targets, as additionally to the Harpoon 9 16" guns can fire. As most ships existing and newly built do not have any armour, a single hit can sink a ship, while the Iowa class is still very well protected due to her armour. So even if a missile is hitting, the ship will be still operational, in contrast ot most other ships.
The Iowa class was rebuilt because of the Kirow class battlecruiser of the Soviet, now Russian, navy. These ships indeed have a very strong air defence, and a good ASW defense as well, but they lack in weapons to attack seaborne threads.
So no, the Iowa class is still outstanding to fight also seaborne targets.

Adler

Klyden

Sep 08, 2006, 06:39 AM

I respect that opinion and don't really have any basis to disagree. I think you are absolutely right about the paucity of info. The other thing is: so what if the missile hits? As you pointed out with the examples of allied ships in the Gulf, with modern damage control, even a waterline hit that might have proven fatal to a 1940s boat might have been survivable to later generations. Basically that boat-bomb that hit the Cole "should have" sunk it correct?

Again though, my main point here is that, these architectural, procedural, and other fire fighting and compartment-sealing factors that have increased the survivability of modern ships really have little if anything to do with tonnage. In fact, (and now I'm just speculating) a Nimitz and a missile cruiser or whatever they call it from the same era, might have INVERSE survivability correlated with their tonnage. Even with all the most modern damage control a Nimitz is a floating bomb, filled to the gills with armaments, and fuel, and is expected to operate deployed for months and months. Smaller boats, while having less tonnage, may not be so relatively filled up with explosives (particularly the aviation fuel), and thus be relatively easier to save from sinking. There is of course the issue of sheer size, and the available number of counter-flooding compartments, etc., which a bigger ship (assuming equivalent damage control sophistication) will always have the advantage of.

I would disagree to a point here about size/tonnage. In a earlier example of two ships being mined in the gulf (Stark and Tripoli) the smaller ship was on the verge of sinking and the larger ship was able to steam under its own power and was clearly still operational if needed. Neither ship is armored to speak of, the only differences are where the mine hit (forward on the Tripoli and near the main engine space on the Stark). Larger ships also generally have greater reserves of manpower for damage control that can rush to damaged portions of the ship.

As far as the carriers go, a vulnerable area is the amount of munitions they carry for their planes, but there have been a lot of advances from the days of WW2 and the images of carriers burning brightly when hit. Case in point the carriers of WW2 had to carry av gas, which is very flammable compared to carriers of today who carry jet fuel (which you can drop a match in a open bucket and it won't catch on fire). Munitions are designed differently and have different casings these days in order to resist fires and not exploding when they are not supposed to. One of the things that hindered the Forestel efforts is the fact they were using bombs from WW2 and those were much more likely to explode in a fire than modern munitions.

To use WW2 as an example, I would point out that 1 torpedo would generally sink a destroyer say 80% of the time and yet larger ships were hit 1 torpedo and consistency stayed afloat. (There are a few cases when 1 torpedo was fatal). The same is basically true today in that 1 AS missile is usually enough to sink a destroyer sized target. Destroyer sized (and under) are the most common vessels and there are very few larger ships afloat compared to WW2 navies with their numerous cruisers. By this I mean in modern navies, most ships are 5,000 tons and under and this includes "cruiser" sized vessels as well. Really, the only thing that is different between "cruisers" and "destroyers" these days are the mission of the ship, not the size (case in point, the Spruance class destroyer is much larger than most cruisers while the Ticos are not much bigger than the Spruance). In WW2, a destroyer was around 1500-2200 tons tops. A cruiser checked in at up to 4-6 times the size if you go with the treaty cruiser of 10,000. You don't have that size difference in modern ships and very, very few ships over 10,000 tons.

The big thing in dealing with modern weapons is how lucky you got on where it hits (keep it out of the engineering spaces so you still have power and can move) and how fast you can get the fire out. Limited history has generally shown that on a missile strike, the actual strike itself is not what screws things up, but the fire after it. This is how all the British ships were lost in the Faulklands. They had aluminum superstructures and could not get the fires out after being hit by missiles.

nc-1701

Sep 08, 2006, 07:08 AM

El Justo

Sep 08, 2006, 07:12 AM

theres no way an Iowa could stand up to it. Iowas were great i there day but anymore there sadly out of date whaatever refits we give them.
ooo! i can hear the peanut gallery revving their engines!

w/out having the specs in front of me, i'd have to disagree w/ this. i mean, the iowas are perhpas the most powerful ship to ever have floated. i would think though that it's only real downside is it's AA defenses. but all else is incomparable imo...of course, this is just my opinion and i enjoy the banter :)

nc-1701

Sep 08, 2006, 07:26 AM

ooo! i can hear the peanut gallery revving their engines!

w/out having the specs in front of me, i'd have to disagree w/ this. i mean, the iowas are perhpas the most powerful ship to ever have floated. i would think though that it's only real downside is it's AA defenses. but all else is incomparable imo...of course, this is just my opinion and i enjoy the banter :)

The Kirov.

Displacement (tons): 24,300-25,860 tons standard
25,396-26,396 tons full load
Speed (kts): 32 knots
Dimensions (m): 251.2-252 meters long
28.5 meters beam
9.0-10.33 meters draft
Propulsion: 2 nuclear reactors
4 x 70,000 steam turbines
2 shafts driving 5 bladed props
turbogenerators: 4x3000 kW; GT generators:
Crew: 727 (aircrew 15)

Armament:

Missiles: 20 Granit (SS-N-19) ADGM S-300F 12 launchers, 96 missiles)
2x2 SA OSA-MA Total:40
ADGM Kashtan Total: 192 missiles (24000 cartiges)
10 Vodopad-NK (SS-N-16) (total: 20)

Guns: 2 AK-130 DP (130 mm; R: 28'800 m, 840 rounds)
8 x 6 AK-630 gattl. AA (6x30 mm; 6'000 rds/m/mount, 48000 rounds)

Electronics: Combat information centre
Radio communications system
Satellite communications system
Anti-ship missile firing control
RBU-1000 and Udav fire control system
Surveillance radar system
Low flying and surface target acquisition radar
2 Air defence missile system fire-control radar
4 Fire control radar for 30 mm air defence gun
2 Navigation radars
Active and passive sonar system
Electronic countermeasures system
Decoy dispensers
2 x PK-2 with 400 rockets
Other: 1 x 10 RBU-1000 ASW RL (R: 6'000 m, total: 102)
2 x 6 RBU-Udav-1 ASW RL (R: 1'200 m, total: 40)
3 /Helicopters KA-27

The Iowa

Displacement Light Displacement: 45231 tons
Full Displacement: 57271 tons
Dead Weight: 12040 tons
Length Overall Length: 888 ft
Waterline Length: 860 ft
Beam Extreme Beam: 109 ft
Waterline Beam: 108 ft
Draft Maximum Navigational Draft: 38 ft
Draft Limit: 37 ft
Max Speed 35 knots
Power Plant Eight boilers, four geared turbines, four shafts, 212,000 shaft horsepower
Armament 32 - Tomahawk ASM/LAM - 8 armored box launchers
16 - Harpoon ASM - 4 quad cell launchers

9 - Mk 7 - 16-inch / 50 caliber guns
12 - Mk 28 - 5-inch / 38 caliber guns
4 - Mk 15 - 20mm Phalanx CIWS
Combat Systems SPS-49 Air Search Radar
SPS-67 Surface Search Radar
4 Mk37 Gun Fire Control
2 Mk38 Gun Direction
1 Mk40 Gun Director
1 SPQ-9 [BB-61]

SLQ-25 NIXIE
SLQ-32 EW system
Aircraft None embarked
landing area and unhangared parking area
4 SH-3 or
4 SH-60
Compliment 1,515 ship's company
65 officers
1,450 enlisted
58 Marines
Builders New York Navy Yard -- BB 61, 63
Philadelphia Navy Yard -- BB 62, 64

Theres your stats.

El Justo

Sep 08, 2006, 07:40 AM

hey thanks :)

vingrjoe

Sep 08, 2006, 09:03 AM

First off, it wasn't the Stark in the Gulf War. The Stark was hit in the mid to late eighties by an Iraqi aircraft carrying Exocets. It was the Tico Cruiser Princeton and the Tripoli that hit mines in the first Gulf War.

In regards to neutering carrier A/D/bombard/AA defense numbers; yes I meant US and the majority of NATO carriers. It seems the Soviets are the only ones who have built carriers with ASM and area AAW weapons.

Regarding the Kirov versus Iowa. The Kirov has an edge with the 20 SS-N-19s. They have great range and good sized warheads; 1600 lb IIR. Here's the downside; the Kirov, like many Soviet surface ships, are one shot platforms regarding surface warfare. Whereas the Iowa, in addition to having 16 Harpoons and 32 Tomahawks (yes, the Navy had TASM in the 1980s, they had a 1000lb HE warhead with a range of 470 nm), the Iowa carries some 1200 rounds of 16" ammunition and sevreal hundred rounds of 5" ammunition. Also, the Iowa's armor is going to be able to absord and/or stop alot of those hits. I'm not sure if the SS-N-19 carries a shaped charge or just a standard HE warhead. If it is a standard HE, it's not going through the armor although it will make a mess of the topside. Even if it is a shaped charge, it's not as big of a threat as you think. I contacted Nathan Okun (to learn about Nathan Okun, go here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/default2_bioNO.htm) some time ago about the Iowa armor versus shaped charges. To paraphrase his reply, he basically said that the outer layers of armor (hull plating, bomb deck) could set off the shaped warhead before it hit the main armor belt or armor deck, depending upon the fuze delay. This would greatly reduce or even stop the shaped charge's ability to penetrate any further, because of a premature detonation. Even if it did penetrate, it is not like a 16" inch shell detonating in the ship. Shaped charges make a long, narrow hot molten jet that goes through armor and spalls out. If it doesn't hit any magazines or engine components, not much harm done to the Iowa. Whereas a large caliber HE naval shell will rip apart the inside of a ship.

Now neither the Iowa nor Kirov are going to be operating alone in hostile waters. Also, as pointed out in an above post, apart from a carrier group, the Iowas were intended to operate in medium to low level air threat enviroments. Now, if an Iowa SAG/BG and a Kirov SAG/BG engaged each other, first off, you would have the exchange of ASMs and ASCMs. Chances are, in a surface engagement, a number of missiles will be destroyed by SAM equipped escorts and the CIWS/BPDMS and a portion will get through. If the ships on either side were still operational, my guess is that they'd head for port quickly to repair any damaged and unsunk ships. Now, for arguements sake, say the US SAG, didn't suffer too bad, and neither did the Soviets. Soviet naval doctrine was to launch everything they had. So now you have Soviet surface ships with no more ASMs, and the Iowa SAG decides to close in. The Iowa can make 34-35 knots if need be to catch up to the Soviet group. Now, barring any Soviet sub threats, if the Iowa got within gun range (although highly improbable) of the Kirov, it's lights out for the Kirov. I'd guess three to four 1900 lb HE/HC shells and the Kirov ceases to exist. Now, this is all based on the Iowa not getting mission killed or any worse damage, and her escorts being in good enough shape to perform their role.

Twenty SS-N-19s all hitting the Iowa is not good, it's a sunken ship. Even ten would be a very bad day. However, three to four 16 inch HE/HC rounds turns the Kirov into scrap. Again, the probability of the Iowa getting within gun range of the Kirov, even if the Kirov is empty of SS-N-19s, is very low. The Kirov and her escorts would have to have battle damage that would hamper their retreat to allow such an opportunity.

The Iowa would definately be able to take many times the punishment the Kirov could handle. I'm not saying the Iowa is unsinkable, no ship is. However, her armor, size and many watertight compartments makes her a hard target.

Although I've added my say on this particular matter, let's try to keep from turning the topic into a ship vs ship debate. Let's keep our focus on how we can assist El Justo in polishing this scenario and making it the best out there.

I_batman

Sep 08, 2006, 12:22 PM

The Iowa would definately be able to take many times the punishment the Kirov could handle. I'm not saying the Iowa is unsinkable, no ship is. However, her armor, size and many watertight compartments makes her a hard target.

Although I've added my say on this particular matter, let's try to keep from turning the topic into a ship vs ship debate. Let's keep our focus on how we can assist El Justo in polishing this scenario and making it the best out there.

Agreed on improving the scenario.

I will make a point on the survivability of the modernized Iowa, in the game, not reality.
I have been unhappilly playing out a game on the huge biq, hoping against hope the AI would get smart and use its Iowa's.
Finally, it sent a Tico, an Iowa, and a transport into the Mediterrean in an attack against Corsica.
I wiped out the Tico fast with a couple Bear's and subs.
Transport goes down to a sub.
Now, the modernized Iowa class is left, as it is flagged as a king unit.
It took bombards of 4 Slava's, 4 Oscars, 4 Kiev's, and 1 Kirov to sink the 13 HP Wisconsin. I did not actually engage the Wisconsin, but just used the bombard capabilities of those ships.

Don't know if that is too much or too little or just right for game balance, not reality.

I sunk another moderinized Iowa with approx 11 Bear's, with the loss of 3 of them.

El Justo

Sep 08, 2006, 12:36 PM

interesting I_b :) and that's a sheet-load to send that iowa to the fishes :crazyeye:

Klyden

Sep 08, 2006, 04:14 PM

My bad on the Stark confusion. Stark did get hit by the missile. (I worked on her when I was on active duty by the way).

Besides the Princeton and the Tripoli, there is a FFG (at some point I may remember it or will have to dig around to find the name of the ship) that got wacked by a minefield. I remember seeing the tape over and over during training as it was used as an example of what a well trained crew in damage control could do in order to save a ship. The mine went off close to their main engineering space and the back of the ship was broken. The crew welded plates over the cracks in the superstructure to keep the ship from breaking apart and she was well down in the water. She was underway on her emergency propulsion units (good for about 5-6 knots under the best conditions) and had her emergency diesel for power. The point is that while the ship survived, it was close to a sinking condition and in war time, would have been scuttled.

Klyden

Sep 08, 2006, 05:00 PM

On the Iowa vs the Kirov event, I pretty much agree with the scenarios laid out. I would say take into consideration the mission assignment each ship has and you will find a distinct difference.

The Kirov has air defense/anti-ship as its primary mission. The Iowa is more for power projection ashore and ground support for the Marines. In addition, the Iowa was a "show the flag" type of ship and it was also used for potential intimidation for lower level conflicts. They certainly make an impression like no other if you have ever seen one in life and having one of those cruising off shore is a very powerful presence.

The other thing is the doctrine of the two sides was different. The Soviets had to rely on subs and missiles because they could not compete with the air power. The US/Nato would use aircraft as a bigger corner stone of their tactics. Their ships are armed accordingly.

BadKharma

Sep 08, 2006, 11:54 PM

I feel apart from their airwing, carriers should not have high attack, bombard, or AA defense strengths. Of course, if these numbers for the carriers have to be fudged, to get the AI to build and use them, then I'm all for it, if it comes to that. I am also for the idea of possibly having carriers auto produced by a wonder, this would definatley put more value on them, at least by the human player.

I think aircraft bombard numbers should possibly be increased to reflect a squadron of aircraft packing large amounts of ASMs and/or bombs. Designate planes that carry anti ship weapons with lethal sea bombard but no lethal land bombard.
Well I wasnt looking at increasing a carriers attack mainly AA and bombard and then mainly to try to get the AI to build and use them. Obviously a carrier should be escorted they never were meant to operate indepnedantly. Yes the current air defense of carriers is point defense. Other than ther combat air patrol supplied by interceptors.
I wish I knew the best way to get the AI to build and use carriers. Has anybody tested increasing the number of aircraft carried to see if the AI will fill them up or send them off undermanned?

On the Kirov vs Iowa issue the Iowas are ancient compared to the Kirov. I dont see how you couldcompare them.

Simon Darkshade

Sep 09, 2006, 07:07 AM

A lot to cover, but effectively comparing the two big ship types isn't correct; different navies, with different warfighting strategies and different methods.
Vingrjoe is correct on the shaped charge jet situation to my reading and viewing of expert opinion from the various warships boards.
Throw in nuclear 16" shells, Project Gunfighter and all its permutations, and then we move into what this scenario is - an alternate history, rather than a precise facsimilie. This can translate to suspending disbelief in respect to Iowa modernization going on to the second round, which variously included Sea Sparrows, more SLCMs and Harpoons, improved CIWS, improved secondary armament, and extended range sabot shells. If we wish to think of it that way.
On the flip side, there is the issue that the armoured belt is not in a location where some modern munitions would hit.

The essence is that we are not necessarily subject to the requirements of what came to pass. There is room for all interpretations under the sky.

Is autobuilding carriers and naval aircraft an option, given the apparent workability of helo carriers?

Klyden

Sep 09, 2006, 07:58 AM

Actually, the armor belt is in a good spot or bad spot depending on the time frame of the scenario.

Cruise missiles make an approach along the sea and at the last minute, do a "pop-up" routine and then dive into the deck. While Iowa does have deck armor, this would be a more hurtful attack I think. The problem is doing a "pop-up" routine makes the missile a sitting duck for CWIS and other point defense measures.

Cruise missiles now just make the low approach and try to strike just above the water line, which is precisly where the strength of the Iowa's armor belt lies.

This does assume that the ship has not taken evasive manuvers. Typically, they will turn away from a missile in order to provide a reduced signature to the missile. They could also turn into it, depending on the circumstances.

Simon Darkshade

Sep 09, 2006, 08:56 AM

True, the time does have an impact (forgive the pun). Another issue is the size of the ship, which did sometimes confuse sensors and aiming mechanisms.

Some Soviet/Russian ASMs have a high speed, high altitude approach, culminating a very fast dive, which does bring us back to some of the conclusions of the later Lion studies.

vingrjoe

Sep 09, 2006, 09:51 AM

Since this is alternate history, and I control the US in some games, I think I will give Pratt & Whitney the funding for the 16 inch scramjet shell. Those babies were projected to do around Mach 4 and have a range of 300-400 miles. Throw a guidance package in and oh boy.

I don't think SeaSparrows would have made it onto the Iowas. The books I have say they were planned, but it was discovered the gear couldn't handle the blast overpressure from the 16 inch guns. Now I don't know if this refers to the launchers themselves or the guidance radar.

Simon Darkshade

Sep 09, 2006, 10:00 AM

Possibly the radar, to my knowledge. I have heard speculation to that extent, but nothing solid. Pop them in ABLs, and if necessary, provide external guidance.

I see someone else is into the notion of the EX-147 and EX-148. Good show.

BadKharma

Sep 09, 2006, 10:00 PM

Scramjets would really give those 16" guns new life!

Adler17

Sep 10, 2006, 02:42 AM

The German Navy just developes a new 6,1" (155 mm) Naval gun out of the PzH 2000 tank howitzer to replace the 3" OTO- Melera guns, which are now standard. They shall get scramjet shells to have a range of over 80 km. I guess even bigger guns could get bigger ranges. Perhaps we will later see again ships with greater artillery, just like 60 years ago.

Adler

Simon Darkshade

Sep 10, 2006, 08:49 AM

The PzH notion has been floating around for a number of years, but has yet to be put into actual service. 80km is doable without scramjet shells for a 155mm gun, if the results from some South African tests are correct, through RAP and base bleed, among other methods. There have been big, long range guns before, and there still are now, although the NK Koksan is over advertised. Look into Project Gunfighter for some interesting tidbits.
The Russkie follow on to their large ships was supposed to carry a dual 152mm gun, which would have been countered with a 155mm gun or an 8" Mk71, given that the development in question occurs in a Cold War framework.
There is an interesting article on proposed increased gun armament from the late 1980s/early 90s over at Tony William's website, which has pertinence to the world of this scenario.

The idea of ship guns being used for ASuW as well as nominal NGFS and strike warfare is also one that has been bubbling about, and it certainly provides a cheap, all weather method of delivering firepower without the recourse to bombers or UAVs (which have their own concommitant risks).

Ah, the world of the TCW Deluxe, where all that is good can be again!

I_batman

Sep 18, 2006, 03:14 PM

OK Guys: First things first. My apologies for taking so long getting out a huge map PBEM. Real life work has intruded big time the last couple months, and the entire undertaking is coming along much longer than I thought. I emailed El Justo a naval sandbox (oxymoron??) that I am having some problems with, but progress is being made.

El Justo and I had a couple conversations, and we agreed it might be a good idea to list a whole bunch of ideas that have been floated out by a whole bunch of people over the past months.
This list we hope will generate discussion, and we can come to some kind of agreement on some ideas to at least try in the huge map PBEM, or maybe even in another small map PBEM.
I am going to try to keep the list pretty high level, and concise.
Forgive me if I have forgotten some concepts, and feel free to add to the list. Just keep the concept VERY concise (a line or two)

1. Naval units' HP tied by some mathematical formula to their tonnage.
Linear or otherwise to be determined. (lot's of work with all the naval units in the game)
2. WP and Indo-China get a lot more pre-placed low end infantry and very low end artillery to start.
3. WP, Indo-China, Arab League are allied together.
4. Conversely, there are no alliances at all (keep in mind this is an all-human game), but some kind of penalties come into play if there are historically inaccurate alliances created.
5. Rail lines removed from game, and road movement increased.
6. All civ's (including communist states) can only gold-rush units, and overall gold maintenance costs/unit go up.
7. Navy units not upgradeable to newer classes.
8. Most naval carriers have increased air unit capacity.
9. Most air units have increased bombard capacity. (Not an easy change due to the large number of air units in the game.)
10. My personal favourite, making cruise missile surface ships and cruise missile subs actually carry cruise missiles. (once again not an easy change due to all the naval classes affected by this)
11. Each of the 8 civ's has its own set of victory conditions. example:

a.Indo-China must capture South Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan.
b.Arab-League must capture Israel and Iran.
c.SEATO must capture North Korea, North Vietnam a couple cities in China.
d.WP must capture West Germany, France.
e.EU must capture East Germany, Baltic nations, Poland, other Eastern Bloc countries.
f. South America must capture Cuba, several African cities, Falklands.
g. U.S. must capture Cuba, all of Middle East, (Israel, Iran excepted).
h. UK I have no clue.

Things not up for discussion:
1. Full scale audit of all military units. (just too much work right now, and left for TCW 2.0)
2. Editing cities and their placement. Status quo.

Anyway, think and comment about this list. In the meantime, I will continue my slow battle with the huge pbem biq (set for Jan 1970 start). As I said, if this huge biq slows down more, then maybe some of these concepts can be tested in the small map biq, in another PBEM game.

Cheezy the Wiz

Sep 18, 2006, 04:37 PM

I have another idea, but it's hardly in the grandiose nature of these ones. Give ASW units, like a possible S-3 Viking (but more so for ASW helos) two moves, the first being to use recon, which would simulate dipping sonar or dropping buoys, and the second move for attacking.

Once all the ideas are in, we could post a poll thread in C&C for people to vote on them.

vingrjoe

Sep 18, 2006, 04:48 PM

7. Navy units not upgradeable to newer classes.

This would be more realistic.

I guess Civ3's abstract train of thought of 'upgrading' is getting a new ship at the price of losing an old plus cost difference. Looking at navies in real life, this is not the case. Virginia CGNs were fighting along with Tico CGs in the Gulf War. Now in real life, the older systems are obviously retired when enough new, replacement systems have filled positions by older platforms.

The only exception to this would be the Iowa BBs, since they don't technically upgrade to a different ship.

Cheezy the Wiz

Sep 18, 2006, 06:32 PM

This would be more realistic.

I guess Civ3's abstract train of thought of 'upgrading' is getting a new ship at the price of losing an old plus cost difference. Looking at navies in real life, this is not the case. Virginia CGNs were fighting along with Tico CGs in the Gulf War. Now in real life, the older systems are obviously retired when enough new, replacement systems have filled positions by older platforms.

The only exception to this would be the Iowa BBs, since they don't technically upgrade to a different ship.

I like this too, because we can scrap old ones! This would also open up other realistic overhauls, like the Kitty Hawk and the Baltimore-Oregon-Albany line.

Anthropoid

Sep 18, 2006, 07:09 PM

1. Naval units' HP tied by some mathematical formula to their tonnage. Linear or otherwise to be determined. (lot's of work with all the naval units in the game)

You guys already know my thoughts on this one. I'd just like to be able to sink some ships with a couple lucky hits from time to time! :p

2. WP and Indo-China get a lot more pre-placed low end infantry and very low end artillery to start.

I think this would be a good idea. Along these same lines, what about the "pre-placed invisible units" scheme (forget who posted about the idea, but it was back in like page 50 or 70 of this thread) to provoke the Korean and Vietnam Wars? Might not be so applicable to an MP version.

3. WP, Indo-China, Arab League are allied together.

Hmmm. Maybe for an SP version but for MP I don't like the idea of locked alliances, except maybe for UK and US.

4. Conversely, there are no alliances at all (keep in mind this is an all-human game), but some kind of penalties come into play if there are historically inaccurate alliances created.

For the MP Game I like this idea. However, make a simple house rule: war against traditional allies will result in 25% reduction in points gained per year, for a total of 3 years after declaring war on any traditional Free World Power ally (US, UK, SEATO, EU). This would make war AMONG the traditional Western allies, extremely rare, but it would allow each nation to act more autonomously, which I think would be very good for the MP

5. Rail lines removed from game, and road movement increased.

Sounds good.

6. All civ's (including communist states) can only gold-rush units, and overall gold maintenance costs/unit go up.

If you put this in place, then the need for WP to have locked allies will certainly be ameliorated dramatically.

7. Navy units not upgradeable to newer classes.

Sounds good.

8. Most naval carriers have increased air unit capacity.

Sounds good.

9. Most air units have increased bombard capacity. (Not an easy change due to the large number of air units in the game.)

Sounds okay I guess.

10. My personal favourite, making cruise missile surface ships and cruise missile subs actually carry cruise missiles. (once again not an easy change due to all the naval classes affected by this)

Sounds good.

11. Each of the 8 civ's has its own set of victory conditions. example: a.Indo-China must capture South Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan.

Meaning occupy all the cities for one contested turn? or hold it till the end of the scenario, else for a specified period of time (e.g., one game year)?

If the former, what you'll get are players rapidly building up their militaries and neglecting their economies, and then a whole bunch of wars all over the globe fairly early in the game. If the latter (which I think tends to be more realistic), you will get players using a combination of strategies.

Since it is an MP game you can say whatever you want with house rules! :)
so how about the following as a slight alternative to the conquest objectives you list below.

Lets say there are 500 cities on the map. Each one is worth 1 basic point if it is occupied for one solid year (or maybe two). However if it is a city in a "target nation" (basically the conquest objectives you list below for each civ) then it is worth 3 points if occupied for one year.

Thus, you could just say that, each tribe can win by conquest by holding _X_ additional percentage of their original city points for one solid year (or maybe two?). The simplest way to determine the percentage for each tribe is to start from how many cities they control at start, and then use something like the list of possible "target" and "wild card" cities I list below.

Players would be responsible for keeping track of their own status with respect to their points from conquested cities, and would not have to keep everyone else in the game updated until they had actually achieved a victory condition at which point they would simply have to document that: I've held this list of cities since X date, thus giving me Y city points, I win! This would add an element of the unknown, which in concert with "wild card cities" for each tribe would make the game more unpredictable.

I'll explain how the wild cards could work in more detail below.

Target Nations
Arab-League: cities in Israel and Iran are worth 3 pts if controlled for one solid year
SEATO: cities in North Korea and North Vietnam are worth 3 pts
Indo-China: cities in Iran and Pakistan are worth 3 pts
WP: cities in W Germ and France are worth 4 pts
S. Am: cities in Cuba, and Falklands are worth 3 pts
EU: no target nations, each conquested city is worth only 1 point
US: no target nations, each conquested city is worth only 1 point
UK no target nations each conquested city is worth only 1 point

Wild cards: at the beginning of each game, someone who is not playing randomly picks a number of the wild card nations in the list of possibles for each tribe that has them, sends each player and email to let him/her know what their wild card nations are for that game. These could be determined at random. These do not change during the course of the game, and the player must save a copy of the email to document what their wild card cities are. They do not have to reveal what their wild card targets are until they declare victory (further augmenting the intriguing and the unknown which make MP games so much fun).

Wild Cards are also worth 3 points for each year they are held
Arab-League: Turkey, Greece or India (2 of 3 possible in any given game)
SEATO: Siberia, Manchukuo, Indonesia (2 of 3 possible )
WP: Scandinavia, Turkey, Alaska, Japan, Manchukuo (3 of 5 possible )
Indo-China: Iran, Kazak/Afghanistan area, SEATO, Hawaii (3 of 4 possible)
S. Am.: Texas, Australia, Pacific territories of SEATO (not sure what is on the map), South Africa (3 of 4 possible)
EU: no wild card nations
US: no wild card nations
UK no wild card nations

e.EU must capture East Germany, Baltic nations, Poland, other Eastern Bloc countries.

I would strongly recommend that EU, UK and US be somewhat discouraged from conquering using the skewed conquer values I describe above.. Instead, in the basic lay out you've provided, they should have to achieve a certain level of gold and/or pop, and/or build a certain wonder to win. This, in combination with a locked alliance between US-UK, and a strong discouragement to go to war between anyone in the traditional SEATO-EU-US-UK alliance (by imposing a hefty 25% penalty on all city points controlled for three years following declaration of war on any traditional Free World Power), would create a dynamic more like real world history, in which the FWPs would share an interest in containing the aggression of others, but would also have an interest in NOT necessarily helping each other economically.

Victory conditions for major Free World Powers:
US: have a total of 1000% of their original population (total pop count in all cities), but make their key military units cost population points to build them(something like that)
UK: amass a total of 100,000,000 gold in the bank
EU: Build four wonders, all of which can only be built after a later stage Tech, which can only be built in the following cities: Copenhagen, Oslo, Munich, Ankara, Rome, Paris, or Jerusalem

vingrjoe

Sep 19, 2006, 02:01 PM

One thought came to my mind today. In regards to no upgrade on class of warship to another; how would you be able to stop producing x class of warship. When you upgrade to a new design, the old design is no longer available to be produced. Now, if one class does not upgrade to a newer class, is there a way to still cause the older warship design to become unbuildable after a certain amount of time ? Maybe a new tech that makes it obsolete ?

El Justo

Sep 19, 2006, 02:07 PM

yes vingrjoe - that is possible.

it's done by giving ship A a certain class of ship to upgrade to but here's the kicker: do not give it the 'unit action' to upgrade (or whatever it's called - the one w/ the 'load', 'pillage', etc) and voila! it disappears from the build que and it will not be able to upgrade.

PS-great remarks here over the last days guys. i will address some of them later tonight. work is a bee-atch right now :)

BadKharma

Sep 19, 2006, 02:12 PM

El Justo

Sep 19, 2006, 02:14 PM

techs can't make units obsolete but that upgrade trick described above does it for us. Klyden turned me onto that one btw for AoI. that is the exact method we used for the ships in AoI...

I_batman

Sep 19, 2006, 02:31 PM

Victory conditions for major Free World Powers:
US: have a total of 1000% of their original population (total pop count in all cities), but make their key military units cost population points to build them(something like that)
UK: amass a total of 100,000,000 gold in the bank
EU: Build four wonders, all of which can only be built after a later stage Tech, which can only be built in the following cities: Copenhagen, Oslo, Munich, Ankara, Rome, Paris, or Jerusalem

Well guys, glad to see we have started conversation again.
Anthropoid, wow man.
Lot's of thought on that last concept.
I am not sure if that is too complex to grasp. I have read it a couple times and still am a little lost. I would prefer fairly simple individual tribe goals, but I am just one man, and if the overall view of everyone is to accept what you have in mind, cool.

Also, I forgot about VingRJoe's helo/carrier fix.

And although I put down both increasing carrier unit capacity and increasing air unit bombard abilities, I think that is an either/or situation. If we do one, I doubt we will do the other.

Like El Justo, I am swamped right now with real life, but I think we won't start making decisions until the weekend, which gives more people time to think and comment on this.

There is no way I will have the huge map PBEM biq ready in September, but tweaks to the small map PBEM biq incorporating at least some of the the more simple concepts could be ready relatively quickly.

As I have said before, I really think the majority of these concepts only work in human only games.

Adler17

Sep 20, 2006, 12:38 AM

Simon Darkshade

Sep 20, 2006, 04:07 AM

They certainly have been authorized, but are not yet in active service; indeed, I do not believe they have been laid down.
A basic modular upgrade of gun is a possibility, if the system does not require through-deck installation - the notion of the 155mm, the 3"50 twin mount, the quad Borfors all work because they do not require radical alteration of the platform. Of course, the heavier the mount or turret, the greater the impact on the ship in terms of weight, balance and design. A little bit of armour is also in order as a gun sheild. You could probably do a Fletcher, but the result would be very strange.

El Justo

Sep 20, 2006, 09:51 AM

I emailed El Justo a naval sandbox (oxymoron??) that I am having some problems with, but progress is being made.
i hope to get to that sanbox once AoI is up and running. so hold onto it for now bud...

1. Naval units' HP tied by some mathematical formula to their tonnage. Linear or otherwise to be determined. (lot's of work with all the naval units in the game)
absolutely - there's going to be a wholesale revision i think. however, it won't be as cut & dried as the AoI naval stuff was.

2. WP and Indo-China get a lot more pre-placed low end infantry and very low end artillery to start.
yes and for the MP version also.

3. WP, Indo-China, Arab League are allied together.
this part i'm a bit skeptical on...i mean, i envision an MP version where there's no alliance set-up at all. i'll get into this more in a bit.

4. Conversely, there are no alliances at all (keep in mind this is an all-human game), but some kind of penalties come into play if there are historically inaccurate alliances created.
precisely :)
5. Rail lines removed from game, and road movement increased.
this is something i want to investigate - and for 2 primary reasons:
1. to remove the 'insta-move' aspect of the rails
2. and to chop time off the turns (what else is new?!)

6. All civ's (including communist states) can only gold-rush units, and overall gold maintenance costs/unit go up.
this would have to be combed over pretty good i think. however, a gold rush for the commies is definitely something i had in mind dating back some time now...
7. Navy units not upgradeable to newer classes.
yes - but we don't want the obsolete ones appearing in the build que any longer so we'll have to do that work-around i wrote about a few posts back.

8. Most naval carriers have increased air unit capacity.
i like this idea - but again - we'll have to give it a real hard look and do some comparisons, etc.

9. Most air units have increased bombard capacity. (Not an easy change due to the large number of air units in the game.)
yeah --sigh--this'll be a part of the revamp too i reckon.

10. My personal favourite, making cruise missile surface ships and cruise missile subs actually carry cruise missiles. (once again not an easy change due to all the naval classes affected by this)
yup - i assume it'll be part of the naval audit.
11. Each of the 8 civ's has its own set of victory conditions. example:

a.Indo-China must capture South Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan.
b.Arab-League must capture Israel and Iran.
c.SEATO must capture North Korea, North Vietnam a couple cities in China.
d.WP must capture West Germany, France.
e.EU must capture East Germany, Baltic nations, Poland, other Eastern Bloc countries.
f. South America must capture Cuba, several African cities, Falklands.
g. U.S. must capture Cuba, all of Middle East, (Israel, Iran excepted).
h. UK I have no clue.
yessiree. i like them and especially in conjunction w/ 'Poid's victory/wild card scenario.

and Cheezy's suggestion about the ASW arrangement for some of the air units seems like another topic we can revisit. iirc, that was one thing that got axed when we did v1.6. never say never though :p

1. Full scale audit of all military units. (just too much work right now, and left for TCW 2.0)
yes - to a certain degree - i mean, i think the ground units are all ok. but what i envision is for us to construct the TCW v2.0 SP file and then 'import' all of the rules, etc over into a new MP file.

2. Editing cities and their placement. Status quo.
hmm - if it is determined that some should be adjusted then by all means. but this is more of a topical issue right now.

PS-i would really like to see if we can utilize the huge map for the MP file b/c quite frankly, the possibilities on that hog are endless in an all human game.

i've got a few more ideas also which i'll share as time permits. nice comments though :)

El Justo

Sep 20, 2006, 10:16 AM

You guys already know my thoughts on this one. I'd just like to be able to sink some ships with a couple lucky hits from time to time! :p
yes, yes :lol: you may very well get your wish. it'll depend on a variety of factors though and it won't be as black & white as i had originally predicted (ie total tonnage strictly = HP values).

I think this would be a good idea. Along these same lines, what about the "pre-placed invisible units" scheme (forget who posted about the idea, but it was back in like page 50 or 70 of this thread) to provoke the Korean and Vietnam Wars? Might not be so applicable to an MP version.
it's funny that you mention this b/c i gave some real hard thoughts to including some HN air units when i first released this beast. i was thinking along the lines of the Vietnam War as well. however, the AI use of this is terribly unpredicatbale i'm afraid and this is the reason why i left it on the cutting room floor.

Hmmm. Maybe for an SP version but for MP I don't like the idea of locked alliances, except maybe for UK and US.
i am in agreement w/ this. i will even go as far to say that i don't like any of the tribes to be alligned. i'll get into that at the end...

...make a simple house rule: war against traditional allies will result in 25% reduction in points gained per year, for a total of 3 years after declaring war on any traditional Free World Power ally (US, UK, SEATO, EU). This would make war AMONG the traditional Western allies, extremely rare, but it would allow each nation to act more autonomously, which I think would be very good for the MP
i'd go even a step further and suggest that there be some sort of UN Security Council which would condemn any offending tribe. of course, the game play dynamics of it all would have to be sorted out. but i'm thinking along the lines of an embargo or sanctions.

...the need for WP to have locked allies will certainly be ameliorated dramatically.
i don't like this b/c both the Middle East and China had some issues w/ the Soviets in RL. plus, what about the ME knack for playing the Reds off against the Blues? that would be smooshed from the game if we locked them up.

Meaning occupy all the cities for one contested turn? or hold it till the end of the scenario, else for a specified period of time (e.g., one game year)?
i think he means as an 'end game' goal.

If the former, what you'll get are players rapidly building up their militaries and neglecting their economies, and then a whole bunch of wars all over the globe fairly early in the game. If the latter (which I think tends to be more realistic), you will get players using a combination of strategies.
i agree - but coming up w/ specifics will be a challlenge.

Since it is an MP game you can say whatever you want with house rules! :)
so how about the following as a slight alternative to the conquest objectives you list below.

Lets say there are 500 cities on the map. Each one is worth 1 basic point if it is occupied for one solid year (or maybe two). However if it is a city in a "target nation" (basically the conquest objectives you list below for each civ) then it is worth 3 points if occupied for one year.

Thus, you could just say that, each tribe can win by conquest by holding _X_ additional percentage of their original city points for one solid year (or maybe two?). The simplest way to determine the percentage for each tribe is to start from how many cities they control at start, and then use something like the list of possible "target" and "wild card" cities I list below.

Players would be responsible for keeping track of their own status with respect to their points from conquested cities, and would not have to keep everyone else in the game updated until they had actually achieved a victory condition at which point they would simply have to document that: I've held this list of cities since X date, thus giving me Y city points, I win! This would add an element of the unknown, which in concert with "wild card cities" for each tribe would make the game more unpredictable.

I'll explain how the wild cards could work in more detail below.

Target Nations
Arab-League: cities in Israel and Iran are worth 3 pts if controlled for one solid year
SEATO: cities in North Korea and North Vietnam are worth 3 pts
Indo-China: cities in Iran and Pakistan are worth 3 pts
WP: cities in W Germ and France are worth 4 pts
S. Am: cities in Cuba, and Falklands are worth 3 pts
EU: no target nations, each conquested city is worth only 1 point
US: no target nations, each conquested city is worth only 1 point
UK no target nations each conquested city is worth only 1 point

Wild cards: at the beginning of each game, someone who is not playing randomly picks a number of the wild card nations in the list of possibles for each tribe that has them, sends each player and email to let him/her know what their wild card nations are for that game. These could be determined at random. These do not change during the course of the game, and the player must save a copy of the email to document what their wild card cities are. They do not have to reveal what their wild card targets are until they declare victory (further augmenting the intriguing and the unknown which make MP games so much fun).

Wild Cards are also worth 3 points for each year they are held
Arab-League: Turkey, Greece or India (2 of 3 possible in any given game)
SEATO: Siberia, Manchukuo, Indonesia (2 of 3 possible )
WP: Scandinavia, Turkey, Alaska, Japan, Manchukuo (3 of 5 possible )
Indo-China: Iran, Kazak/Afghanistan area, SEATO, Hawaii (3 of 4 possible)
S. Am.: Texas, Australia, Pacific territories of SEATO (not sure what is on the map), South Africa (3 of 4 possible)
EU: no wild card nations
US: no wild card nations
UK no wild card nations
i like this idea. however, it would take a good dose of creativity to devise such a 'wild card' list. this is a good start though :)

I would strongly recommend that EU, UK and US be somewhat discouraged from conquering using the skewed conquer values I describe above.. Instead, in the basic lay out you've provided, they should have to achieve a certain level of gold and/or pop, and/or build a certain wonder to win. This, in combination with a locked alliance between US-UK, and a strong discouragement to go to war between anyone in the traditional SEATO-EU-US-UK alliance (by imposing a hefty 25% penalty on all city points controlled for three years following declaration of war on any traditional Free World Power), would create a dynamic more like real world history, in which the FWPs would share an interest in containing the aggression of others, but would also have an interest in NOT necessarily helping each other economically.

Victory conditions for major Free World Powers:
US: have a total of 1000% of their original population (total pop count in all cities), but make their key military units cost population points to build them(something like that)
UK: amass a total of 100,000,000 gold in the bank
EU: Build four wonders, all of which can only be built after a later stage Tech, which can only be built in the following cities: Copenhagen, Oslo, Munich, Ankara, Rome, Paris, or Jerusalem
yes, i like it. seems reasonable enough.

one last remark - and it is in connection w/ my desire for 'no alliances'. i propose, at least for the MP game, to introduce a format similar to the one i implemented into AoI and that is the 'raw material' units (ie the 'flag units'). by all this i mean that i would at least like to investigate the viability of introducing a system which awards points for returning certain unbuilable and spawned units back to one's capital. now, the TCW format for this would most likely be predicated around natural resources like uranium, oil, aluminum, plutonium maybe, uranium, steel, titanium, etc, etc. the kicker would be that these 'flag units' would need to be shipped back to one's capital (think of the stock c3c scenario The Middle Ages) in order to receive either gold or VPs for safely returning the little buggers. this system has been a tremendous success imo for the new AoI. so what i'm thinking is to try and translate this into TCW (at least the MP file) and see if it's able to be done or not.

Moff Jerjerrod

Sep 21, 2006, 08:20 AM

El Justo

Sep 21, 2006, 09:13 AM

Hi guys!

Looks like a lot of thought and work has gone into the next version! Good job boys I can't wait.

I thought I'd share with you some of my thoughts on the victory conditions discussed above. These are just my thoughts and opinions so do with them what you will.

Speaking from experience it sounds like these holding of cities and assigning points to them make it quite obvious to those involved that there is going to be nothing but non stop rockem sockem war. If this is the flavor/atmosphere that is intended with this scenario so be it. Just make sure that in the scenario desciption it is made clear to those considering joining a MP game.

These conditions of couse are fine for SP as most people love beating up on the AI but consider warning those who are looking for a friendly build 'em up MP game that this might not be what they want.
heh - sounds like post traumatic stress syndrome has begun to sink in :p

kidder - seriously though - you raise a valid point about the warmongering nature of the beast. and honestly, i want to try and avoid that aspect if i can at all help it. and the great news is that w/ lots and lots of open slots available for additional city imp's and wonders, we can build upon the 'empire building' aspect of the mod much like we did w/ AoI which imo is a perfect balance between empire management and warmongering. so what i hope to do is to re-investigate the city imps and wonders (ie add to them) for the express purpose of adding additional layers to the 'empire' aspect. :)

Moff Jerjerrod

Sep 21, 2006, 10:12 AM

Sounds good El Justo! :)

Now I'm for all out war as much as the next guy but this beautiful scenario deserves so much more than just war.

In the current version that I'm playing in SP (1.51 I believe) I find the experience to be that perfect balance you mention. Not as balanced as AoI but pretty close.

I've played as China and Israel so far, each radically different countries. With China there is just enough war to keep you happy and with Israel war is the only option to expand your empire. The variety is definately pleasing and is quite an accomplishement for a scenario this size.

Take SOE. That scenario is meant to be nothing but war yet they still managed to have some building aspect to it. TCW gives players a better choice if depending on what they want. As a side note anyone know when the next version of SOE is due out. It seems the website is down, at least for me, so I haven't heard a peep out of reconn et al.

El Justo

Sep 21, 2006, 10:18 AM

SOE is in an alpha phase right now i think. there's lots of stuff that needs to be hashed over before it's ready. but progress on it is being made :)

and thanks for the nice words bud. i'm hoping that the next TCW version will be 'wicked hahd core' :p but i especially appreciate constructive commentary from the long time guys like yourself :)

Moff Jerjerrod

Sep 21, 2006, 10:41 AM

'wicked hahd core' :p

:lol: :goodjob: Thanks bud you have my support especially since you speak my language! ;)

man o' war

Sep 21, 2006, 10:45 AM

Anthropoid

Sep 21, 2006, 10:49 AM

. . . i propose, at least for the MP game, to introduce a format similar to the one i implemented into AoI and that is the 'raw material' units (ie the 'flag units'). by all this i mean that i would at least like to investigate the viability of introducing a system which awards points for returning certain unbuilable and spawned units back to one's capital. now, the TCW format for this would most likely be predicated around natural resources like uranium, oil, aluminum, plutonium maybe, uranium, steel, titanium, etc, etc. the kicker would be that these 'flag units' would need to be shipped back to one's capital (think of the stock c3c scenario The Middle Ages) in order to receive either gold or VPs for safely returning the little buggers. this system has been a tremendous success imo for the new AoI. so what i'm thinking is to try and translate this into TCW (at least the MP file) and see if it's able to be done or not.

I think this is a terrific idea and strongly encourage it. Just to clarify: this would require that various tribes own a scarce number of cities at various remote spots (specifically overseas) which auto-produce flag units. One potential constraint here is: are there enough cities, and where do you put them? Suppose US gets 2 of these overseas trade cities, where do you put them to appropriately simulate overseas US trade? If US gets 2 does that mean UK gets 3 or 4? What about China, do they get ANY?

The other thing is, much like the actual number of victory points, amount of Pop increase, gp held, etc., necessary for the various victory conditions, there would necessarily be quite a bit of playtest work to pin down how many of these each tribe should have, where to put them, how frequently they should generate and what gp value they should render. The key principle being: they should not necessarily just be "gravy" that provides excess gp, but perhaps even be "necessary" to allow economies to flourish?

In any event, whether they are simply bonus economy or critical, they give a reason for navies besides protecting troop transports.

I_batman

Sep 21, 2006, 12:20 PM

The other thing is, much like the actual number of victory points, amount of Pop increase, gp held, etc., necessary for the various victory conditions, there would necessarily be quite a bit of playtest work to pin down how many of these each tribe should have, where to put them, how frequently they should generate and what gp value they should render. The key principle being: they should not necessarily just be "gravy" that provides excess gp, but perhaps even be "necessary" to allow economies to flourish?

In any event, whether they are simply bonus economy or critical, they give a reason for navies besides protecting troop transports.

OK, I started a loing email below about how much I love this idea for a MP game, but once I got deep into it, I just could not see how it was workable.
I gave up halfway through item #4, because I don't think it is workable, unless one of three things happens:
i. There are territories of the map that are not under any civ's flag, and house rules state civ's can only build improvements or cities to mine the treasure.
ii. The editor allows one civ to build an improvement on another civ's territory to mine the treasure, wich I don't think it does
iii. We create a 9th civ, and AI civ, that owns the majority of the treasure points, and the other 8 civ's fight for control of this territory.

Original thoughts:

I too like the idea of putting in the treasure concept as per the original CFC scenario and AoI.
I would like to see it added to the MP, and I think it should be "necessary" rather than "gravy".
Because as Man'o'War, El Justo, and Moff have quite accurately stated, this game should be about more than war. (Much as I love it). Managing a successful economy should be a vicory condition as well, as Anthropoid suggested.
Plus, if everyone is trying to run an a tighter economy, war becomes much more expensive proposition, and less likely to happen.

Now, how to make that happen??

1. First thing I believe would be to increase gold maintenance costs of units, some of the major city modifications, and some of the wonders. (one of my original 11 concepts floated for discussion)
Maintaining the infrastructure of a successful civilization and standing army has always been expensive.
And I think there is too much money floating around in the huge biq game. I am playing WP in 1980, and am cranking out 7700 GP surplus/turn, while having an military of over 400 units, and just about every city modification possible. If we increase maintenance costs, suddenly that surplus disappears.

2. All civ's go to gold-rush only to rush a unit, so all on level playing field when it comes to running their economy.

3. As per 1.6 SP, trade is allowed by land and sea, and late in the game, by air (one wonder). We might want to increase the benefits of trade on the population so trade is more valued.

4. The really tricky part: allocating treasure spots around the world to the stimulate movement of these treasure points.
I am not sure what is the best way to handle this. Questions/problems:

a. We can't have any one civ with an overabundance of spots within its borders, otherwise they can have a huge economic advantage.
b. UK, SEATO are at a disadvantage since they are so spread out, and require more sea based travel than Indo-China, WP, EU.
c. Quantity and type of resources that will allow for treasure to be produced. El Justo touched on it, and I think we keep it really simple. Just one resource: OIL, baby. It will be easier to manage that way.
But now we have problems how that resource is distributed on the map.

(and this is where I gave up, because I see a huge whack of problems within Civ III. And most of these problems can be worked around in Civ IV, arrgghhh)

El Justo

Sep 21, 2006, 03:32 PM

I'm not sure if anyone has any ideas about how this would be possable, but I wish that forteresses were far more useful in civ games. From my concise but comprehensive historical knowledge, military fortifications have played a major role in conflict untill very recently. I haven't used the civ3 engine extensively in a while, but is it possable to improve stats of certain improvments? Giving airbases AA ability, or improving fort's statistics would be cool, as long as it was kept reasonable.
hi man o' war :cool:

yes, you're right on all accounts. unfortunately, the airbases can not be granted an AA bonus. to be honest, the AI doesn't even really use them properly as it is (simply to use as a base for air ops, etc). however, the fortifications can be altered and iirc, i bumped up these defensive bonuses a smidge for TCW. again though, the AI doesn't use these well either (nor will the AI ever build them - ever).

I_batman

Sep 21, 2006, 03:40 PM

OK Guys: had some time today (just a lull before the storm work-wise).

I pulled some numbers on tonnage from various ships a few weeks ago, and shared with Klyden and El Justo.
I figured I would put this out there, and you guys could start battling on the concepts.

First off, I am defintely one who agrees with some kind of strict mathematical relationship between tonnage and HP.
Sorry Anthropoid, unless you are taking on a small ship, no lucky shot will sink one ship. Now, two good attacks by decent planes could sink an awful lot of ships still.

Now I think the "survivability" of a ship can be altered then using its offence value, defence value, AA value, sonar, radar, and missile carrying capacity.
By tweaking those values you can make a 10,000 ton Tico capable of pasting a 44,000 ton Kiev, but I don't think would be accurate.
But I think we need a common baseline for HP for ALL ships to follow.
I really think my modified logarithmic scale works.

Here it is again, posted a few weeks ago:

Tonnage/HP
2,000 = 2
4,000 = 4
8,000 = 6
16,000 = 8
32,000 = 10
64,000 = 12
128,000 = 14

So here is what I see for a good chunk of the US and WP ships. I am not fussy on whether they are for regular or veteran ships, but I just think a common standard should be applied.

U.S. :

Perry, 4100 tons, 4 HP
Knox, 4200, 4HP
Arleigh Burke, 8300-9200, 6HP
Adams, 4500, 4HP
Spruance, 9100, 6HP
Ticonderoga, 9957, 7HP
Iowa, 57,000, 12 HP
Skipjack, 3513, 4HP
Sturgeon, 4780-4960, 4HP
Los Angeles, 6927, 5HP
Nautilus, 4092, 4HP
Gato, 2400, 2HP
GW, 6800, 5HP
Ohio, 18,750, 8HP
Essex, 41,200, 11HP
Midway, 62,000, 12HP
Forrestal, 76,000-79,000, 12HP
Nimitz 97,000, 13 HP
Tarawa, 39,925, 10 HP

WP (which incidentally, built bigger ships, usually)

Moskva, 14,600-19,2000, 8HP
Kara, 8800-9700, 6HP
Sverdlov, 16,300-18,000, 8HP
Kotlin, 3500, 4HP
Kiev, 43000-45,000, 11HP (I think this might be the tougest WP ship, with its AA, anti-shipcruise missile, and VSTOL jets, and ASW helo capability)
Kydna 5500, 5HP
Kresta II, 7500-7600, 6HP
Kirov, 25,000, 9HP
Slava, 11,200-12,500, 7HP
Akula 7900-9500, 6HP
Oscar, 15,500-22,500, 8HP
Whisky, 1350, 2HP
Victor, 6000, 5 HP
Kashin, 4950, 4HP
Typhoon, 38,000, 10 HP (big sucker, eh?)
Charlie II, 5000-5400, 4HP
Udaloy, 8400, 6HP
Kilden, 3450, 4 HP

El Justo

Sep 21, 2006, 04:00 PM

I think this is a terrific idea and strongly encourage it. Just to clarify: this would require that various tribes own a scarce number of cities at various remote spots (specifically overseas) which auto-produce flag units. One potential constraint here is: are there enough cities, and where do you put them? Suppose US gets 2 of these overseas trade cities, where do you put them to appropriately simulate overseas US trade? If US gets 2 does that mean UK gets 3 or 4? What about China, do they get ANY?

The other thing is, much like the actual number of victory points, amount of Pop increase, gp held, etc., necessary for the various victory conditions, there would necessarily be quite a bit of playtest work to pin down how many of these each tribe should have, where to put them, how frequently they should generate and what gp value they should render. The key principle being: they should not necessarily just be "gravy" that provides excess gp, but perhaps even be "necessary" to allow economies to flourish?

In any event, whether they are simply bonus economy or critical, they give a reason for navies besides protecting troop transports.
yes 'Poid. that is the general gist of it all. ideally, one would have to ship these goods back home in order to receive the bonuses. the units are indeed autoproduced. however, for TCW, there are some quandries that we may run into if we are to implement a system which is even remotely close to the one we used for AoI.

let me clarify exactly what we've done for the new Age of Imperialism (AoI) mod:

there is one class only of the flag units and it is autoproduced by a pre-placed city improvement called a "Colonial Govt Building". now, this city imp is only available to the civs which historically operated a genuine colonial empire (ie Great Britian, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, the US, Italy, the Dutch, and the Belgians) and are only able to be built abroad (the 'no sea/air trade enables an 'isolation' of a resource's destination). so imagine these buildings pre-placed all throughout Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, Indonesia, the P.I., spots in the Caribbean, etc, etc. so they spawn these flag units which are called "raw materials from the colonies" every 13 turns. what happens next is that these units are loaded onto a TR and shipped back to one's capital (where the lone VP spot is for all civs). the 'raw materials' then need to be 'secured' by another ground unit and then they're sent back to the aforementioend VP and cashed in for 25 gold and 2 VPs/unit. 1 VP is awarded for the occupation of the VP tile/turn.

there's a set limit to the victory conditions also. iirc, it is somewhere int he neighborhood of 4000 VPs needed for victory. it's alot. i know. but the scenario (more like a mod really) is set to run for roughly 500 turns.

anyhow - the AI's response to all of this hokey-pokey stuff is off the charts. not only does the AI 'secure' and load these little guys (cool gfx for them too) and ship them back to their respective capital but you should see the stunning array of ships on the high seas. it is absolutely astounding the first couple of times you see it. each civ has dozens upon dozens of ships on the water and all kinds of different classes of them. anyhow - the bottom line is that the AI puts a heavy emphasis on guarding its convoys thus making for a very interesting and exciting naval aspect. and this almost has to be attributed to the fact that the safe passage of these 'raw materials' is a high priority.

note though that there is one pretty big caveat involved w/ this...and it is the prohibition of locked alliances. by this i mean that the whole format will not work (trust me - i tested in out the wazoo) if any 2 or more civs who are in this little 'rat race' (spawning the flag units and shipping them back home) are alligned w/ one another. for example, i originally had the Lowlands civ alligned w/ Great Britain during really early phases of AoI testing and the Dutch and Belgian overseas units were doing a nice job of 'securing' the goods and even shipping them back towards Europe. however, for some crazy reason, the Lowlands TRs would drop off their flag units in England and just leave them there. so - i removed all of the allainces and voila! it worked like a charm and it inserted a whole new strategy into the game: the 'watch your ass-neck' strategy.

i write about all of this simply to shed light on my points of reference wrt possible TCW dynamics and the process of implementing these flag units for VPs. and it's clear that this theory would work only really for the MP game and not the SP one. i mean, sure, it could work in the SP mode but there's the chance of the non-historical confrontations. i guess it's up to the tastes of the player but this is not something that is all that appealing to me in SP mode. an all human endeavor is much, much more enticing though.

as for you additional suggestions re population pts, gold, etc. definitely - there's a few things that can be awarded like wodners being built, culture values, city counts and some others. this would of course require a great deal of testing. but that is nothing that would stop me from at least trying it. hell, it took just about a full year to come up w/ v1.6 of TCW.

as for possible flag spawing locations for TCW - i don't know off the top of my head. there's some easy ones like the oil in the ME, uranium in Africa, oil in TX and Canada. but it is not as cut and dried like AoI (ie only the colonial locales). this would have to be investigated some i guess and depend mainly on which resources would enable which flag spawning city imps/wonders. iow, TCW would have multiple flag units whereas AoI has just the one ('raw materials fromt he colonies'). this can be done though...w/ a little creativity i reckon :)

Moff Jerjerrod

Sep 21, 2006, 05:53 PM

I think your numbers are valid I_batman :goodjob:

How do we translate tonnage into shield costs?

I_batman

Sep 22, 2006, 12:16 AM

I write about all of this simply to shed light on my points of reference wrt possible TCW dynamics and the process of implementing these flag units for VPs. and it's clear that this theory would work only really for the MP game and not the SP one. i mean, sure, it could work in the SP mode but there's the chance of the non-historical confrontations. i guess it's up to the tastes of the player but this is not something that is all that appealing to me in SP mode. an all human endeavor is much, much more enticing though.

Well, El Justo, you and I agree on 95% of all concepts, but not this one.
As per my previous post, I don't think the dynamics of TCW will allow this in MP, unless there is a 9th AI nation that holds most of the treasure which the other 8 humans pick apart.

It is just too complicated for the Civ III engine and rules to allow.

Consider the Middle East and oil. The Brits, French, USSR, and U.S. have been exploiting the region for the past 60 years.
Pretty much each nation has changed alliances more than once. At various points in time, Iran, Iraq, and Syria were essentially vassal states of the UK, US, USSR, or had a democratically elected government. The CIV III engine does not allow for the kind of partisan flexibility that the real world requires over a 30 year period.

You know the Civ III engine ten times better than I do, but I simply cannot see how there can be an balance in the 8 civ MP biq using treasure points for gold, much as I would love it.

Klyden

Sep 24, 2006, 02:47 PM

BadKharma

Sep 24, 2006, 03:04 PM

I'm not sure if anyone has any ideas about how this would be possable, but I wish that forteresses were far more useful in civ games. From my concise but comprehensive historical knowledge, military fortifications have played a major role in conflict untill very recently. I haven't used the civ3 engine extensively in a while, but is it possable to improve stats of certain improvments? Giving airbases AA ability, or improving fort's statistics would be cool, as long as it was kept reasonable.
Military fortifications became obsolete as soon as warfare became more mobile ie blitzkreig tactics in WWII. Also with the advent of airborne troops heavy fortifications could be easily bypassed. For a historical precedence look at the maginot line. Since the Cold War occured after WWII then I would say fortifications allready are on the decline.

I_batman

Sep 24, 2006, 07:14 PM

Numbers are a good start point I Batman, but I would treat subs differently. They may weigh that much, but subs have little reserve buoancy compared to surface ships, so I think that is a major difference between the two. I would consider at least a -1 if not a -2 penalty if you are a sub.

The other fly in the ointment is you have two ships with the same identical hull and same engineering plant with different values (Ticonderoga and Spruance). The reason the Tico weighs in more is it has a lot more equipment on board than a Spruance does in terms of weapons systems, but the hull is the same.

Wll, Klyden. I see your point about sub's. But keep in mind, this is just a baseline to give all naval units a common starting point.
I think a minus on low tonnage subs makes them incredibly vulnerable, even more than they should be. When I say that, I am still keeping in mind someone talking about "hammer blow, eggshell defence" regarding subs. :)
I think you said that about a year ago.

I would suggest that a 4000 ton sub (submerged displacement) should have the same HP as a 4000 ton (fully loaded) surface ship. But the two ships could be have significantly differentiated "survivability" by changing the defence values. No one would suggest that a 4500 ton Adams destroyer could not absorb much more damage than a 4100 ton Nautilus sub. So say one has a defence of 10, the other 20. Plus the AA value of the Adams would be much, much higher than the sub. Most subs would have 0 AA anyway.

As for Spruance/Tico difference in HP, I see your point about different HP for same hull, but stuff like that will fall through the cracks when you tie weight to HP. I think that the odd descrepancy like this counters the overall value of having a common baseline for all ships. And once again, the Tico AA/attack/defence advantages over a Spruance will more than counter the extra HP.

But the only way to see if this concept works is to test it, just like most concepts.

Moff Jerjerrod

Sep 25, 2006, 05:25 PM

Because I was curious I opened up the Civ editor and took a look at the 1.51biq for TCW.

1. I noticed that the flag for allow mobilisation was not checked in any of the techs.

2. The flag for allow unit drafting is enabled upon discovery of Military Organization.

Number 1 is of particular concern for me. Number 2 was just for personal curiosity and doesn't need any attention in the next version.

Moff

vingrjoe

Sep 25, 2006, 07:42 PM

I felt bad about going off topic with this post so I edited it. Please continue with TCW disussion.

Moff Jerjerrod

Sep 26, 2006, 05:13 AM

vingrjoe: That game looks awesome. I'll have to check it out but I hope my rig can handle it. I meet only the minimum requirements. Now the question is do I spend money on a new rig or do I get the PS3? ;)

Anyway back to the scenario. I tested out the Military Operations tech in a SP game last night as both the Israelis and the Soviet Onion. Despite discovering the techs I was still unable to draft. Back to the editor to see if individual countries have a flag that prevents drafting even if you have the tech.

psweetman1590

Sep 26, 2006, 07:01 AM

Moff Jerjerrod

Sep 26, 2006, 07:54 AM

Moff:
IIRC, only non-aligned civs can draft. I think it would be unbalancing if the major countries could do so, seeing how incredibly high and fast population growth is. And even when they do draft, all they get are paramilitary infantrymen.

Ah that makes sense! Thanks that info certainly clears up a lot for me wrt to this scenario. If that's the case then I think the draft should be left the way it is. You're right in that if the big boys also got to draft they would become unstoppable and that wouldn't be fair to the little guy.

This means the same goes for mobilisation. The non aligned countries should have it but not the superpowers.

psweetman1590

Sep 26, 2006, 12:01 PM

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't remember being able to mobilize as China (though they can draft). El Justo may have just removed it altogether, for reasons which I'm sure are sound, but which elude me for the moment.

Simon Darkshade

Sep 29, 2006, 08:24 AM

A couple of thoughts for later consideration:

1.) Utilization of two major levels of unit strength - brigade and division, with accompanying differences in capability. Work best for armor, infantry and mechanised troops, particularly when associated with 2; it also allows separate Soviet heavy tank brigades, various parachute units and armoured cavalry regiments.
2.) Units named and numbered after exisiting counterparts in 1950, or whenever different parts of scenario begin.
3.) More mothballing! Having two of the Iowas away provides balance, but it would be interesting to extend this in the case of several nations to their previous strength which was reconstituted when Korea opened up - not just battleships, but cruisers, carriers, escorts (with the earlier FRAM idea for Fletchers, Gearings and Sumners in the case of the US, and the RN frigate conversions) infantry divisions, armor and transport fleets.
4.) Ability to upgrade strength from National Guard divisions to begin with to 'regular troops' as more divisions called up for Cold War duty. Have this run concurrent with preplaced small amounts of regular army, and generic construction of NG type units - perhaps rename them Army Reserve, or applicable national label.
5.) Unbuildable minefields protecting inner Soviet bastions, thus preventing point blank bombardment of Vladivostok, Leningrad and White Sea ports.

6a.) Different artillery calibres for appropriate blocs - 105, 155, 175 and 8" for NATO and West, 122mm, 130mm, 152mm, 180mm and 203mm for WP and co.
This is mostly done already, but requires a bit of an audit, in regards to which countries get what, plus overhaul of graphics. Vague, distant possibility of bigger guns - 240mm howitzers and 280mm Atomic Cannon. Maybe even throw in British calibres.

6b.) Artillery bombardment rockets, SRBMs and multiple launch rocket systems over a diverse range of time - autoproduce some, such as Lance, Honest John et al.

6c.) To get around the issue of bases in Europe, a US base city in Southern Germany, designated as a headquarters. Possibly a smaller version for BAOR.

6d.) (For mega map games only)This would require a slightly distorted map, giving a bigger Europe. Currently, there is a lot of Greenland, South Atlantic and Pacific and other territory that is of no purpose. Perhaps a map audit, which also takes into account making South America and Africa of greater complexity. HN mercenaries of both sides in the Hot Zones, plus Rangers hunting Guevara...
7.) Generationally appropriate SAMs, with similar icons/characteristics - Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules (Perhaps even Nike Zeus), Hawk, Patriot and WP SAMs on the other side.
8.) An air - AF and naval - audit for potential consideration.

I have two weeks holiday now, so will give it some thought.

I_batman

Sep 29, 2006, 10:59 AM

I have posted the same question on the PBEM thread.

Is it time we take our lessons learned, tweak the existing small map biq with some of the various suggestions thrown around already, and start a new game on the small map? (my huge 8 man 70's biq is a painful mess)

Incorporating some of the easy changes that people came back with to my query a week or so ago should be relatively straightforward.
This would not include any wholesale audits, or substantial concept changes like my missile capacity, or doubling carrier capacity.

I am talking about stuff like more starting infantry for WP and China, removing rail lines, removing all alliances, adding some basic (and I do mean basic) individual Civ Victory Conditons.

I know Simon, Anthropoid, and myself,to name a few, are throwing around some heavy concepts that are not easily implemented and will take some time to think through, and that does not even including the unit audit changes El Justo and Klyden have in mind

Consider this new game as an interim biq before all the major conceptual changes and unit audits are implemented.

Does that sound reasonable?

Simon Darkshade

Sep 29, 2006, 11:17 AM

Most certainly, from my perspective.

Big map naval note 1: Just as displacement gives us HP ratios, a potential notion for movement could be 1 MP for every 2 real life knots - a DE has 10 moves, a DDG has 16, a carrier has 16-17. Maximum realistic speed for any unit in the time we are examining is 34-35 knots in good conditions. It is similar to what is already done, but it just struck me then as a groovy ratio. I would increase the speed of nuclear powered vessels by 1 to simulate their staying power - they may not win a drag race, but can go for years.

Naval note 2: The HP measures are very straightforward and realistic. Perhaps the earlier armored ships can have an adjustment to either this figure or their defence factor; one would think defence, but the armour belt does give some small added degree of structural stability in addition to its role.

Moff Jerjerrod

Sep 29, 2006, 12:02 PM

Simon I agree with all 8 points you made above.

The brigade/division option sounds very intrigueing to me. Obviously the cost in shields to produce a brigade would be less but so whould the units' firepower.

This option would allow the smaller nations to build up a military a little more quickly as well as provide the superpowers with some punch until their productivities reached a level to allow them to mass produce division size units rapidly.

I'm also for more anti aircraft options as well. It takes a long time to build aircraft in the beginning of this scenario but should SAM's and Flak also take a long time to build as well? I'm not saying cheapen the cost of SAM's/Flak to the point where it takes 2 turns to build them but it shouldn't take 17 turns to build a flak cannon should it?

Simon Darkshade

Sep 29, 2006, 12:21 PM

Flak cannons are an interesting case. They were on their way out in favour of missiles when our scenario begins, but hit their greatest potential in their final hour - Skysweeper and Green Mace come to mind.
Certainly Britain and the US did build up a good heavy flak defence in the early 1950s, of 90mm, 120mm and the aforementioned automatic 75mm in the latter case, and 3.7" and 5.25" in the former.
This was in fear of the Soviet bomber threat, which is not present in the early years in TCW; perhaps give the Reds a disproportionate arsenal of Bulls as a simulatory recompense?

The bigger flak cannons, and their SAM successors, took a bit to make - consider the German expenditure on AAA.

The current AAA unit I take to be the ubiquitous 40mm Bofors, which should be cheaper than the more effective stuff, if it makes an appearence.
It should take less time and money to build a Duster than a Hawk SAM Battery.

von_Clausewitz

Oct 03, 2006, 09:37 PM

Moff Jerjerrod

Oct 04, 2006, 04:40 AM

von_Clausewitz:

These changes look good and should make for an even better gaming experience with TCW mod. I'm in if you need someone to playtest.

Simon:

IIRC the Soviets continued to use flak guns into the '80s. s85 or s90 guns if I'm not mistaken.

Moff

El Justo

Oct 04, 2006, 07:16 AM

This is a simple MP scenario for the huge 50's map.

I imported the civilizations rules from TCW MP v1.52. Then reassigned the cities and units according to MP 1.52. I Imported the scenario properties and unit rules. Then I readjusted the movement rate of the ships, operation range of aircraft and airdroppable units, and the bombard range of missile units to the values from the 50's.

At that point I had a port of the MP scenario used for 'Nuclear Winter' onto the large map. I made some changes from there.
Removed locked alliances.
I switched the requisite tech for the Hermes and Colossus class carriers. *I think that was the intention to begin with.
I moved the Yankee class SSBN to Sub Tactics. *It was sharing the same requisite tech as the Typhoon and it upgraded to the Typhoon. First Yankee completed in 1967, first Typhoon completed in 1981. I figured it was good for the Warsaw Pact to have a nuke carrying sub earlier in the game.
I removed the Ceremonial Burial requisite from Space Program, Lunar Landing, Ballistic Missile Shield, Advanced Missile Defense and ICBM Plant. *That was restricting those improvements to the US and Warsaw Pact. That is good for SP, but for MP it provides all players with the opportunity.
I provided the Palace with enables air trade. * For MP, this will allow players to trade with everyone with minimal time delays.
I removed the requisite government Democracy from Overseas Trading Company. * This is the Small Wonder that allows air trade and should not be restricted to only Democracies.
Enabled paid labor for all government types.
Created new unit: Tu-160 Blackjack - cost 800; operational range 362; attack 1; defense 25; bombard 100; RoF 5; HP bonus 4; requires Oil, Aluminum, technology Stealth; available to Warsaw Pact. *It was a copy of the US B1 and the stats are similar, cost and capabilities slightly less. I felt that there is a late era gap for Soviet strategic bombers vs the US B1B and B2s. This provides a real world unit to fill the gap that uses existing graphics and text, copied from the B1B.
Reduced cost of T-34 from 450 to 400; allowed to Warsaw Pact, China, Africa-ME. *Already allowed to China and Africa-ME. This low cost armor unit should provide the Warsaw Pact with the capability to rapidly develop a counter force in the face of western aggression.
Reduced cost of M4 Sherman from 500 to 450; allowed to US, Commonwealth, European Union, SEATO and America Latino. *Already allowed to America Latino. This should balance the changes to the T-34.

There are other changes that I think would need to be made, mostly with workers/pollution. I would like to reduce the Public Works from a Small Wonder to a normal improvement (questionable about regular improvements auto-producing units though). There would be a requisite improvement to build one and this would be preplaced and unbuildable.
Another solution to pollution could doubling the city size level maximums. I think that the majority of pollution is caused by population, and that population pollution is caused only by cities that have reached size level 3. This is theory and I haven't tested this, but raising the maximum size levels could theoretically reduce pollution caused by population.
A third idea to reduce the strain on the reduced available worker pool is to allow infantry to clean pollution.

I know this doesn't address all the issues that have been brought up recently in this forum. In fact it actually addresses things that haven't been discussed. Otherwise I think this is as ready for playtesting as MP1.52 was when Nuclear Winter was started.
this is an excellent list you've compiled here sir :yup:

and yes, there are indeed several things that we will need to adjust for the MP (and the SP!) files. so this is a nice start i think. i know I_b had been tinkering some w/ this type of file but it never hurts to have multiple brains working at once :)

as a sidenote, i would think that we'd all have to survey the ranges of the air and sea units for this huge map. now, i ain't saying that what von_C transferred over from the SP huge file isn't accurate. i mean, he snagged the info from the file that i threw together. iow, i sort of cobbled that file together w/out any type of real thorough testing etc. so we should, at some point or another, have to go back in a double-check that we got the right ranges etc. this is part of the whole unit revision thing i'd imagined a while back (not a wholesale revision - just some tweaks/balancing/adjusting).

- i like not having alliances for the MP file
- sounds reasonable enough on the Brit CVs and Soviet SSBN
- i'm not sure i really like enabling all civs to build that high end technology stuff. i would like to know how others feel about this as it does deviate some from historical accuracy. of course, i'm open to suggestion on it :)
- allowing some more trade in the MP could make sense. here's another topic which i look forward to remarks.
- paid labor for all govt types is something we had tossed around before for both the SP and MP files
- those other unit additions/adjustments seem ok

re pollution:
yes von_C, upping the city size thresholds certainly alleviates the pollution issues. and i was finally able to confirm this w/ the new scenario i have (AoI). we upped the city size limits as follows: 1-19 (town), 20-49 (city), and 50+ (metro)
this adjustment has reduced population pollution dramatically. it's now almost non-existant to be precise. and we labored pretty good w/ trying to combat this pest (pollution cleanup) in the past. so maybe we'll see how this method works for TCW as it'd possibly free up the worker pool to concentrate or more efficient tasks like roads and mines :D

as for launching this hog now - i'm a little hesitant to start another game right quick. and by that i mean that i think we should be working on the SP and MP file simultaneously so that we can incorporate any changes made for the SP into the MP as we go. of course, we can test the MP files as we move along. but to start another round where we're sending the turns back and forth before finalizing the adjustments would be jumping the gun i think.

i've got lots of ideas floating around in my head about both the SP and MP files. and in time, i hope to address them and kick these ideas around a little w/ you guys and see if we can make some of them work (or dispose of them). :goodjob:

vingrjoe

Oct 04, 2006, 08:33 AM

I'd say enable National Guard units to clean pollution, but not regular army. National Guardsman have more of a mulit role in the US than the army, or at least I think that's the intention.

otacon_22

Oct 04, 2006, 09:22 AM

I'd say enable National Guard units to clean pollution, but not regular army. National Guardsman have more of a mulit role in the US than the army, or at least I think that's the intention.

Yeah, they have a more diverse role than the normal army. I'm not sure about enviromental clean up, but they do help keep order in cities and towns during a crisis.

El Justo

Oct 04, 2006, 09:31 AM

i don't think that pollution will be a problem in the next version ;) good ideas though...

Simon Darkshade

Oct 04, 2006, 11:22 AM

Simon:

IIRC the Soviets continued to use flak guns into the '80s. s85 or s90 guns if I'm not mistaken.

Moff

They continued to field them all the way through, with the ZSU-23s still kicking around in some areas. They hung on to their 57mm, 85mm and 100mm longer than the US did with their counterparts (the Skysweepers stuck around in some cases to the early 1970s), but they were the same old guns, rather than a modern production run. Furthermore, their experience led to a sequence of events that was far different from the US Army SHORAD saga.
Heavens, they still fielded anti tank guns, which do have a certain utility in some situations.
(Now, if they were to create a reply to the T249 Vigilante, then we are cooking with gas...)

Re: National Guard cleaning - The small problem is that they are currently immobile, and a common unit to all. If the US was to possess National Guard, and the other civs have City Garrisons or Army Reserves, then that puppy could be let out to play.
I like the notion, and it could combine with that mobilization idea I raised earlier - one can either keep them as handy, no/low cost home defenders, clean up crew, airfield defence and what not, or one could choose to upgrade them, to simulate calling them to the colours. The NG unit would then upgrade to a US Infantry Division or Brigade (as appropriate, and if such designation is employed) and gain greater combat punch for the loss of the special role.

Wargamer

Oct 04, 2006, 05:59 PM

El Justo

Oct 04, 2006, 06:38 PM

To Mr. El Justo and your team:

Thank you for gracing my console with this richly detailed mod. Your utmost attention to detail in terms of the scientific track (which was pleasantly skewed to produce a plethora of different military units for any power in the scenario, a nice touch indeed) and your civilopedia (godsmack rules!) set a superior standard of excellence. All of your units and terrain are beautifully rendered, and give a new rich life to CIV III Conquests. The terrain was so well done it reminded me of a probably forgotten wargame, "Pacific General," of the five star series, though your rendition of the world is far more lushly detailed.
I haven't even had time to play it, yet. I excitedly analysed the research track and found tons of detail for every unit in the game. It's awesome to find someone who takes an interest in modern military equipment. I love the fact that you and your team made, for example, MBTs, APCs, and ships for every country on the map, not just the big boys (NATO, WP, China, et cetera). This just adds volumes to the already high esteem I hold in this scenario, both in terms of fun and replay ability.

Thank you all for the time you put into the scenario.

And I happen to share your interest, by the way.
welcome Wargamer!

thank you for the nice remarks :D

we spent a great amount of time researching actual military hardware and trying to find and match up appropriate gfx. i did not however actually create any of the gfx. those are all courtesy of all of the fine artists here at cfc and elsewhere. i guess i just compiled the stuff. the terrain though is a sort of compilation that i put together to match the era(s).

unfortunately, i've never heard of "Pacific Generals" :blush: but i would bet that some of the guys in the thread may have.

we had alot of fun assembling the unit lines and we took a specific track w/ all of the units in that we classified infantry, MBTs, and APCs/mech inf differently in terms of unit stats. as a result, the AI generally builds a great variety of ground units. the same applies for the fighters, bombers, fighter-bombers, and helos.

and yes, we've had lots of fun re-playing it as different positions :goodjob:

we're actually going to do some slight revisions in the near future for this scenario. nothing major, just some things to spice it up some and enhance the game play.

Samez

Oct 05, 2006, 03:08 AM

I think a great addition to this scenario would be the nike-ajax sam and the pershing 2 mrbm for wgermany/lowlands or the US. They were both quite important either military or politicaly seen

Moff Jerjerrod

Oct 05, 2006, 04:44 AM

To Mr. El Justo and your team:

The terrain was so well done it reminded me of a probably forgotten wargame, "Pacific General," of the five star series, though your rendition of the world is far more lushly detailed.

I remember that game although I never played it. I do have Panzer Generals I, II, and III though. Great series for the time! :goodjob:

El Justo

Oct 06, 2006, 10:31 AM

a little OT but i thought i'd share this w/ our little TCW crew.

it is a sharply written peace treaty by Mr War himself, von_Clausewitz (our von_C, not the one of Vom Kriege fame ;) )

TCW Deluxe PBEM Peace Treaty (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4610022&postcount=900)

otacon_22

Oct 07, 2006, 06:26 AM

Wow, thats a pretty realistic peace treaty. Too bad you can only do that type of compromising in PBEM games and not in single player. I think it would be great to do that, or something similar, with the A.I.

Simon Darkshade

Oct 07, 2006, 12:02 PM

From the Leader of the Warsaw Pact to the Allied Powers:
Nuts.

(Just rewatched the old Battle of the Bulge film, so the reference slips in)

Pershings and the like could be covered by the generic MRBM, although more nuclear weapons makes the world a better place (that reminds me, I may post some of the accounts of the Great Crusade that made an appearence here a while back...)
Nike-Ajax was not as significant as it's successor, Nike-Hercules, but as I previously said, SAMs and AAA are an interesting area.

Wargamer

Oct 10, 2006, 05:58 PM

Hello all.

Mr. El justo, is it a bug or is it intentional that the US player cannot build B-52s? The only way in game I have gotten them is from the B-52 plant, but I seem to be unable to build them normally, though I have 1950's advanced flight, and all the resources needed. I understand if its flagged an "unbuildable" unit because it can literally flatten anything, anytime, anywhere, thus perhaps giving the US player a bit too much an advantage.

The naval and armored combat is a heck of a lot of fun with all those graphics. It's so nice the stats fit well, also, so that a weakened T-34/76 doesn't have too much of a chance against an M-48 Patton.

Forgive me if I missed it, but are there MLRS units in the game for NATO? Just wondering- didn't see them in the civilopedia. However, I did see the M4 SPRAs and the Katyushkas. Good stuff!

Also, does anyone else have trouble seeing the current in-game date? Everyting works so well in this mod I feel compelled to wonder if my computer is doing weird things...

Best regards,
Wargamer

vingrjoe

Oct 10, 2006, 06:01 PM

Wargamer, the B-52 is only autoproduced, and just as you speculated, due to game balance.

Wargamer

Oct 10, 2006, 06:08 PM

[QUOTE]unfortunately, i've never heard of "Pacific Generals" :blush: but i would bet that some of the guys in the thread may have.

It's a great old game, but unfortunately the turn-based system is insanely slow- the game plays WWII in the Pacific on the brigade level, with every brigade slowly moving around the map to engage enemies... almost impossible to play all the way through and stay sane.

Here's a link to a description (hopefully it works well):

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/gamespot/thumb/pacific-general/0/pacgen_screen003_thumb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/pc/reviews/pacific-general-4db4ea.html&h=150&w=200&sz=11&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=jLRscVDi7pRdsM:&tbnh=78&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpacific%2Bgeneral%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

El Justo

Oct 11, 2006, 07:37 AM

[QUOTE=El Justo]

It's a great old game, but unfortunately the turn-based system is insanely slow- the game plays WWII in the Pacific on the brigade level, with every brigade slowly moving around the map to engage enemies... almost impossible to play all the way through and stay sane.

Here's a link to a description (hopefully it works well):

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/gamespot/thumb/pacific-general/0/pacgen_screen003_thumb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/pc/reviews/pacific-general-4db4ea.html&h=150&w=200&sz=11&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=jLRscVDi7pRdsM:&tbnh=78&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpacific%2Bgeneral%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
hello again Wargamer :)

thanks for the link and it does indeed work ;)

vingrjoe is right. the buffer's are autoproduced only simply b/c they lay waste to anything in its path. i've used them very, very cautiosly in the past b/c if you lose some of them, you've gotta wait until the next one(s) are spawned in Seattle :)

the best method i've seen is to send in the fighter-bombers first to knock out the air defenses (usually AI-controlled air units on intercept mode). this way, you can feel out the defenses first and only then send in the heavies once the coast is clear. AA units though are another matter altogether as they can't be 'knocked out' the same way unless ground troops knock them out.

we did a wholesale revision of the land unit stats back in the spring/summer 2005. i think it worked out well and the AI seems to build a variety of units which is good.

there's a few MLRS units in there. we didn't overload the arty lines too much though. however, that is one class of units that may be in line for some additions assuming we can match up the gfx. that's the key really...

that date problem you're encountering is fixed w/ the civ3 conquest v1.22 patch. look on the homepage of the site here and you'll probably be able to find a link to it. you can plug it right in and pick right up where you left off. and the date should appear correctly for you :)

welcome back too :cool:

Theryman

Oct 24, 2006, 01:36 PM

I_batman

Oct 24, 2006, 02:35 PM

This game can become very interesting, very fast. Great one, Justo!

Playing as Israel (I love the underdog), I have started three world wars. The first one was on turn three- Soviets demanded some gold, and I rejected out of instinct. D'Oh!

A year later, the Arabs parked some units on my territory, and when asked to leave, declared war. Uh-oh...

A few months later, the indians did the same thing.

Despite all that, I have not lost a city yet, but neither have I taken any.

One question- in my first war, all the wars were immediately ended after 4 or 5 turns. Even the ones i was in, without any peace offering. If one of my allies makes peace, do I make peace, too?

If one of your allies make peace with your foes, you do too.
Same thing applies when war is declared. Well, that is not exactly true.
If you defend an attack within your borders, that will not drag the attacker's allies into war with you. But if you attack someone outside of your border, automatically you will be at war with its allies.

Israel is a really tough position to play.
If you want another tough position, try China.
And WP is brutal when playing at Sid level.

sixtysix

Nov 05, 2006, 05:15 PM

Well there goes another weekend! Glorious victory for the mighty Red army.:goodjob:

With the American Imerialists busy waging a war of oppresion against the ritcious armies of south america, no one seemed to notice 40 some divisions of armour land in quebec. Oops. Of course the Canadian's misguided Europian allies used the opportunity to try and retake Germany, but we.... dissueded them:nuke: . After we take care of the roving hoards of mutants and that Mad Max guy, Earth surely will be a workers paradise at last.

Now I'm trying to pick the side to play next, I've seen it cited, (although I could have misread), that it's possibleto play some of the smaller nations induvidualy. India or Canada as examples. But I can only seem to play them as part of larger alliances. Did I just read incorectly , or perhaps I downloaded a newer version.

Will Canada ever getthier revenge without England riding on its coat-tails?:(

El Justo

Nov 07, 2006, 06:21 AM

hi there sixtysix :) welcome to the boards

it is definitely possible to play w/ the lesser civs. each civ has their own line of units etc. Israel is perhaps the toughest challenge of them all b/c of their small population base. however, their units are buff :D

Moff Jerjerrod

Nov 13, 2006, 06:03 AM

I_batman

Nov 13, 2006, 06:52 AM

I started a game with Israel a few months ago. I made it up to 1954 before putting it on hold in favor of playing Scarface for the PS2.

However as Israel I did manage to conquer the Arabian peninsula and was making plans on invading the Eastern Coast of Africa.

Simon:

Oh how I wanted to tell them Nuts! (I'm the one playing as the WP in our PBEM) but alas I was too weak to do so.

Isreal is a really good position to play. If you can survive long enough to get Mekerva's, you do fine. In one Israel game I had 3 SOD's, one from China, India and the Soviets all converging on me. That was scary. If the AI was not so dumb, I would have been overrun.

Right now, I am playing a game I started as the Arabs. The Pan-Arab alliance now controls the entire Arab peninsula, Israel, Turkey, shares Pakistan and India with our Soviet allies, two cities in China (taken from the infidel U.S.), and Belgrade (taken from the French, who took it from the Soviets), plus a couple Central African cities (recaptured from the South Africans and U.S.).
The Pan-Arab alliance is closing in on super-power status.

Interesting thing though: the British and U.S. have both initiated nuke attacks against defenceless Central Africa, while the French and Soviets have not used any, as far as I can tell.
I have my store of chemical weapons, but fear the NATO nukes too much to use them.

One thing I am fooling with though (in my much promised, never delivered modifications) is giving some of the weaker civ's an option of more powerful naval units.
While clearly not accurate historically, I would think that a 20 plus city civ can support some generic ASW frigates (15/10/7), or some guided missile cruisers (20/10(10)/8).
It is really annoying for my Arab alliance to be absolutely helpless when the Los Angeles class come calling.
I can see them, but my coastal subs are no match for anything, even after a target has been bombed badly by my Floggers and Hind-24's (inaccurate use for the Hind's, but very effective).

I think weapons like this would add some flavour to the weaker positions, but should not be allowed until late in the 2nd era, or in the 3rd era.

I don't think there is any way to make a wonder or unit available dependent on the overall size of the civ, but I may use something like "must have a victorious army".

vingrjoe

Nov 13, 2006, 07:40 AM

I_batman, I agree that the weakers civs should have at the most, frigates. Also, as I mentioned in a much earlier post, they should get coastal patrol boats...Soviet vintage, those usually pack 4 ASMs. You could make them restricted to coastal tiles, to represent the brown water limitations, and give them a medium attack, low defense, but a higher bombard to represent the ASM's firepower. It would be a good representation of how they would have been used in real life; firing off their missiles and then running away before they would become engaged.

I_batman

Nov 13, 2006, 08:08 AM

vingrjoe

Nov 13, 2006, 08:54 AM

Yes, sounds good to me. Something like A/D(B)/M of 15/5(20)/6?

I'm guessing something in that ballpark.

I'll have to check a book I have: "Combat Fleets of the World 1986/87", that will give me info on patrol boats the third world countries had.

Samez

Nov 13, 2006, 09:17 AM

I just now "finished" a game as WP. (i hold Eurasia, Japan and some Parts of GB, but cuba is lost to Germany and Brazil?)
The key to early succsess was initalizing an early rop with iran-afganistan and then go for india which will quite helpless. Next stepp was to go for Korea and western China (to get a railroadconnection to india)
The European border i locked with BTR'S and infantery so their spys couldn't trouble my engineers. After going for China there were quite a lot of small conflicts with the NATO were navy and airforceunits of both sides were killed but no Cities captured. With Sturgeon Class subs comin (bombarment range of 2 and 4 rof my navy was nearly destroyed and just a whole buch of Bears saved my ass. Having a peacetreaty to rebuild my navy I tried not to get in war with Nato and conquered Vietnam. After building some Kiev class carriers (Karas are quite useless against huge stacks of Sturgeons) I got in war with Nato cause of Central africa declaring war on Australia New Zealand. This time my Katyushas shoed up to be quite usefull and I was able to capture the rest of continental far east asia and Finland (Helsinki and Oulu) and some parts of Afghanistan. during this war Cuba was lost to the Germans and Brazilians
My next campaign was a simultaneous war against continental europe, Iran and Japan. Iran/afghanistan, Japan, Yugoslavia and France were destroyed, germany survived cause of it's Cuban city... the introduction of US F14 and F-111 troubled my day quite hard and a lot of Bears and ships were lost.
But nevertheless I was able to destroy their pacific fleet and to shoot down their B52 with SAM...
One war later I captured the remaining parts of continental Europe and southern GB (those cities in range of my arty).
I think i will now end the game cause turn times are quite long and ther is a kind of pat cause neither I nor the USA/Cannada are able to send enough transports over the oceans. the next stepps i would think of is the use of ICBMs to destroy their airforce and MRBM to sink their subs. The VP counter is somewhere about 43500 for me to 17000 for NATO...

El Justo

Nov 13, 2006, 09:44 AM

interesting report Samez. thanks for sharing :)

as for the DDGs/FGs...their inclusion in the next versions is possible and those stats look about right. if i could add to them, i'd suggest a HP malus for them due to their smallish size.

however, any TCW revision is on hold for the time being. i've got a full plate atm and i just don't see myself getting to these files for at least a few months. but this scenario does indeed deserve a refurbishing and it will get one...in due time :cool:

vingrjoe

Nov 13, 2006, 12:47 PM

El Justo, take your time, I still have quite a few gfx I want to do for TCW yet.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 14, 2006, 03:24 AM

Osa class missile boats and other small craft would be very interesting for the smaller powers. Depending on the time, the Arabs can put together a half decent fleet.

Definitely take your time, El Justo. There is a host of good stuff tucked away in SOE, plus what vingrjoe is making or has made, plus other projects mooted on the horizon. Add in the impact of a naval audit, and things start to look interesting.

The RN and MN have particular room for expansion in the post war period and the first two decades of the Cold War; the JMSDF has some interesting options, even without going into AH - a CVH based on a CVE-105 hull was mooted in 1953 and a derivative approved (subsequently scrapped in cabinet) in 1960.

One mentioned the possibility of an expanded Red Fleet a while back in a wide ranging post.

I've got a whole bunch of 1950s and 1960s Janes coming in by ship over the next three months, and there are goodies in there.

Lots of unit potential allround, really, as well as the capability to build upon and adapt innovations implemented in AoI, SOE and others.

Something to consider, especially on the big map version, is the implementation of changes. Europe could be stretched to fit in more space, as could the British Isles, at the expense of the South Atlantic, Antarctic Oceans and assorted bits of Greenland and the north...not sure fully on the mechanics, but WW2 Global has a larger Europe and Britain...something to distantly consider, perchance.

Something that can go on any map is a little spice - that is, an enhanced role for Africa and perhaps South America with more cities, assorted bases, and guerilla groups to simulate the proxy wars of the period.

There is perhaps an argument to be made for North African civ to merge with the Arabs, and the free slot used for something further south.

Anyway, there is just a huge amount of potential and discussion that is possible for this mod. Great stuff.

El Justo

Nov 14, 2006, 06:49 AM

good points Simon :) and yes, there's some room, i think, to add some layers onto the existing model of TCW. specifically, i reckon that certain features and elements that we learned from AoI can be introduced into TCW (not the flag units though as this method would be problematic w/ the locked alliance setup of TCW). nonetheless, i do have some ideas that i want to try out in due time.

vingrjoe,
great news on the possibility of future units :) if i can be of any assistance (mainly in the prioritative manner), please do not hesitate to ask.

I_batman

Nov 14, 2006, 10:58 AM

Thorvald of Lym

Nov 14, 2006, 07:48 PM

Hello, all!

First, I must compliment all those who took the time to put this scenario together. From what I have seen of it, this truly is a masterpiece. :trophy2:
However, like a number of other people, I am having extreme difficulty in downloading the files. This is my umpteenth attempt, and though I have a decent internet connection, always seem to DL the file improperly; extracted both with WinRAR and the Zip utility that accompanies PowerDesk, I have counted no less than 42 errors in the compressed files:
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Abruzzi\death.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Avro Vulcan\death.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\B29\fidget.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Canberra\CanberraDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Challenger\ChallengerEDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Coral Sea\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Duster\DusterDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\F105\ThunderFidget.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\F14\TomcatDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\F4\PhantomDefault.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\F5Desert\attack.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\F6\death.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Hip\HipCRun.wav. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Indonesian Infantry\DPeacekeeperVictory_alt.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Iowa Class BB Modern\Default.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Iowa Class BB\AttackA.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Iowa Mod\Default.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Iranian Infantry\CommattackA.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Katyusha\KatyushaDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Katyusha\KatyushaRun.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Kirov\KirovDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Knox\AegisCruiserDeath.wav. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Leahy\AegisCruiserAttackSplash.wav. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Leahy\AegisCruiserDeath.wav. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Leahy\CaliforniaCGNDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\M113\M113ACAVDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\MirageIII\Mirage3Run.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\NJ\IowaWWIIDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\NJ\IowaWWIIRun.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Perry\Run.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Slava\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Soviet Infantry\SpetsnazAttackA.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Soviet Infantry\SpetsnazDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Spetsnaz\SpetsnazVictory.wav. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Spitfire\SpitfireRun.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Sturgeon\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Su25\Su25Fidget.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Sverdlov\AttackA.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Tarawa\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Tu95\death.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Turkish Infantry PW\x_japaneseRM default.flc. The file is corrupt
! E:\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\US Ranger\BlParachutisteVictory.flc. The file is corrupt
Like I stated before, others have encountered this problem, and some have managed to overcome. However, unlike most people, I am charged for uploads/downloads exceeding 2GB, and so it seems only natural that I should be as economical with my limited file-sharing ability as possible.

Might I suggest that if this problem persists, the main package be broken down into separate components?

Thanks. And keep up the good work. :goodjob:

I_batman

Nov 14, 2006, 10:53 PM

Something to consider, especially on the big map version, is the implementation of changes. Europe could be stretched to fit in more space, as could the British Isles, at the expense of the South Atlantic, Antarctic Oceans and assorted bits of Greenland and the north...not sure fully on the mechanics, but WW2 Global has a larger Europe and Britain...something to distantly consider, perchance.

Simon, my only concern is time on something like that. Changing the map is a nightmare, in my opinion, when compared to the other changes being considered, and those other changes still take months.

With all the other things being considered, I think map changes should be lowest priority, on the huge map at least.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 15, 2006, 05:17 AM

Certainly it is comfortably at the rear of any list of priorities, but something to throw into the ether for much, much, much later, as one implied - I was thinking one of the spin offs, as such.

El Justo

Nov 15, 2006, 07:07 AM

hi Thorvald of Lym. thanks for the nice remarks.

the files aren't corrupted i reckon. i mean, this seems to be an isolated instance in your case.

do you have WinZip on your pc? this is the compression utility that is used for the large DL file. i'm not sure if other compression/decompression utlities are compatable for a zipped file in WinZip. breaking the files down like that would be a nightmare i'm afraid. i guess if i were you, i'd delete any of the TCW files you've DL'ed thus far and try to DL the file again but extract it in WinZip only. let me know if you have any issues as i can help you through it.

I_b and Simon,
a new map isn't that difficult. but it is at the end of the line i think re priority. i could see us going to a map that was just a smidge bigger than the standard map we have now. of course, we could take an existing map of the preferrable size and 'import' all of our TCW data into it. there are a few options i think...

I_batman

Nov 15, 2006, 11:05 AM

Another thought: Creating a decent AA on specific subs.
This is part of an overall audit, but I am checking out the Soviet subs and the following is off of the FAS site for the Akula.

Key is the 2nd part of the statement:

The submarine's anti-ship missiles are the Novator SS-N-15 Starfish and the Novator SS-N-16 Stallion and an air defence capability is provided by the Strela SA-N-5/8 portable missile launcher with 18 missiles.

BadKharma

Nov 15, 2006, 01:04 PM

do you have WinZip on your pc? this is the compression utility that is used for the large DL file. i'm not sure if other compression/decompression utlities are compatable for a zipped file in WinZip. breaking the files down like that would be a nightmare i'm afraid. i guess if i were you, i'd delete any of the TCW files you've DL'ed thus far and try to DL the file again but extract it in WinZip only. let me know if you have any issues as i can help you through it.

I_b and Simon,
a new map isn't that difficult. but it is at the end of the line i think re priority. i could see us going to a map that was just a smidge bigger than the standard map we have now. of course, we could take an existing map of the preferrable size and 'import' all of our TCW data into it. there are a few options i think...
I use WinRAR rather than WinZip and extracted the files without a problem. I also tested it with some other programs stuffit, 7Zip, etc and didnt have a problem with those either. I think the problem might be with your internet connection not properly downloading the file. I would suggest using a download utility like get right. Breaking the file up into seperate parts really wouldnt do much good because you still need all the parts in order to play the scenario.

The thought for changing maps by importing all the data should work without a problem but you would still need to place all the cities and resources.

Key is the 2nd part of the statement:

The submarine's anti-ship missiles are the Novator SS-N-15 Starfish and the Novator SS-N-16 Stallion and an air defence capability is provided by the Strela SA-N-5/8 portable missile launcher with 18 missiles.
I wonder if that might make submarines too powerful. Wouldnt a sub have to surface in order to use portable missle launchers? And or for that matter track an airborne target? Because a submarines best defense is stealth and remaining underwater wouldnt that also make the sub more vulnerable to air attack?

I_batman

Nov 15, 2006, 05:46 PM

I wonder if that might make submarines too powerful. Wouldnt a sub have to surface in order to use portable missle launchers? And or for that matter track an airborne target? Because a submarines best defense is stealth and remaining underwater wouldnt that also make the sub more vulnerable to air attack?

You are right BadKharma. I had a look on an Defence India web site and found that the portable missile launcher is indeed shoulder mounted. Would be a waste of time to give them AA values, since they are much more vulnerable on the surface.

More stuff to provoke conversation.
Been playing with my naval sandbox, which lead me down the ugly road to a naval audit, and some suggested values I am throwing in my sandbox.

I see one big problem showing up with a lot of ships. If a ship is designed for ASW work, (ie. Kresta II), it may be deadly against subs, but has little firepower against surface ships. How does one recognize that fact in the A/D/bombard values. AA is fine, since that is separate.
So how does one differentiate between a ship that has high attack values against subs, but weak attack values against surface ships.
And another thing that is a pain, is something like the SS-N-14 ASW missile, which has a range of 50 miles against subs, but has to be completely reconfigured to be anti-shipping.

There is naturally an opposite ship, which is designed for anti-surface work, but crap against subs.

The attached spreadsheet may make some sense out of what I am saying.

Keep in mind when examining spreadsheet that my attack values are based on non-cruise missile weapons (guns). If a ship carried anti-ship cruise missiles they are handled explictly. Defence values are based on the ability to handle all attacks, including knocking down cruise missiles, ability to control damage, etc, but are are NOT related to tonnage of the ship.
AA is the ability to knock down aircraft.

Hope this makes some sense. I finished a good chunk of the WP ships. Next up is the U.S., then the U.K.

Oh, and I am also including my naval sandbox, for what it is worth. I have fooled with it a bit, and I really like the idea of keeping anti-surface ship missiles as a unique capacity. It is far from complete, and far from accurate yet.

The biq will only open in hotseat mode.

I_batman

Nov 15, 2006, 05:49 PM

Don't know why it did not take the biq first time.

Klyden

Nov 16, 2006, 07:54 AM

From what I have read, this was the first time an anti-ship missile was effective.

The sinking of the Eliat is about halfway down the article.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1997/autumn/s&d1-a97.htm

Actually, I believe a Japanese destroyer was sunk by a US launched missile at 20 miles. This was right at the end of WW2 and was air launched. The missile had a max range of 20 miles and I believe the code name on it was "BAT".

I would agree that the Eliat is probably one of the most quoted examples of missiles in the "modern" era, but I think it is more of a case of historical opportunity than if the tech was available.

The author quotes examples of the German sinking of the Roma and this is inaccurate as those were controlled glide bombs and not under power as missiles.

BadKharma

Nov 16, 2006, 12:22 PM

More stuff to provoke conversation.
Been playing with my naval sandbox, which lead me down the ugly road to a naval audit, and some suggested values I am throwing in my sandbox.

I see one big problem showing up with a lot of ships. If a ship is designed for ASW work, (ie. Kresta II), it may be deadly against subs, but has little firepower against surface ships. How does one recognize that fact in the A/D/bombard values. AA is fine, since that is separate.
So how does one differentiate between a ship that has high attack values against subs, but weak attack values against surface ships.
And another thing that is a pain, is something like the SS-N-14 ASW missile, which has a range of 50 miles against subs, but has to be completely reconfigured to be anti-shipping.

There is naturally an opposite ship, which is designed for anti-surface work, but crap against subs.

Unfortunately that will always be a problem with the current game engine and editor. I think the only way to differentiate the difference is to have powerful surface ships have the highest attack/defense with the A/D value decreasing until you reach the submarines and provide them with a high bombard and rof. It really is a difficult thing to work out because you cannot effectively differentiate betwwen target types other than aircraft. Also considering that a single turn represents a week or longer in time frame I feel that reconfigure time for missles can be discounted.

BadKharma

Nov 16, 2006, 12:25 PM

Actually, I believe a Japanese destroyer was sunk by a US launched missile at 20 miles. This was right at the end of WW2 and was air launched. The missile had a max range of 20 miles and I believe the code name on it was "BAT".

I would agree that the Eliat is probably one of the most quoted examples of missiles in the "modern" era, but I think it is more of a case of historical opportunity than if the tech was available.

The author quotes examples of the German sinking of the Roma and this is inaccurate as those were controlled glide bombs and not under power as missiles.
Klyden very good point. The Germans did sink shipping in the Med using advanced remote controlled glide bombs launched from aircraft. Missles really didnt become a weapon to be reconned with until guidance systems improved.

I_batman

Nov 16, 2006, 01:09 PM

Unfortunately that will always be a problem with the current game engine and editor. I think the only way to differentiate the difference is to have powerful surface ships have the highest attack/defense with the A/D value decreasing until you reach the submarines and provide them with a high bombard and rof. It really is a difficult thing to work out because you cannot effectively differentiate betwwen target types other than aircraft. Also considering that a single turn represents a week or longer in time frame I feel that reconfigure time for missles can be discounted.

Agreed on the editor problem. I have been thinking about how to handle this. Considering all my recommended changes are ONLY for all-human PBEM's, I think very clear Civlopedia explanations of how each ship operated, with some basic house rules and honesty from a player, and we should be OK. One thought that has come to mind is use the bombard capability in a dual capacity:

1. If a ship was designated with ASW capabilities, which included ASW missiles, then the bombard capability of the ship emulates the ASW missiles attacking subs only, and rated accordingly.
2. If the ship had no ASW capability (Sverdlov gun cruiser, Iowa 16 inch guns), but carried guns that could do shore bombardment, then they are used for that purpose.
3. Ships are not allowed to use the bombard capabilities against other ships. That is what the attack values are for, and that is how the AI would use them in an SP game.
4. If a ship carries heavy guns and ASW missiles, then the bombard usage is both #1 and #2. I think this might be only a couple ships at most, if any.

So lets look at a really tough modern ship then, the Tico.

a. It has a low attack value, to represent its small guns and designed purpose not to engage large surface ships with its guns.
b. High defence value to reflect its overall damage control abilities and its ability to knock down incoming missiles.
c. High AA value to knock down incoming aircraft.
d. High bombard values (only used against subs) to reflect its high ASW ability.
e. Missile capacity to reflect the ability to carry Harpoons and Tomahawks for anti-shipping and shore attacks.

This above concepts only work with humans only, but I don't think it is that complicated, if the Civpedia stats are accurate, and the human plays the unit as it was designed.

Oh, and the configuration time thing is a red herring. I think that once a Silex was configured onshore as ASW or anti-shipping, it was permanent.

Thorvald of Lym

Nov 16, 2006, 02:32 PM

Hello again!

I am pleased to announce (and you will no doubt be pleased to hear) that after much deliberation I have downloaded the scenario graphics 'properly', and The Cold War works without a hitch. BadKharma was right; all it took was a download manager.

The scenario looks even better in 'flesh-and-blood'. Once again, well done!

vingrjoe

Nov 16, 2006, 03:20 PM

I_batman

Nov 16, 2006, 09:01 PM

The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy (1991), states that the SS-N-14 Silex ASW missile, could be possibly used to attack surface ships. To my knowledge, the only ship in TCW to carry the SS-N-14 is the Kara class, the Kresta I carried the SS-N-3 Shaddock SSM.

I don't know if I see that there needs to be any changes made in gameplay, at least concerning the Soviet surface ships and ASW/ASUW. Maybe we should limit ourselves from getting to "in depth", we need to consider CivIII's great limitations. Of course, things would play different in an all human game compared to an AI versus human game.

Hi Vingrjoe.

Actually, my research, (FAS, naval-technology websites mostly, global-security.org) indicates that the WP changed from the Shaddock SS-N-3b anti-ship missile to the Silex SS-N-14 on the Kresta II.

From GlobalSecurity.org:
Responding to urgent ASW requirements, the SS-N-14 Silex anti-submarine system was employed on the much more capable Project 1134.B (Kresta II), replacing the four SS-N-3 Shaddock anti-ship missiles used on the Kresta I.

As for getting too indepth Vingrjoe, that is the important question. I hope I am starting to provide some tools that will allow us to make a educated decision, and then play-testing with a more complete version of a sandbox will see if makes sense to go through all the aggravation I am leading up to.

Do we revamp ALL navies along these lines, or scrap most of the concepts I am proposing, and stick pretty much with the status quo? I think we have to test to see if it worth it. Keep in mind, all this is for human only games. For SP games, no chance.

I hope more of the usual suspcts weighs in.

vingrjoe

Nov 17, 2006, 11:19 AM

I_batman

Nov 17, 2006, 11:59 AM

Well, for the past few days I have been testing to see what the AI will do with a Moskva that is setup only to carry KA-25s. I am not happy with the results.

I made wonders only buildable in one coastal city, Archangel'sk. I named them Moskva ASW Shipbuilding and ASW Helo Plant for lack of better titles.

First off, it seems that if the Moskva is given a decent Attack and the Naval Power flag, it will go and engage other surface ships. If the Attack is dropped low enough, the AI tends to keep the Moskva out of combat. When given a low attack, no Naval Power flag, and a Requies Escort flag, the AI keeps the Moskvas holed up in port.

In regards to using the Hormones...what a flippin' joke. Only once did the Moskvas transport them and only once did the AI use the helos embarked on the Moskvas, and that's because I preplaced a Moskva loaded with helos in the editor. What really pissed me off, was that the Hormones had the Immobile flag, and no Airlift or Rebase ability, yet the AI was able to transfer them to other cities...What the heck is going on ?!!! I placed a fleet right by the city with the wonders that auto produced the Moskva and KA-25, so I would know if the AI transfered the Hormones via ship.

The more I try to get Civ3 AI to do things, the more angry and frustrated I get. It's really sad when one considers the extreme limits of Civ3 AI and the editor.

I hear you brother, I hear you. I love TCW, way more than the original Civ III, but I only play the outgunned positions now, or the powerful positions on SID level. And the reason is the Civ III game engine.
I guess it was never designed for warfare.
That is why all the concepts/suggestions I am floating are for human only games.

The way I envision the "TCW franchise" enduring is by altering the Civlopedia where required to explicitly state what air units go with what naval units, and setting up house rules, for human games. There is no way we can rely on the game engine anymore to give us what we want, especially in SP games.

I figured out that I also can't have something like the Kiev transport missiles and planes. It is an either/or proposition, unless I tag the Yak's as tactical missiles, which is not so bad.

I have been playing a couple SP games off and on. One was with the U.S., one as the Arab alliance.
I took one European city as the U.S., and then I did no more offensive action. WP AI is still getting hammered, mostly by Iran. And it has built NO navy.

In the Arab game, WO AI is actually building Kirov's and transports, but nothing else, and then uses the Kirov so stupidly it lasts only a couple turns before it is sunk.

So unless we play PBEM games, all your graphics work is for naught.

vingrjoe

Nov 17, 2006, 01:03 PM

BadKharma

Nov 17, 2006, 03:15 PM

I_batman, the WP isn't the only one not building navies. Some time back, I played several games as WP. I sunk all the American carriers that were pre placed then later upgraded. After that, I did not see the US build any more carriers. Same situation for the Ticos. None were built after I sunk all of the USN Ticos that were upgraded from a destroyer.

Sadly, the Civ3 AI level hasn't passed pre-school.

Civ3 and CivIV is limited to these three enviroments for warfare: Land, Sea and Air. Now I think the land combat is okay. Air warfare is limited, especially since Anti Air defense for ground and sea units was an afterthought and not part of the original code for Civ3. Sea should've been divided into two elements: surface and sub-surface. Actually, sub-surface (water) should have been a total sepereate terrain type for units.

I love TCW as well, but trying to implement new ideas and running into brick walls with the AI, is discouraging me. I'm thankful for what El Justo and others have been able to accomplish with Civ3, but they, like everyone is limited by Firaxis' shortcomings/short sightedness.

EDIT: I think that Firaxis' intent was to keep warfare at a more vague level, versus getting into the specifics we are trying to implement. IMO, a little more effort into developing warfare would have gone a long way for Civ3, if Firaxis would have made the extra effort.
Yes unfortunately for SP games the AI limits what can be done. The complete lack of forethought on firaxis's part concerning carrier warfare is apalling in my opinion. Although it is possible to have enjoyable SP games they can never reach the difficulty of playing against other humans. I batman I am sorry I was mainly looking at your posts in the SP viewpoint. With good house rules I think the level of complexity could easily be acheived for a MP based game. Also then it wouldnt be necissary to flag aircraft to be unable to load onto carriers. I wish we could find a programmer to reverse engineer the coding so that a superior version of Civ3 would be possible but the legalities of doing that is problematic.

BadKharma

Nov 17, 2006, 03:18 PM

I_batman

Nov 17, 2006, 09:00 PM

What did the U.S. have before the Harpoon was introduced. Looks like the Talos was predominately a SAM.

vingrjoe

Nov 17, 2006, 09:22 PM

I believe our early SAMs and even the SM series can be used against ships. Of course, they cannot target over the horizon.

Klyden

Nov 17, 2006, 10:14 PM

I_batman

Nov 17, 2006, 10:14 PM

I believe our early SAMs and even the SM series can be used against ships. Of course, they cannot target over the horizon.

Thanks. Yeah, was just reading how the Standard Missile could be configured to go after ships.

And I read this two minutes ago:

The BT-3A was also the first Terrier which could be used effectively in a surface-to-surface (anti-ship) mode. The BT-3A(N) was a nuclear armed BT-3A (the only nuclear Terrier version), which had a 1 kT W-45-0 warhead.

Now I have to figure out quantities each ship carried.

I_batman

Nov 17, 2006, 10:28 PM

Talos and Tarter were strictly meant as surface to air. The Standard missile was a dual purpose surface to surface and surface to air missile, however, the warhead was relatively small for surface work.

US doctrine was that aircraft were the big anti ship weapon at sea and the thought was the ships could concentrate on ASW and AAW warfare at the expense of surface missiles. Given the huge number of carriers in service in the 50's and 60's, it is easy to see why.

Interesting the different doctrines.
U.S. had hugely expensive, powerful carrier based fleets, while the Soviet Union went with cheaper, missile based subs and cruisers.

Fairly asymetrical, but logical given the economies of the two countries.

The Cold War WP surface ships would seem to be a lot of fun to be on.
Imagine you are on a Kydna shadowing a carrier group. War is declared, and the best you can hope for is to launch all your missiles first at the group before the aircraft or subs sink you. That ship was never designed to get back home if war breaks out.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 18, 2006, 03:18 AM

The 3-Ts - Tartar could go surface to surface out to around 20000 yards; others could have a go with a nuclear round.

Nuclear ASROC was also capable of being fired to explode above surface targets.

Only other missile of note was the Regulus, for strategic strike purposes.

A variant of the MGM-52 Lance was proposed for shore bombardment under the name of Sea Lance in the mid-late 1960s.

Reds went for a different fleet for many reasons, including the very different perceptions of naval warfare of Stalin and Khruschev.

Typhon LR and MR would have been very interesting.

Number of missiles carried can be found variously in Janes editions, DANFS or Hazegray website.

designation-systems.net has a good level of coverage of characteristics, as one can see from your coverage in #3690.

I agree with Klyden - aircraft and submarines were seen as the killers of surface ships, although the gun cruisers and heavier armed destroyers kept a certain amount of capability. Airpower was king.

Klyden

Nov 18, 2006, 07:55 AM

There are a couple of reasons the Soviets went the way they did in doctrine. First, figure that they had 0 experience with carriers and it was likely to be years before they could get it all figured out and on top of that, it required a high degree of tech and such and would be difficult for a conscript navy to operate. The Soviets like things that are simple and work. Operation of carriers are far from simple.

Soviet ship construction involved trying to get as big of payload of weapons as they could for a first strike capability on the smallest hull possible. The idea is they would launch all they had first in a war of aggression and then it really did not matter after that. They really did not expect most ships to survive after war broke out, but the hope would be that they could neutralize as much naval power as possible before being eliminated in return. The Soviets considered their subs to be the biggest threat and they were right. After the British came close to losing both WW1 and WW2 due to enemy submarines, the Soviets figured that if they had a lot more subs at the start, that it would get the job done if necessary. (Germany started both wars with small sub fleets and had to build up their sub fleet during the war and yet came close both times to knocking the UK out of the war. Imagine if Germany had started either war with a large sub fleet).

The Soviets later came to appreciate what an American carrier group could do for power projection and intimidation and so they decided to get into the carrier business with the Kiev class and were aided by the developement of Vstol aircraft.

As far as the Civ 3 engine, lets remember that it was not designed to be a war game as its first priority, but rather a explore, expand and develop type. Doing something like TCW with the engine is sort of making a tool work for a job it was not designed for. As poor as it can be at times, I have seen far worse from purpose designed games. The big out card that Civ3 has is you can go multiplayer and then it does a pretty respectable job. The other consideration is to remember that TCW is more of a strategic game and not so much tactical in scope and nature. This is in part due to limitations of the game engine in that you can't have seperate sub, air, and surface combat ratings and defenses. Consider what the game was originally designed for, this is not suprising and I think most would be hard pressed to come up with a purpose built game that has those features and is worth a lick. (One of the best I have seen is Norm Kroeger's work, but that does not have the building/economic part of things that so many like control of).

El Justo

Nov 18, 2006, 08:08 AM

interesting remarks all :)

sadly, there are indeed some limitations w/ how, when, and where the AI uses (or doesn't use!) certain elements of the game. however, there are some work-arounds i think.

one of the tricks i wanted to test for a TCW revision was to lower the costs of the sea units en masse in order to prompt the AI into simply building more sea vessels. this is one feature that i tried w/ AoI and it worked well.

as for which air units are unloading and/or loading onto certain ships...i'm afraid we're hamstrung a little here outside of the 'tactical missile' flag.

vingrjoe

Nov 18, 2006, 08:23 AM

I had a thought in regards to larger size warship production, at least concerning the USA and WP. How about for carriers and the cruisers, have them auto produced by a wonder ? As I've stated above in a previous post, the AI doesn't seem compelled to make the Ticos, and on the Soviet side, I don't think the mid range ships are made much. This would obviously put more value on the carriers and missile cruisers.

Or as El Justo suggested, try out what worked for AoI. Of course my thoughts are regarding gameplay in the SP mode, MP is another story.

dferrill

Nov 18, 2006, 08:53 AM

I_batman

Nov 18, 2006, 11:19 AM

First of all i would like to say i really like this scenario i am playing China/North Korea and the turn times was fast at first but now they have slowed down to a crawl taking about 10 to 15 minutes between turns its now 1956 my question is why has it slowed down so much and has anyone else experienced this ? :eek: PS im playing the fifties version because i prefer larger maps.

If you are playing the huge map, and it is peace time, yes, you can expect long peacetime lags. I play the huge map on my super-computer (I like calling it that), which I purchased to play Civ IV. Even then, wait times can be 5-10 minutes, but the CPU never gets above 50% usage.

I_batman

Nov 18, 2006, 11:51 AM

Gents, I am making a concerted effort to get a more complete sandbox for MP games out there this weekend. I am having a heluva time with the editor to allow certain ships to carry fixed wing aircraft, ASW helo's, and anti-ship missiles.
The ships in question are the 2nd/3rd gen WP carriers.
I don't believe the U.S. carriers had much more than a ton of fixed wing aircraft. (Maybe anti-ship cruise missiles???) They did not carry a significant amount of ASW helos when compared to a Moskva or Kiev.
Hopefully, if I get it out Sunday, you guys can play with it, and critique the concepts.

In parallel, I am still fooling with the MP small map removing the rail lines. I think that is one concept that was El Justo and other agreed made sense. Once that is done, I hope we can add in some of the simpler/easier concepts bandied about for last couple months, add them to the small map, and start another PBEM game.

Consider it as a interim play test game until El Justo can tackle the full-blown overhaul head on.

I would prefer having a smaller amount of humans play the 8 positions, so the game would hopefully really move, but then again, the 8 human game has been flying recently.

Let me know if any of this sounds realistic/logical.

Oh, and one other thing, I would love to start the game in 1960, which I think makes things more interesting, but that certainly requires a lot more work setting up the starting biq.

OK, managed to get a biq together that incorporates the basics that Anthropoid talked about in the PBEM thread, plus some other things that have been discussed:

1. No alliances.
2. WP now gold rushes.
3. Added to WP 15 Infantry and 10 Field Guns.
4. Added to India-China 10 PLA Infantry and 8 Field Guns.
5. Increased Nuclear Plant cost to 96 shields from 24. I figure that a nuclear plant should be a massive undertaking.
6. Increased Hydro Plant to 48 Shields. Same logic as above.
7. Increased Oil Refinery to 48 Shields.
8. Removed all Rail Lines.
9. Increased Movement Rate on Roads to 4 from 3.
10. Rail lines can be built, but base build is hugely expensive manpower wise at base 36 turns.

I_batman

Nov 18, 2006, 10:00 PM

Here is the biq.

Moff Jerjerrod

Nov 19, 2006, 05:49 AM

Dl'ed your MP mode and will begin playing it today in my own 8 player hotseat game by myself.

dferrill

Nov 19, 2006, 06:28 AM

If you are playing the huge map, and it is peace time, yes, you can expect long peacetime lags. I play the huge map on my super-computer (I like calling it that), which I purchased to play Civ IV. Even then, wait times can be 5-10 minutes, but the CPU never gets above 50% usage.Thats very interesting would not have guessed that was the cause but looking back the lag started at peacetime everything was fine up to then you would think lag would be worst during war :crazyeye:

Moff Jerjerrod

Nov 19, 2006, 07:08 AM

I think the reason why there is a slowdown during peacetime is because everyone is building units and the computer is getting bogged down moving all of them. Once war breaks out units start disappearing making it easier for the computer to calculate the turns. Also I suspect that during wartime all embassies are closed and trade is nil. This has to have something to do with it as well.

I_batman

Nov 19, 2006, 01:44 PM

I have another biq ready to go, that is an extension of 1.3 that I uploaded last night.
But I am waiting to see if there is any feedback first to 1.3.

Changes in 1.4 from 1.3:

1. Double all aircraft carrier capacity to reflect the projection of power of a carrier.
2. Adjust all SSBNs' capacity to 1/2 their real capacity.
ie. GW and Ohio carry 8 tactical nukes, Yankee carries 8,Typhoon 10, French and British carry 8.
3. Yankee class not upgradeable, since it and Typhoon are available in same tech right now. (That should be fixed)
4. Kresta now upgrades to Udaloy, since Kresta was upgrading to Kara, and they also were in the same tech.
5. Tactical nuke plant pumps out a missile every 4 turns now. (Reflect importance and proliferation of nukes in Cold War as a deterrence.
7. ICBM plant pumps out missile every 8 turns. (same as above)
8. Chemical weapons plant requires 2 buildings now instead of 1. ( I hope this means that now you need a minimium of 2 chemical plants in the Arab civ before you can start creating chemical weapons.
9. ICBM plant requires Nuclear Plant instead of SAM missile battery, which I think is more realistic.
10.Tactical plant required Nuclear Plant instead of Capital, same reason as above.
11. Both Nuke Missile plants now need 2 buildings, which I hope means that no civ can build either wonder until they have invested in 2 Nuclear Plants.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 21, 2006, 01:19 AM

RedwallFortress

Nov 23, 2006, 11:21 AM

I_batman

Nov 23, 2006, 03:07 PM

An interesting improvement of nuclear capabilities, and certainly a warranted one. I like increasing the bird farm capacities also - it makes them more than a nuisance.

All interesting developments. I concur with the frustrating aspects and limitations of the game engine; it seems they are better for PBEM and multiplayer circumstances, but I've never tried that, due a number of circumstances.

The AI has its limitations, but can still provide some entertainment. Recently absolutely bushwhacked a Red Northern Fleet sortie with an RN Grand Fleet ambush in the Norwegian Sea, so there is an interesting little historical accuracy there.

All the changes I am floating out there are ultimately for multiplayer games, since the AI just can't handle most of the concepts properly.
I am playing my Multiplayer 1.51 v 1.4 biq right now, as hot seat with 7 computer players. The U.S. AI has built 5 GW class missile boats, but naturally all are in port with ZERO tactical nukes loaded.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 24, 2006, 05:57 AM

The AI is indeed very minimalist, to put it politely; however, it is the one I am stuck using for hook or for crook, although more through circumstance rather than design. Still good changes and ideas.

Just got three Janes Fighting Ships in the mail yesterday - 71/72, 51/52 and 52/53. Very interesting stuff, especially in terms of RN modernisation projects, possible USN developments and some of the very 'out there' concepts of what the Soviet Navy was up to. The trade literature and talk of the late 1940s and early 1950s is full of interesting tidbits about missile battleships, superheavy cruisers with 220mm or even 10" guns and long range bombardment shells of up to 120000yds range. Wonderful for TCW.

It has full details on the South American navies (and the status of their big units) as well as the Italian Navy and the Axis ships transferred to Russia as reparations. A lot of potential for a TCW variant.

I_batman

Nov 24, 2006, 08:20 AM

Hey everybody
I am thinking about maybe DLing this :mischief: sconario. What patchs and updates will I need. And on what number posts can I find them. I have currently DLed and am playing AoI. As El Justo is such a great scenario maker I think that this is probably worthwhile to :crazyeye: download.

This runs on Conquest, v1.22.
The best file to start with is the 1.6 biq (31 civ's, 134 x 130 map), which is found in post #1, as is the link to download the massive compressed file that is actually TCW.

One thing: you will find by late 1950's, the game slows down significantly, but it is still fairly reasonable, compared to some other scenarios of this magnitude.

I_batman

Nov 24, 2006, 08:23 AM

I_batman

Nov 24, 2006, 07:47 PM

Thought I would upload a shot here rather than bump the unit thread.
Nice comparison to a Nimitz.
Too bad I can't capture the animations of the rockets taking off.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 25, 2006, 07:46 AM

Hi Simon:

Yeah, feed us the interesting info.
I am curious. Twice you have alluded to the fact you can't play MP games.
If you have an internet account, you can play PBEM games.
What gives?

A back to front reply here.

For MP, I am in one hell of a time zone (outback South Australia) which makes coordination difficult. PBEM is technically possible, but I've always looked into computer games as a solitary activity rather than a group one; this is nothing I wouldn't seek to change, though.

It would is something I am interested looking into during this summer holiday period, and even for my country residence once broadband comes in at the end of next year or so. (touch wood)

Interesting info from Janes:

British destroyer conversions and new construction in the early 1950s very much focused upon ASW and combatting this with fast frigates (34+ knots)
RN cruiser reconstruction and modernization was successful, but doomed due to manpower requirements in a short for cash era.
Sverdlovs were to be combatted by a large destroyer with 5" automatic guns (3 of them) swamping them with very high rates of fire (these gun projects are described briefly online at Navweaps and are analogous to the USN 5" experimental guns of the 1950s, and also have some relationship to the Green Mace project). Interim solution was carrier borne strike aircraft, Highball developments, heavy rockets such as Tiny Tim et al (as outlined about 10 pages ago, IIRC); cruisers and Vanguard were insurance, moreso in the case of the battlewagon.
Tigers were on hold for a long time, and several different permutations were considered.
USN sort to combat this with existing WW2 DDs and high end DEs (pre FRAM) and the overwhelming numbers of CVEs that could be deployed - new construction of one class was cancelled in about 52 to save money for CVA-59 and its later sisters. This one was to utilize modern fixed wing assets.
There was some mention of converting the main armament on 5 Baltimore class CAs to "improved rapid firing 8-inch guns". If this is what we think it is, then it adds a fair amount of weight, which would drop speed a bit.
Juneau (CLAA) was also to undergo armament conversion, possibly along the lines of the cancelled CL-154 class.

BBG and CBG conversions have been previously discussed here; at this stage, both were stymied, with Hawaii being on the cards for conversion into a much larger version of Northampton as a command ship.

Soviets had three known battleships (Gangut, Sevastopol and Novorossiisk/Giulio Cesare) and then we move onto the great Sovyetsky Soyuz enigma. These were reported restarted, completed, launched and on trials at various stages in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with high displacements of up to 65000-70000 tons, 9 x 16" as well as two spherical turrets behind the gun armament fore and aft for long range missiles. Reference is also made to 'aerial torpedos', guided rockets and several types of automatic minor armament.

Panzerschiffe Lutzow was rumored to be in use as a gunnery ship in violation of Tripartite Naval Agreement, as were the heavy cruisers Lutzow and Seydlitz (with 10 x 180mm).

In addition to the known Chapayevs, Kirovs and later Sverdlovs, there was talk of one or more classes of superheavy cruiser, employing either an 8.4" main armament, or the more documented 220mm gun in three triple turrets; variants employing 10" guns were mooted, explored and reported (turned out to be nothing that ever went off the drawing board, but that was the wonder of the age...rumours of warships were still wild and entertaining).

12" gunned battlecruisers were projected, in the refined form of the pre war Kronstadts or the Stalingrad class. It is from these guns that very long range bombardment ammunition was reported, although not in a lot of sources. It does have similar characteristics to some long range German WW2 guns of 280mm, along with the Peenemunde Arrow Shell being of similar weights, so it is possible that there was some very quiet examination of these potentials. Certainly a lot of German boffins went east.

The 180mm had a decent range, as did the projected 220mm.

Also mentioned are various super destroyer designs

Stalin was after a big fleet - up to two dozen battleships, many cruisers and destroyers and 1000 submarines. The amphibious warfare potential of the Western Allies, as well as their seagoing airpower, was something feared. There were a fair few carrier projects, and had his successor had a different approach to Nikita, perhaps some of the bigger ships may have emerged. If Uncle Joe himself had stuck around for another 10 years, the likelihood of Dropshot would have been considerably higher.

South American dreadnoughts still stuck around in early 1950s - Brazil with one, Argentina with two and Chile with one. Of these, Chilean one had refit in 48/49, others not really capable of deployment without refit. Italians still had two old BBs, and used them heavily; even tried everything to keep the Littorios, before the US and Britain had them scrapped as part of agreements and to avoid the Russians getting dibs on one or more.

A twisted 1950s Big Ship what if variant of TCW (much later from now, c.2009) would have a lot of goodies.

From 1960s and 1970s sources, there is a lot of discussion about surface based Polaris/Poseidon/Minuteman, ABM cruisers and the Littoral Firesupport Ship - 3 Mk 71 8" and several rapid fire 5" twin mounts; Project Gunfighter also had some interesting results, with 8" ranges of 70000+ yards from St Paul, and the potential for more.

A big map version of TCW starting in 1960 for that decade would have a lot of goodies, both real and speculative.

General thoughts: The current system has one jump in infantry - post war to modern. It would be interesting and possible to have 3 or 4 (ie, 1/decade upgrading to next) allowing a graduated rise, mirroring improvements in guns and more importantly support weapons and anti-tank weapons: Postwar infantry with WW2 battlerifles and equipment -> 1950s infantry with new generation weapons and greater firepower -> 1960s/1970s infantry with more firepower and mobility -> 1980s/fully modern infantry with heavy firepower.
Maybe I'm just getting carried away with contemplation of SOE; there would be difficulties when factoring in all the necessary civs (30 odd), then adding the unique paras and marines.

British should get unique airborne for 1950s version, and perhaps even SAS.
Many moons ago I mentioned the French Foreign Legion, and that they would be probably not worth it in the big game. For the larger maps, it is something to consider.

Perhaps consider re-separating WG and Low Countries, if the latter can get a little toehold in Africa, Carribean and Far East; this would require WG being strengthened as compensation, perhaps on a map where they get a couple more cities. Perhaps.

More types of nuclear weapons could be implemented for some versions. As people have said, the AI cannot load SLBMs properly, but if included for human/human use, house rules could dictate not putting an IRBM on a GW class SSBN. SLBMs, generational IRBMs and MRBMs. It would be nice to be able to put Thors in Britain, Jupiters in Turkey and Italy and later on, GLCMs and Pershings.

Ah, so much potential! (One has a little list, to borrow the words of the Lord High Executioner, of units that would be very good that have not yet emerged from the creators fertile minds and blessed clicking fingers above and beyond the bounty from SOE and potential forthcoming attractions from the great shipyard makers...some RN, some USN, some generic, some air, some arty...All I am willing to wait many long years for, and in some cases, pay for, 'just to see them run' (again, stealing words, this time from Nigel Havers' character Lord Lindsay in 'Chariots of Fire'))

I_batman

Nov 25, 2006, 09:28 AM

A back to front reply here.

For MP, I am in one hell of a time zone (outback South Australia) which makes coordination difficult. PBEM is technically possible, but I've always looked into computer games as a solitary activity rather than a group one; this is nothing I wouldn't seek to change, though.

Interesting info from Janes: {Big Snip}

Wow Simon:

First off, when I speak of MP, I am only speaking of PBEM. Our current PBEM is scattered across 8 time zones, and it moves along fairly well. If/when another starts up, you should consider playing. It is quite fun.

As for Janes and what you gleaned, "Wow!"
That is a lot of info to process.
I don't know what the main guys think about "what if" units being added, but I do know that I have been researching like mad about actual upgrades that occured within existing ship lines, and really focusing on missile capabilities that were added to warships. Things like the Knox class getting Harpoons in 1976, Iowa getting Tomahawks and Harpoons in its upgrade, Kresta class being altered from anti-ship to more ASW capabilities.

I certainly think that the Russian dreadnoughts Gangut and Sevetapol should be added. I think also the Novorossiisk/Giulio Cesare (was given to Soviets after WWII as war reparations) should be added, but kind of dicey since it was blown up in 1955. If the Turks have there WWI dreadknought Yavuz, the Russians should have theirs.

Have a look at my spreadsheets I uploaded last week. It may give you some idea on the direction I would like to see the naval units go, though there has been less than lukewarm reponse.

vingrjoe

Nov 25, 2006, 06:56 PM

Okay, I've been doing testing in regards to the Moskva and the Hormone and making wonders that autoproduce them. First off, the AI will use the Moskva at the current TCW settings and the Hormone. Second, it will build the wonders for the Moskva and the Hormone ASW helo. However, it hasn't been smart enough to load the KA-25s onto the Moskvas so far...oh well, that's Civ3 AI for you. I would recommend for SP mode, to give the Moskvas the ability to Detect Invisible.
Auto produce time on the Moskvas is up in the air. In my testing I have the Moskvas autoproduced every 18 turns/months. I feel the Hormones should be produced at a 2 to 1 rate to the Moskvas.

I think the key to get the AI to use a more diverse selection of warships is maybe to have wonders that autoproduce them, or as El Justo suggested, altering the cost similar to the method in AoI. This was discussed before in a previous post.

Also, I feel the following alterations to the tech tree/unit production should be considered:

Kresta I available with Rocketry Tech
Kara available with Advanced Air Defense Tech
Moskva Carrier available with Naval Aviation Tech

The reasons for above mentioned changes are because:
1) The Kara and Kresta are available with the same tech; Advanced Naval
Warfare
2)The Moskva's required Tech and the Kievs required tech are parallel to each other in the Tech tree

I setup the Moskva and Hormone autoproducing wonders using the B-52 plant as a template.
I accidentally set them up with making one unhappy face per city, and test played two games, for close to a day, while not figuring out why the WP wouldn't build the wonders. Then I checked the editor settings, and discovered my mistake, once corrected, WP didn't hesitate to build the wonders.

All of my suggestions are for SP mode only, and may have an application in MP mode. However, it seems I_batman is working hard on MP ideas,and has come up with some good ones, so I'll stick to addressing SP gameplay.

Simon, quite some interesting info you have there. I would like to learn more about the extended range munitions for the USN guns.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 26, 2006, 01:55 AM

I batman -
I shall definitely keep the PBEM thing in mind in that case.

What ifs would only be for a spin-off, and then only depending on getting the necessary units.

For the straightforward version, though, I agree with giving the Reds even a little bit of dreadnoughty goodness (sounds like something a furtive fellow might purchase in a brown paper bag...dreadnoughty indeed), and even the capacity to build an expensive small wonder to get at the Sovyetsky Soyuz class - 'Battleship Production', costing 999 shields, and quickly obsolescent, allowing only 4 or so units.

Anti-ship upgrades have a lot of interesting potential, particularly if Harpoon can be accelerated in its development process. What this would have needed was an earlier Eilat incident.

Had a look at the file thingies - Iowa speed is too high - 35 knots is often quoted, but in service, a maximum of 32.5-33 knots is more realistic.

Vingrjoe:

Project Gunfighter was a late 1960s/Vietnam War era research and development effort aimed at improving range to maximise the utility of naval gunfire.

"LRBA - Long Range Bombardment Ammunition. USN munition developed as part of the "Gunfighter" program of the late 1960s. These were unguided 5" (12.7 cm) projectiles enclosed in a sabot and fired from 8" (20.3 cm) gun barrels. These sub-caliber projectiles had a maximum range of about 72,000 yards (66,000 m) and were successfully used against Viet Cong targets at 70,000 yards (64,000 m). "
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data_p2.htm
(Also details on that page about a 4" ASW shell of late WW2/post war design)

Were fired from the USS St. Paul as a test. Other work was done on 16" sub calibre projectiles. Have heard some rumblings about 6" work done for the CLG flagships, but no written details.

Later we saw the dalliances with the CLGP (Cannon launched guided projectile) which would have been useful for accuracy. Earlier AA guided shells had been explored in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Zeus).

Would be interesting to see long range projectiles in combination with an increased ROF from a Des Moines CA, or even from a Worcester CL.
(I like the notion of an automatic 6" gun, but making it DP was probably a bridge too far, especially at the twilight of the heavy AAA age. Given a little bit of range, to about 40000-45000 yards with early rocket assisted shells, a CL with 4 triples of those babies would be able to provide a lot of tactical size support.

A Worcester automatic CL. Now there is a nice unit.

I have some very evil notions of an early 1960s automatic gun fleet, with Typhon rearward - 16" BBGs, 12" CBGs, 8" CAGs, 6" CLGs and 5" DLGs (with more similarity to the late war CLAAs than some of the gunless 50s and 60s types, as the CLAAs were at one stage to be badged DLs)).

Klyden

Nov 26, 2006, 07:39 AM

Good discussion.

Just a note on the automatic 8" gun. It did go to sea and I believe there were 3 cruisers with it. (Would have to look them up). The design was basically a modified Baltimore that had some hull sections inserted to deal with the loading equipment and changes to the magazines. I would assume any Baltimore conversion would simply cut the ship, insert a hull section and then be done with it, which means it should not suffere a reduced speed as a result in game terms. While the ship may indeed be slightly slower than before, we are talking within a knot easy.

Part of the issue for using 6 inch as AAA is the speed at which aircraft are moving. Figure at the start of WW2, attack planes (especially torpedo) moved at 200 something miles an hour and at the end of the war, were moving at 300 something. Jets were even faster than this, so trying to build a turret that can track air targets moving that fast with that much weight and then put it at sea would be almost impossible. The US was using a improved 3 inch AA gun and also were working on the 5" 54, which was a lot better than the 5" 38 that they were using during WW2.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 26, 2006, 08:07 AM

The automatic 8" was in service with the Des Moines class, but the turrets weighed significantly more than the previous guns on the Baltimores; some 50% more.

I wager a solution to this may well have included the method you outline of inserting plugs, however it would need a bit of top lightening as well. The automatic triple turret was indeed a weighty beast that required a fair bit of room.

The armament upgrade/conversions of the Baltimores did not go ahead for various reasons, with money being among the big ones (as well as diminishing returns of utility, duplication of existing capabilities and manpower issues). CAs were converted to CAGs and CGs during the late 1950s, and several of the later Baltimores were outfitted to carry the Regulus missile

As for the tracking issues, precisely. Although hydraulics and machinery had improved over the course of the war and time, it was still not at the stage where it could anything near a useful AAA performance from a dual 6"47 autoturret, nor would it ever be.
3"50 was replacing the 40mm Bofors (3"70 saw limited service some years later after a lengthy design process; somewhat better, but came in during the twilight of the guns).
Mk 42 5"54 was an alright gun for ROF before 1968, but there were some most interesting further developments that didn't go into service in 5" calibres in the 1950s-1960s.

One Worcester cost the same as 3 Atlanta/Oakland CLAAs, and was not optimum for an AA role. CL-154, the follow on, was to have between 12 and 16 rapid firing 5" guns, and provide a much more effective barrage.

Given its raison d'etre was gone, the Worcesters were a pair of ships without a role. But, as I said, 3 or 4 triple 6" automatic turrets, with no pretensions of AA/DP would have been an interesting load out for ASuW and NFS. No chance of being built, given the circumstances and all, but an interesting academic exercise.

One of those features of the 1950s that are so endearing, like nuclear tank shells.

Anthropoid

Nov 27, 2006, 02:42 PM

ADDIT: couple questions about 1.6

Katyusha rocket launchers, those pop off defensive fire right?
Air Force Base, does this do anything other than allow aircraft upgrades?

Had a bit of a renewal in interest in the mod, and fired up an SP game playing WP on about Emperor or something (using 1.6). Promptly (within two turns) got attacked by everyone, and it was quickly a struggle to survive (Hmmm, that isn't QUITE how it went in real life). Started again on about Regent or Monarch difficulty, and still had problems with silly wars starting all the time. Only played a few turns and decided to make a couple slight changes (which seem to add to game balance for SP)

I made two changes: 1)Communism gold rushes. 2) Alliances shuffled to allow proxy wars, specifically:

Non-aligned are: Arab; Arg-Chile-Bol; Cent Africa; India; North Africa; N. Viet; SE Asia; Yugo.

Alliance 1 (everyone else except see below)
Alliance 2 Warsaw Pact, Cuba
Alliance 3 Central America, China-North Korea

I don't know if this is a fluke, or if it might only be a good mix for playing Warsaw Pact in Single Player mode, but this seems to work for playing Warsaw Pact on Emperor difficulty.

I have played up to Jan 1959, and there have been a few wars, but none of the stupid ones, and none of the "everyone on the planet except China gangs up on Warsaw Pact" wars either.

I've taken Yugoslavia, and Munich, but have suffered pretty heavy casualties on my navy and air, and have spent most of my time building up infrastructure and getting all my borders covered. I'm probably not going to "lose," but gaining enough territory fast enough to "win" is also going to be a long road.

Thus, various places around the globe have been opened up for Imperialism WITHOUT necessarily sparking WWIII (Arab, Arg-Chil-Bol, Cent Africa, India, North Viet, SE Asia, Yugo). With the exception of Yugo, none of these are adjacent to either of the superpowers, and because Central America is surrounded by Alliance 1, Alliance 3 (including China) is hesitant about attacking either India or SE Asia. There have been two wars between Alliance 1, and Alliance 3, and as a consequence of this, Guayma (northwest Mexico) is in U.S. hands. Otherwise no changes.

There was one war by Alliance 1 on SE Asia but nothing really came of this because of the geography.

There was one war between Alliance 3 (Chicom-Cent Am) and SE Asia, and as a consequence of this several SEAsian cities are in Chinese hands (Rangoon, Pnom Penh, Da Nang, Saigon).

Other than that and me (Warsaw Pact) taking the three Yugo cities and Munich, there has not been any thing that has shifted around.

Based on my Intell, I seem to be at least a bit ahead of most everyone else (Steal Techs options does not appear in any of the tribes I have spies in). In addition to declaring war on Yugo, I've had about 2 wars with Alliance 1, both of which were my fault. In the first instance, WG-LL declared war on me when I failed to insert a spy, and that was a hard fought war. I just barely managed to take Munich without spreading myself too thin, and then sued for peace. The second one was maybe a year or two later because I told WG-LL to get their sole remaining tank unit out of my teritory (the VP tile in the Hungary/Czech area east of Munich. That is the complete extent of wars. I know you would think that by breaking apart the big alliances there would be constant wars, but I think that this distribution effectively creates a strategic balance that has prevented constant warring and major territory shifting in the AI. The loss of the SE Asian cities to ChiComs is actually sort of fitting I think (sort of like Vietnam War).

I do not think this would be a good setup for the human to play U.S. Specifically, Central America should stay in the Free World set for the U.S-human-player version. The only other possible changes I can think of for a U.S.-human-player version are: (a) make North Africa allied with Warsaw Pact (to create a backdoor deterrent against Europe, Israel, and Arab); (b) MAYBE, give Iceland to WP and beef up its defenses a bit to further augment this deterrent on Alliance 1; (c) make China allied with Brazil. I know, that's not really correct, as far as history goes, but the idea is to create strategic alliances that deter stupid AI warring, while also allowing the human to be imperialistic in some of the smaller remote areas of the globe (without causing WWIII), and also preventing major territory shifts (e.g., what would happen if Canada was not part of Alliance 1).

In effect what I've done is to give the US something to worry about if it decides to get aggressive overseas ("Chinese" Central Americans in their south backyard), and also give the Chinese something to worry about if they decide to get Imperialistic in Asia (U.S. just north of their alliance member in C. America). This logic seems to work, and although there have been wars, the distribution of alliance members seems to be preventing any of the AI alliances from making any major gains (with the exception of the Chi Coms gains in SE Asia, which is not totally unrealistic for an alternate history SP game).

I've only ever played the U.S. to conclusion in about version 1.5, and the stupid war thing was not such an issue, simply because when the U.S. has a war declared on it, WHO CARES!? its all overseas. So, I don't know if silly AI war starting is an issue when playing other tribes in the SP version, but if so, the same logic might be applied to any of the various tribes to create "artifically balanced" versions to make playing each tribe an interesting "alternative history."

I_batman

Nov 27, 2006, 08:53 PM

ADDIT: couple questions about 1.6

Katyusha rocket launchers, those pop off defensive fire right?
Air Force Base, does this do anything other than allow aircraft upgrades?

Yes, the rocket launchers should pop defensively. They are a nice toy since they have the movement and 2 tile range, but do little damage, which I am sure you have seen.
Air Force Base also carries a big AA wallop, too much IMO.
I would like to see things change a bit where International Airports are very expensive to build, but do help economically, but don't produce vet units.
I would reduce the AA component of the Air Force Base, but make them the only improvement that allows veteran units to be be produced.

Had a bit of a renewal in interest in the mod, and fired up an SP game playing WP on about Emperor or something (using 1.6). Promptly (within two turns) got attacked by everyone, and it was quickly a struggle to survive (Hmmm, that isn't QUITE how it went in real life). Started again on about Regent or Monarch difficulty, and still had problems with silly wars starting all the time. Only played a few turns and decided to make a couple slight changes (which seem to add to game balance for SP)

I made two changes: 1)Communism gold rushes. 2) Alliances shuffled to allow proxy wars, specifically:

Non-aligned are: Arab; Arg-Chile-Bol; Cent Africa; India; North Africa; N. Viet; SE Asia; Yugo.

Alliance 1 (everyone else except see below)
Alliance 2 Warsaw Pact, Cuba
Alliance 3 Central America, China-North Korea

I don't know if this is a fluke, or if it might only be a good mix for playing Warsaw Pact in Single Player mode, but this seems to work for playing Warsaw Pact on Emperor difficulty.

I am playing a game with 1.5 MP game in Hotseat where I enabled gold rushes. It definitely levels the playing field. As for proxy wars, I think what you have done works nicely for an SP game, not so much in an MP game.

I have played up to Jan 1959, and there have been a few wars, but none of the stupid ones, and none of the "everyone on the planet except China gangs up on Warsaw Pact" wars either.

Thus, various places around the globe have been opened up for Imperialism WITHOUT necessarily sparking WWIII (Arab, Arg-Chil-Bol, Cent Africa, India, North Viet, SE Asia, Yugo). With the exception of Yugo, none of these are adjacent to either of the superpowers, and because Central America is surrounded by Alliance 1, Alliance 3 (including China) is hesitant about attacking either India or SE Asia. There have been two wars between Alliance 1, and Alliance 3, and as a consequence of this, Guayma (northwest Mexico) is in U.S. hands. Otherwise no changes.

There was one war by Alliance 1 on SE Asia but nothing really came of this because of the geography.

There was one war between Alliance 3 (Chicom-Cent Am) and SE Asia, and as a consequence of this several SEAsian cities are in Chinese hands (Rangoon, Pnom Penh, Da Nang, Saigon).

Other than that and me (Warsaw Pact) taking the three Yugo cities and Munich, there has not been any thing that has shifted around.

That is the complete extent of wars. I know you would think that by breaking apart the big alliances there would be constant wars, but I think that this distribution effectively creates a strategic balance that has prevented constant warring and major territory shifting in the AI. The loss of the SE Asian cities to ChiComs is actually sort of fitting I think (sort of like Vietnam War).

I think what you have managed to do is create small enough tribes that the AI for each of those tribes recognizes it can't create a large enough force to attack neighbouring tribes.

I do not think this would be a good setup for the human to play U.S. Specifically, Central America should stay in the Free World set for the U.S-human-player version. The only other possible changes I can think of for a U.S.-human-player version are: (a) make North Africa allied with Warsaw Pact (to create a backdoor deterrent against Europe, Israel, and Arab); (b) MAYBE, give Iceland to WP and beef up its defenses a bit to further augment this deterrent on Alliance 1; (c) make China allied with Brazil. I know, that's not really correct, as far as history goes, but the idea is to create strategic alliances that deter stupid AI warring, while also allowing the human to be imperialistic in some of the smaller remote areas of the globe (without causing WWIII), and also preventing major territory shifts (e.g., what would happen if Canada was not part of Alliance 1).

In effect what I've done is to give the US something to worry about if it decides to get aggressive overseas ("Chinese" Central Americans in their south backyard), and also give the Chinese something to worry about if they decide to get Imperialistic in Asia (U.S. just north of their alliance member in C. America). This logic seems to work, and although there have been wars, the distribution of alliance members seems to be preventing any of the AI alliances from making any major gains (with the exception of the Chi Coms gains in SE Asia, which is not totally unrealistic for an alternate history SP game).

I've only ever played the U.S. to conclusion in about version 1.5, and the stupid war thing was not such an issue, simply because when the U.S. has a war declared on it, WHO CARES!? its all overseas. So, I don't know if silly AI war starting is an issue when playing other tribes in the SP version, but if so, the same logic might be applied to any of the various tribes to create "artifically balanced" versions to make playing each tribe an interesting "alternative history."

I played one game in SP mode where as the U.S. I did nothing to help my allies. I did not even build up my armed forces much, and basically put all cities on wealth after about 1960. The AI still kicked WP's butt, with the Iraniain alliance chewing up a lot of WP territory.

I am also playing a game right now where I have removed all alliances from the 8 tribe 1.51 MP game. It has been very interesting seeing the U.S. duke it out with U.K. over Canada. The U.K. got the quick upper hand capturing Chiacgo and Detroit, but the U.S. is now starting to dominate in North America. Other than that, and the same Asian cities changing hands that you saw in your game, not much AI activity.

I have thought for some time now there should be different versions of the SP game, with each version tailored for whatever tribe the human plays. In each scenario, the alliances would be likely be different to facillitate game play, not historical accuracy.

But fundamentally, I can't see it happening. I love this scenario, but overall interest in it seems to be waning. I just don't think there is enough interest anymore in the scenario to warrant the work required.

Anthropoid

Nov 27, 2006, 09:53 PM

So is the way paved for a Civ4 version of TCW yet? I know that there have been technical issues, and a lack of graphics or something right?

psweetman1590

Nov 27, 2006, 10:17 PM

Lack of graphics, and lack of something that would make modding easy (ie: an editor).

I know I haven't posted much (or at all) recently, but I think I should pop in and say I'm still following all of this, I still play this wonderful scenario, and I'm still waiting for the next version to come out. :) Once it does, I'll probably create a new one that starts in the modern age if anyone is interested.... I think it would be fun to play with all the really fun hardware right from the start. I like blowing **** up! :P

El Justo

Nov 28, 2006, 07:15 AM

I_batman

Nov 28, 2006, 07:34 AM

nice ideas Anthropoid :) i like them, especially the evening of the alliances. i guess we shall see once we re-open everything. in the meantime though, i've been working on the viet nam files again in hopes of curing them once and for all. of course, it'll borrow heavily from TCW in both substance and style.

as for a civ4 version - nope - none on the table in the foreseeable future. and despite what my Canadian friend says, overall interest in TCW (or any other feature of civ3 for that matter) has very little to do w/ me continuing w/ modding civ3. i mean, it's something that i enjoy believe it or not and not to sound like a deek but whatever i end up producing for the civ3 community is simply a byproduct of my 'hobby' and my desire to 'share' what i've constructed (w/ the help & suggestions etc of others of course) w/ like minded individuals. so we could be discussing a TCW for civ8 and i'll probably be saying the same thing :p

on a more serious note though - i am certainly appreciative of all of the feedback, suggestions, comradery, and the like that TCW generates. so on that note, it's not as if i'm an emotionless jerk :cool:

Ah, nice to see that you are up and about. I figured that you got your arm trapped in the carcass of some turkey, trying to scrape out the last bit of stuffing. :)

Yeah, I know you have been working O/T with the kitchen, Vietnam scenario, and Thanksgiving. I do hope interest continues with this scenario. It does sit in top 3 in overall posts for a reason. I know you would continue to pump out versions regardless of response, but I figure you need a critical mass of people responding back to ideas to make the best game.

El Justo

Nov 28, 2006, 07:51 AM

Simon Darkshade

Nov 28, 2006, 08:28 AM

It does make sense when viewed in the early parts of the scenario, but later on, it might have difficulties.

Perhaps city bases in the relevant countries may give a workable solution for gameplay.

Anthropoid

Nov 28, 2006, 09:35 AM

The things that Civ4 would add to this scenario that would be really cool:

1. Different power and types of nukes (e.g., tactical, ground-burst, air-burst, neutron, 15 kT, 50 mT, etc.)

2. Ability for allies to co-occupy tiles

3. More espionage/culture wars type stuff, potentially facilitating a more "realistic" type of alternate history in which the Cold War is won without a full scale conflict.

4. Proxy wars

5. "Soft" alliances in which it is POSSIBLE, (though very unlikely/costly) for wars to occur between traditional allies, and in which allies can be backstabbing (e.g., by not joining in on a war).

In the long-run, hopefully it will come to pass.

I know that these things take thousands (if not tens-of-thousands) of hours to put together, and scores (if not hundreds) of contributors, testers, discussants etc., so I'm not holding my breath.

One thing that I've been mulling over as a contribution I might be able to finish up in the next year or so is a world map.

The thing that irritates me about most C3C world maps is they are way too small. The idea of their being "one tile" space between Washington and Baltimore is preposterous for a "world map." I know why it happens this way: limit to ~500 cities in C3C (or at least earlier unpatched versions of it). Also, I know that, when a map gets truly huge, it slows down the game, but that just means buy a faster/bigger chip and more memory!

I love making maps, and I have actually FINISHED (yes that is right! FINISHED!) several, so in the long-run, making a truly humongous, Earth world map to end all Earth world maps is something that I could actually follow through on. I have not fiddled with the Civ4 map editor much, but what little I did fiddle suggests to me that (now that I have more evening free-time opening up in the next six-months) I might actually be able to pull it off.

So my questions to you guys:

1. How big? The key thing to consider here is this: what are the two closest-lying very-large cities that any Earth world map MUST have on it in order to do justice to Earth?

Washington and Baltimore downtowns are about 39 miles apart according to map quest

It looks like Essen and Dusseldorf (Nordrhein-Westfalen) are about 23 miles apart, and they have both become major cities in the last 300 years. If these two German cities are not the most closely packed major cities on Earth it is probably irrelevant because going any smaller in scale is probably not feasible. If the standard 3 tile separation between city centers is followed (with Essen and Dusseldorf as the closest possible cities) then that gives us 7.7 miles hexes. I know what you are thinking . . . a ridiculously, incredibly massive map . . . maybe it is simply impossible, but if it IS possible, I just might be the guy to make it.

According to this place http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml

Earth surface area: 196,935,000 sq miles (510,100,000 sq km)

Land surface 57,500,000 sq mi (150,000,000 sq km)

Since a significant chunk of that is polar regions that we do not want to include on our map

The percentages of earth's land surface can be divided into different types: 20% covered by snow land, 20% mountains, 20% dry land, 30% good land that can be farmed, 10% land doesn't have topsoil. In my research all of the data found on the land surface area was around 1.5 × 108 km2.

That gives us 20% polar land, and according to this place

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/PolarIce/

Global sea-ice coverage averages approximately 25 million km2

Which comes to a total of about an additional 5% of the total Earth surface (510.1 km sq).

So, 25% that is polar regions (land and sea) that we would not want to include leaves us with 147,701,250 sq miles (70% water, 30% land). The square root of that very large number is 3843.192.

Using Google Earth, I see that being able to circumnavigate the USSR would require going up to 77 degrees latitude, and for S. Am 64 south latitude. That gives a north-to-south extent of about 9750 miles. (note 77 north would also allow circumnavigation of North America, albeit not north of Greenland, but rather north of Baffin Island).

This place says

http://lyberty.com/encyc/articles/earth.html

More precisely the circumference of the earth
at the equator is 24,902 mi / 40,076 km.

So that gives us a general rectangular scale of 10K north-south by 25K east west.

I would use the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula and the western edge of Greenland (~77 degrees north, 62 degrees W) as the longtitudinal (east-west) midpoint on the map, establish all the land features near that north-south line, and then work outward from there.

Anthropoid

Nov 28, 2006, 09:45 AM

Anthropoid

Nov 28, 2006, 09:58 AM

[QUOTE=El Justo;4813728]one idea that struck me not too long ago was combining the japanese and gemran civs w/ the US one.QUOTE]

Hmmm. Interesting. You mean for the SP version right?

My first response is that this would be a good idea, but it is always difficult to foresee all the unintended consequences. The one thing I would anticipate for sure is this: If (in an SP version) US includes Germany and Japan, then DEFINITELY any separate tribe near Germany or Japan _MUST_ be either (a) in the US alliance, or (b) in one of the two rival alliances, otherwise, it would allow the US player (whether it was a human or the AI) to gobble up nearby minor territories too easily. Based on the current alliances, the only minor powers that this might affect are Yugoslavia, and Vietnam.

Simon, what do you mean specifically about "later game" consequences?

For the MP version, I think the current 8 is a pretty good mix, although I cannot help but wonder if the game is really any fun to play for the non-superpower tribes (Latin Am, SEATO, Afric), which do not really seem to have much prospect of "winning." But then I think that that issue could be more suitably addressed by imposing different victory conditions for the MP version, than by changing around the territory.

I_batman

Nov 28, 2006, 10:16 AM

heh - it was leaves and painting this past weekend actually :) and not having a kitchen is perhaps the cruelest of things for any man :mad: soon enough though...the dude should be finishing in the next 2 weeks i think. i will personally cook a feast fit for a king once all is complete :king:

i'm sort of keeping a running tally about what to change for a revised TCW (v1.7?). so keep the ideas flowing gentlemen.

one idea that struck me not too long ago was combining the japanese and gemran civs w/ the US one. i know the purists will scream bloody murder but the reason i suggest this possibility is to give germany and japan better response time and a more coordinated effort should the reds come knocking. now, the benefit to this would be that the US could ferry in units via airlifts if war breaks out as opposed to what the options are now (the lone airbases which take shields & food away from both germany & japan - not to mention the pollution dilemma).

of course, this is a mere suggestion and if it is deemed as too far fetched then i'd certainly abandon the idea. however, from a logistical standpoint, it all makes sense, especially since trade is disabled and there would be the good 'ole resource isolation thingie which would still enable the cities in japan and germany to produce their own units and not american ones.

Like I said in an earlier post, I have played the U.S. SID level in one game, and did absolutely nothing to help its allies. So I put all my cities on wealth after about 1960 and just hit the Enter button when my turn came up.
And the WP still got its butt kicked by the AI. I wanted to see how strong the NATO position was, and it is very stong, even without any U.S. help. Iran usually knocks the crap out of the WP, and Italy or Greece captures Sevestapol.
So if you played the U.S. position, it makes the game even easier, too easy I think.
But if you are playing the WP position, what you are suggesting makes it tougher for WP, which is a good thing.

That sort of leads me to my two cents on a grand vision for TCW:

a. Multiple SP versions, depending on what position the human would play. I think this was done in the TOS series. Each scenario would have slightly different autoproduction for the AI, and various other concepts would likely be workable that are not workable with a "one SP scenario fits all" concept.
b. All human MP version on small map to hammer out new ideas for all human game.
c. All human MP version on huge map, after concepts hammered out on small map.
d. Sub-Scenarios, such as a land map of Europe circa 1960 focusing on West Germany, or a predominantly sea map North Atlantic Ocean, circa 1980. I think BadKharma is getting towards this with his modern day scenario, but I could be wrong.
e. Civ IV version. I know El Justo is adamant against this, and I certainly understand all his reasons. But unless we magically get access to the Civ III base code (don't hold your breath), I think there are are just too many things that the Civ III engine will not allow that the Civ IV engine will.
Stuff like creating surface ships that have differing attack/defence strengths against subs and other surface ships IS possible within Civ IV.
Proxy wars with vassal states should be possible.
I see no reason why one tribe could not sell sell/give arms to another tribe.
Stuff like that.
And the biggest reason: As far as I can tell, no one ever got Civ III MP games going across the Internet other than with PBEM. In Civ IV, they have it working albeit badly. I would love to play against you guys online in a more real-time setting.

And BTW, there is a spectacular 210 x 90 handmade map of the world in Civ IV, that I think would be perfect for a Civ IV version, though it kills most present day computers.

I figure all of the above should be no more than a couple weeks work. I am sure El Justo with help can pump out 6 new versions before Xmas, assuming he quits work, leaves his wife, and doesn't eat or sleep. If he agrees to do those things, I will too.

I_batman

Nov 28, 2006, 10:28 AM

Using the figures of 25,000 for east-west, and 10,000 for north-south, in order to render an Earth map with tiles that are 7.5 miles on a side, we'd need the following size map (in tiles):

1334 tiles north-south axis
3334 tiles east-west axis

If we use the more precise figures of 24,900 and 9750 we get

1300 tiles north-south axis
3320 tiles east-west axis

Anyone know what the maximum map size is in the Civ4 mapmaker editor?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Have a look at the computer performance comments about the 210 x 90 map I mentioned in my post above...oh, I see you are already in that thread.
That 210 x 90 map has 18,900 tiles. You are proposing a map with 4,316,000 tiles, 228 times as large. I work at IBM, but don't have access to any of our supercomputers, which I think is what you need to play a map that huge.

As much as I would love to play such a map, I don't think there are computers available to the general public that would play such a map. Then again, to hand make a map that size would take you a few years, so by then technology may have caught up.

Anthropoid

Nov 28, 2006, 10:58 AM

One major thing that would help with game slow-down, as well as being probably critical for realism, is to impose stacking limits. Say for example 8 units in a city, 7 in grassland, 7 in plains, 5 in desert, 16 in water tiles (assuming many ships represent much smaller numbers of vehicles and guys than do most Civ land units), 6 in hills, 4 in jungles, 3 in mountains (distinct terrain type from "snow-peaked mountains), 2 in snow-peaked mountains (impassable to all but mountain units).

Anthropoid

Nov 28, 2006, 11:14 AM

ADDIT: See below about my statement about making such a map by Christmans :), and also thinking about a possible compromise . . .

Based on what I've laid out above, the IDEAL size map is 7.5 mile tiles. We might have to wait for Deep Blue supercomputers to become household tools for this maybe. But in any event, does this mean that the current standard of 210 tiles to represent 24,900 miles is acceptable? That is 118.6 miles per tile. Heck! Even 50 mile tiles (420 x 180 size map) would be an improvement! But the key issue here is: why go for the short-term? As I say, I ENJOY maps, and I enjoy MAKING Civ maps. Basd on my past successes at making them (e.g., ask von Clausewitz about the massive C3C map I made for him and his crew to play a MP PBEM using the Rise and Rule mod, IIRC that map was 299x299 and I finished it in less than a week!).

I could certainly make a new C3C giant map of Earth, but in the long-run it would seem that Civ4 is where it is at. Having fooled around with the "World Builder" in Civ4, it seems MUCH more clunky than the editor/map maker in C3C. Am I missing something, or is the only way to open the Civ4 World Builder through the game engine?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Have a look at the computer performance comments about the 210 x 90 map I mentioned in my post above...oh, I see you are already in that thread.
That 210 x 90 map has 18,900 tiles. You are proposing a map with 4,316,000 tiles, 228 times as large. I work at IBM, but don't have access to any of our supercomputers, which I think is what you need to play a map that huge.

As much as I would love to play such a map, I don't think there are computers available to the general public that would play such a map. Then again, to hand make a map that size would take you a few years, so by then technology may have caught up.

The key statement I'd like you (or anyone for that matter :) ) to clarify is:

"don't have access to any of our supercomputers, which I think is what you need to play a map that huge."

The key phrase here being "I think." If you think 4 million tiles is too much, then how much is the limit? You tell me how big it can be and I'll commit to building the map in Warlords for next Xmas! :D (_IF_ Firaxis is not planning another patch, and _IF_ the maximum possible scale is actually a reasonable compromise between the ideal of 7.5 mile tiles and the currently unacceptable standard of 118 mile tiles).

I just DLed Rhye's huge map, and also auto-generated a huge map in Warlords. Looks like the "biggies" at this point are about 210 x 90 or in that ballpark. Perhaps this is as much as is "possible" given procesing speeds but let me be frank: a map of Earth that is only 210 "steps" in circumference is ABSOLUTELY PREPOSTEROUS. This is my fundamental gripe about all Civ scenarios that seek to render accurate and realistic alternate history scenarios at large scales: the scaling is totally out of whack.

An in-shape human being can walk 20 to 30 miles per day (which is generous assuming things like mountains and deserts,and taking time off to rest etc.). This remains about the max for a modern day foot-soldier unit. Assuming a rate of 20 miles per day (which is VERY fast) that means it should take AT LEAST 1245 "turns" for a warrior to circumnavigate the Earth. Instead, it is possible in the current max-size "world maps" in 16% that required time-frame: 210 turns.

So my question is: what is the MAXIMUM size map that is possible for a top-notch machine to run in Civ4 Warlords?

I_batman

Nov 28, 2006, 12:21 PM

The key statement I'd like you (or anyone for that matter :) ) to clarify is:

"don't have access to any of our supercomputers, which I think is what you need to play a map that huge."

The key phrase here being "I think." If you think 4 million tiles is too much, then how much is the limit? You tell me how big it can be and I'll commit to building the map in Warlords for next Xmas! :D

I just DLed Rhye's huge map, and also auto-generated a huge map in Warlords. Looks like the "biggies" at this point are about 210 x 90 or in that ballpark. Perhaps this is as much as is "possible" given procesing speeds but let me be frank: a map of Earth that is only 210 "steps" in circumference is ABSOLUTELY PREPOSTEROUS. This is my fundamental gripe about all Civ scenarios that seek to render accurate and realistic alternate history scenarios at large scales: the scaling is totally out of whack.

An in-shape human being can walk 20 to 30 miles per day (which is generous assuming things like mountains and deserts,and taking time off to rest etc.). This remains about the max for a modern day foot-soldier unit. Assuming a rate of 20 miles per day (which is VERY fast) that means it should take AT LEAST 1245 "turns" for a warrior to circumnavigate the Earth. Instead, it is possible in the current max-size "world maps" in 16% that required time-frame: 210 turns.

So my question is: what is the MAXIMUM size map that is possible for a top-notch machine to run in Civ4 Warlords?

OK, I see your point. But last night I read some of the comments in that 210 x 90 thread. They were complaining that at 500 AD, the game was grinding to a halt on that map, and they had machines comparable to mine.
It is not just the map, it is the quantity of units on the map, and quantity of tribes, the quantity of polys in a unit's graphics, the general quality of the programing (not all coders are created equal, and I am one of the lesser beings there) in the game. So I don't think, I know, that a map as huge as what you are suggesting would be unplayable. As for the maximum size that would be playable, well, you got me there. I don't know that one Anthropoid.
I have played the biggest random map that can be auto-produced within the game, max civ's, max length (have a saved agame in 1999), and it sails fast and smooth on my game. But that is still relatively small.
I will get back to you on the map size of that particular game by Thursday night. And I was going to buy Warlords this weekend, so maybe by next week I can start giving you some ideas on max size

Keep in mind, you can never create the perfect map. Circumnavigating the planet at the equator takes as long as you say. Circumnavigating the planet one step south of the north pole takes about 2 seconds.

Anthropoid

Nov 28, 2006, 12:39 PM

Let me know what you think about the max size map Batman. I'm just poking around a bit at this stage. Like I said, I KNOW I can crank out a massive map, it is just a question of what is the max settings I should go for to create something that _CAN_ work.

It seems the map size is found in the

Civ4/Assets/XML/GameInfo/Civ4 World Info

<WorldInfo>
<Type>WORLDSIZE_HUGE</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_WORLD_HUGE</Description>
<Help>TXT_KEY_WORLD_HUGE_HELP</Help>
<iDefaultPlayers>11</iDefaultPlayers>
<iUnitNameModifier>0</iUnitNameModifier>
<iTargetNumCities>6</iTargetNumCities>
<iNumFreeBuildingBonuses>7</iNumFreeBuildingBonuses>
<iBuildingClassPrereqModifier>100</iBuildingClassPrereqModifier>
<iMaxConscriptModifier>75</iMaxConscriptModifier>
<iWarWearinessModifier>-50</iWarWearinessModifier>
<iGridWidth>32</iGridWidth>
<iGridHeight>20</iGridHeight>
<iTerrainGrainChange>1</iTerrainGrainChange>
<iFeatureGrainChange>1</iFeatureGrainChange>
<iResearchPercent>150</iResearchPercent>
<iTradeProfitPercent>30</iTradeProfitPercent>
<iDistanceMaintenancePercent>100</iDistanceMaintenancePercent>
<iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent>20</iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent>
<iNumCitiesAnarchyPercent>6</iNumCitiesAnarchyPercent>
</WorldInfo>

So (I think) that answers your question. The "huge" size in the default (Warlords and I'm guessing no different in the vanilla) settings is 32 x 20

The other thing to keep in mind is that: turning off many of the bells and whistles in Civ4 (e.g., animations, etc.) may well allow much bigger maps to be played. For example, El Justo's TCW mod was made possible in large part simply by turning off trade. If similar sorts of minor changes in settings could make a truly GIGANTIC Civ4 Warlords map playable . . . well, some of us would be very keen to check it out wouldn't we?

I'm not much of a modder, but I do make maps successfully. So if an incipient Civ4 TCW mod is to get going, the contribution I might be able to make is to make a map, and if I'm gonna do that, I'd rather it be slightly too big (and thus require modding to speed up game play) than to be slightly too small (precluding the increased gameplay realism of a larger map).

BadKharma

Nov 28, 2006, 02:04 PM

The map size isnt the only difficulty for making a grand scenario for Civ 4. The units also add wait time for every new unit you introduce it causes workload for a computer.
That being said if you want to discuss a Civ 4 version could you please do so in the Civ 4 threads. I personally do not care for Civ4 and since this thread is dedicated to Civ 3 can we keep to that game engine please.

Back on topic I dont think my enjoyment of TCW would be lessened by including Japan and Germany with the US. In fact I can see alot of benefit in doing so. Simon does make a point though as to how that would effect the late game.

Emerentius

Nov 28, 2006, 03:26 PM

Back on topic
Yes please!
Could you talk about map size and Civ 4 in an other forum.

Anthropoid

Nov 28, 2006, 03:47 PM

I_batman

Nov 28, 2006, 08:47 PM

IMO, the 133x129 map currently used for the 1.6 version of the scenario has limitations. I'm interested in the pros and cons of different map sizes for this scenario in either C3C or Civ4.

My apologies if any C3C purists perish the thought of a similar mod being made for Civ4. But a lot of folks consider the two games to be "related" to one another ;) I consider the regular participants in this thread to be valuable potential-source of feedback for any prospective map making I might embark on, so I do beg your forgiveness if I seek such feedback here in this forum rather than creating an entirely new thread.

So Batman, El Justo, is the Huge Fifties map restricted to one decade simply because the game slows down too much or what? I've never played it, but see that it is 361x325 in size. The largest C3C map I had ever seen previously was about 299x299.

Quite a few months ago I played a game on Civ III 50's map right through to the late 70's. All I did was ignore the winner (U.S. space race) and continued on. If I remember correctly the game hit a wall in the late 50's, and turns started taking up to 20-30 minutes when at peace. Turns flew when at war.

I playing on my powerful rig, not my laptop.
Now, the unsettling and frustrating part was when I looked at task manager during the slow peacetime turns, the game was only chewing up 50% of my processor, and about 800 meg of my 2 gig high end memory. Nothing else was running, and the rest of the memory and processor was idle.
That points to something in the code of the engine as a limiting factor.

Overall, the huge map is virtually perfect in my opinion. I could see opening up the arctic island paths a bit more to allow more cat and mouse of Soviet and NATO subs, but other than that the map is just fine.

But you have to have incredible patience to play that map as an SP game. Because I work at home most days, I can have the huge map going on my powerful PC, and do my business work on my laptop, so it was no big problem for me, but under normal cicumstances, the huge map has too much of a lag for SP games.

MP games, totally different. It would be great for PBEM games.

I_batman

Nov 28, 2006, 09:09 PM

Most of these, if not all, are Vingrjoe's designs, I believe. My apologies to other artists if they did some of the carriers.

Can anybody figure out the 7? The Iowa is too easy.
I think this really shows the nice scaling job, though one or two of the carriers is a trifle too small I think if we get down to precise scaling.

This is a shot from my naval sandbox.

Oh, and Vingrjoe, you can't answer the question.
:)

Anthropoid

Nov 28, 2006, 09:24 PM

I'm just about to wrap up my PBEM in TOAW III (which is ALSO a Cold War based scenario that is a "what if" the war had turned hot in the summer of 1979), so I could start on another PBEM, which would put my total at 2. I think this is definitely my favorite period in Earth history as far as Civ simulations go, so I would actually very much like to get into a PBEM using the huge map. Could some of the insights we've gained from our test match using the less-inclusive scale map be implemented for a Huge Map PBEM? Why not reset the victory conditions for a PBEM too? Anyone else interested?

Also, the issue about the task manager: is it possible that I might help you Batman to figure out what it is that is causing the problem, and maybe some additional modding could be done to make it not slow down so much? Man if there is ANY WAY to make a bigger map play faster without compromising the overall game integrity, that would be fantastic.

Also (just a quick mention, since I know its heresy to use the IV word in this forum :) ), maybe what you've seen about the task manager could also be applied to streamlining or recoding Civ4 to allow huge maps? It is a damn shame that Firaxis has done two things that combined probably account for the lags in huge complex games: build on pre-existing models in part; and focus increasingly on prettys and the under 13 market who want games more like RTS. Perhaps if they saw that there was a real interest in those of us who like civ as a tactical + operational level game, they'd put a little effort on a patch that would speed things up for truly huge maps with really large unit counts?

I_batman

Nov 28, 2006, 09:37 PM

I'm just about to wrap up my PBEM in TOAW III (which is ALSO a Cold War based scenario that is a "what if" the war had turned hot in the summer of 1979), so I could start on another PBEM, which would put my total at 2. I think this is definitely my favorite period in Earth history as far as Civ simulations go, so I would actually very much like to get into a PBEM using the huge map. Could some of the insights we've gained from our test match using the less-inclusive scale map be implemented for a Huge Map PBEM? Why not reset the victory conditions for a PBEM too? Anyone else interested?

You must have been reading some of my past posts. About 7 months ago I took the 50's huge biq that I think Klyden put together, and started reordering the civ's so no potential historical allies play back to back as they do in the current PBEM. Just thought would make it more fair. Anyway, that fried a ton of the placements of cities, as all South African and Scandavaian cities vanished.

I suggested last week that we start up a game on the small map with some of the concepts that we have been kicking around for a while. We see if these concepts make sense. I have been playing with missile carrying and tonnage/HP's in my naval sandbox, and I personally think it makes sense, but I am just one guy.

So I am dying to start another small map PBEM with new concepts/house rules/victory conditions, and we see how that plays out. I don't think such a game would have a life like the original PBEM, because once we sort out all the bugs/concepts, we then apply them to a huge map PBEM.

I was hoping to jump from my naval snadbox right to the huge PBEM, but that seems unlikely.

psweetman1590

Nov 28, 2006, 10:18 PM

I_batman

Nov 28, 2006, 10:37 PM

Okay, I'll bite at the ship id contest....

going left row first, top to bottom
Charles F. Adams DD
Forrest Class DD
Fig newton. :p
Baltimore CA

Iowa
Oriskany CV
Forrestal CV
Essex CV

The carriers were pretty easy. The only left winger I'm confident on is the Adams DD

You got 3 right, but won't say which three until we get a few more responses. I have to admit, all of the non-capital ships are graphics that Vingrjoe has done and released on the boards, but I doubt have seen much usage.

I really wish the .bmp files were not such pigs, because these units look so much better as a bit map file. Guess that is those files are such pigs.

Simon Darkshade

Nov 29, 2006, 04:55 AM

CFA DDG
Knox FF/DE
Spruance DD
Des Moines CA

Iowa BB
Nimitz CVAN
Forrestal CVA
Oriskany CVA

No one has made CVN-65 Enterprise or CLGN-160 Long Beach, have they?

Anthropoid

Nov 29, 2006, 06:14 AM

Sounds good to me I_Batman. Lets start anytime you want: small map, big map, doesn't matter to. The new naval units also sounds great to me.

The one thing I would REALLY like to make sure we address is: have we thought through how it will be changed to make sure that it is FUN (and possible to win) for the minor powers (Lat Am, Africa, SEATO, and even China).

Should we start a new thread to get the focus going on the settings? Shotgun dibs on a player slot! Also, re: the issue of getting Civ4 to run truly colossal maps, FYI, check out my queries here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134226&page=7

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184684&page=11

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=157024&page=2

I_batman

Nov 29, 2006, 06:42 AM

CFA DDG
Knox FF/DE
Spruance DD
Des Moines CA

Iowa BB
Nimitz CVAN
Forrestal CVA
Oriskany CVA

No one has made CVN-65 Enterprise or CLGN-160 Long Beach, have they?

Simon, you nailed it. I didn't think anybody would get the Spruance and Des Moines so easily. Nicely done.

I_batman

Nov 29, 2006, 07:05 AM

El Justo

Nov 29, 2006, 09:33 AM

you guys have been busy little beavers :)

Simon,
i'm trying to figure how combining the German and Japanese civs later in the game may pose a problem. now, i ask only to pick your brain, not to appear as if i'm mad that my suggestion may not work :)

to be a little more specific, if those two civs were combined w/ the US position, Germany and Japan would still have their full lines of units (sans the US ones of course). this would be theoretically accomplished by the resource isolation ala AoI.

as for 'city bases' - this would work nicely on the huge map but not the smaller one i think. the problem would be that there just ain't enough room on the smaller map to accomodate cities for 2 civs.

Anthropoid,
seems you've incurred the wrath of the civ3 purists :p as for my take on a TCW for civ4...well, I_b knows well that i am against it for practical reasons like the performance and asthetic issues that civ4 generates. and to be honest, it's the performance problems of the civ4 game engine that preclude me from even thinking of a civ4 version of TCW. i mean, hell, i bent over backwards to try and get around the civ3 engine issues of lon wait times and all. so until civ4's problems of performance can be rectified (and i seriously doubt that these issues can ever be resolved), i won't even begin to think of TCW for civ4.

re the combo of Japan and Germany:
yes, at first glance, i'd think that it'd be applicable to the SP version only as i do agree that the existing MP model is pretty good. as for the possibility of the US overruning nearby enemies - that could be manipulated enough through the editor, i think, to prevent that from happening.

re your map making skills
i've often had fleeting thoughts of a huge euro map for a TCW spinoff of an iron curtain battlefield and perhpas an atlantic coast. i know maps like this exist but i've never taken the time to investigate it fully. now, imagine having a full fledged euro battlefield w/ each civ having plenty of tile space and cities to sustain itself in a locked war scenario :cool:

re the stacking limits
too tough to enforce me thinks...at least for the AI

re RL dimsions of each tile on a civ3 map
of course, this is sort of unrealistic in that ocean tiles, on some maps, are squished down to reduce the actual size of maps (and consequently, to reduce overall turn times - which i like i guess). now, if a true to scale map of, say, europe and the atlantic coast could be made, then we're onto something i think. a sidenote to this comment: i designed the map for the viet nam scenario i've been working on and it is indded in scale and i've calcualted that each tile = roughly 20 sq miles.

the largest map possible in civ3 is 360-something by 360-something i think. and yes, the reason why the TCW huge games are broken down into decades like that is b/c the game lags and begins to bog down after about 150 turns or so. and it's wholly unacceptable to me to have to wait and wait and wait. so this was the compromise (and not a real bad one imo).

as for future MP games, i am of the opinion that the huge map is where it is at simply b/c of all of the extra tiles which allow for better production and the spread out nature of things instead of the cramped feeling of the small map.

my status for beginning work on any TCW revision is restriced until i can get done w/ the viet nam re-do. however, i'd be happy to participate in any type of serious development discussions. note though that all participants in such an endeavor must be serious about the project and not just drop off the face of the earth after a few weeks. i mean, i have a bunch of ideas and as most of those who are close to me know, once i start w/ something, i almost always see it through and spare nothing :)

Anthropoid

Nov 29, 2006, 01:17 PM

I've now fully expended my procrastination allowance for the next few months, but I hope you guys will think of what I've come up with as at least a good set of ideas for how to restructure the MP game. The intent is to shift the alliances, and victory conditions (and make as few changes to units as possible), and keeping the basic structure of the mod unchanged. Batman has already seen a convoluted first draft of these ideas by email earlier today, but here I post a synthesis (outline) of only the key changes.

The map changes I will do if the general consensus is that this restructuring is a good idea. With the exception of the few unit changes that will be involved, I will do the other .biq changes too. I will even do the units if I have to, but I think El Justo, that you might be a lot quicker to get them done. In short, I'll make the changes to create this re-designed version of the MP .biq if you guys will give feedback on whether you think it is a good vision or not. I'm particularly intersted in hearing from you players in the Nuke Winter PBEM, but really anyone might have good ideas.

The intent of the changes is NOT to make the game more "realistic" but to make it more fun to play for an MP PBEM, without defying realism, and while striving to bring in some elements that we've all talked about as lacking. It is a lengthy set of changes, but it is not really that complicated, and I believe I may have figured out a way to allow Proxy Wars, and to create a situation in which five human players can all play their own game, striving to win, and not just act as a support character for either the WP or the US players.

Synthesis of Proposed Changes

Two types of Changes: (I) fundamental changes, meaning part of the overall framework of a restructuring the alliances (II) optional, i.e., not essential to the framework, and MAYBE nice to do; should not be done first.

Cities that are potential sources of overseas trade are in all caps. Not necessarily all of these cities should have an overseas trade source, but the decision to choose should follow a bit of game testing in which initially only 2 source are assigned for FWP and WP; 3 sources for FWAP and CAP;. and 4 sources of overseas trade for NN alliance.

I. Fundamental changes
1. Divide all nations into six alliances: 1 “Communist Aligned Powers” (CAP); 2 “Free World Aligned Powers” (FWAP); 3 “Neutral Nations” (NN); 4 “Warsaw Pact” (WP); 5 “Bystander Nations” (BN played by AI in MP game); 6 “Free World Powers” (FWP), all of which played by human in MP game except for BN (Bystander Nations) played by AI

i. Change US Civ to “Free World Powers” (FWP) (Capital is Washington D.C. “Democracy”)
1. Set Player 6 to Free World Powers
2. Reassign cities to Free World Powers: SCAPA, ABERDEEN, GLASGOW, PLYMOUTH, DOVER (GB except Belfast=NN); COPEHAGEN, HAMBURG, AMSTERDAM, Hannover, Bonn, Munich (all West Germany-Lowlands); Pretoria (S. Afric); BUENOS AIRES, San Carlos, RIO GALLEGOS (all Argentina); HONOLULU (all Hawaii); SAPPORO, AKITA, SENDAI, TOKYO, HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI, FUKUOKA (all Japanese cities); Riyadh, MUSCAT (all Arabia except Aden); MILAN, VENICE, ROME, PALERMO, TARANTO (all Italian cities); ISTANBUL, TRABZON, IZMIR, Ankara (all Turkish cities); CRETE; MANILA, CEBU CITY (Philippines);
3. Increase war weariness and troop maintenance for Democracy

ii. Change SE Asia to “Bystander Nations” (to be played by AI) (BN)
1. Set Player 5 to “Bystander Nations” (Capital is optional, Monarchy)
2. Reassign cities to Bystander nations: Belgrade, and Sarajevo (Yugoslavian cities); Mashbad, Kabuhl, Kandahar (Afghanistanian cities); SANTIAGO (Chile); Srinigar, AHMADABAD (contested region between India NN and Pakistan CAP); ALGIERS, VINH (to allow French-Algerian and Indochinese conflicts); AMBOA (New Guinea area, just for a spicy nugget)
3. Put a couple weakfish FWAP units outside Algiers, and outside Vinh
4. Review if any additional locations should be added to “Bystander Nations” (aka low-hanging fruit for commie imperialism, a 1-city nation in Central America like “Guatemala City” might be good).
5. Fix all special Yugo, SE Asian, and Afghan units so that they are buildable by “Bystander Nations” (although if the regional limiters work that is fine.
6. Add at least one defender to all BN cities

iii. Warsaw Pact stays “Warsaw Pact” (WP) (Capital Moscow, Communism)
1. Set Player 4 to “Warsaw Pact”
2. Reassign cities to Warsaw Pact: HAVANA, CIENFUEGOS, SANTIAGO DE CUBA (all Cuban cities); DURBAN (S. Afric); Tabriz, Tehran, Qom (all but 1 Iranian cities); GUINEA, MAKASSAR (Indonesia area); La Paz, Salta (Bolivia); CAIRO, Aswan (Egypt)
3. Change Communism to gold rush

iv. Change Brazil to “Neutral Nations” (NN) (Two Capitals: Brasilia and New Delhi Monarchy?)
1. Set Player 3 to “Neutral Nations”
2. Reassign cities to Neutral Nations: PANAMA CITY, VERA CRUZ (Cent Amer); RABAT, Bechar (both Morocco); Johannesburg (S. Afric); ANTANANARIVA (Madagascar); DAR ES SALAM, Nairobi (E. Africa); N’Jamena (cent Africa), LAGOS, (W Afric); BOMBAY, CALICUT, MADRAS, VISHAKRAMATNAM, Calcutta, Kanpur (all but three Indian cities);, MEDAN, PALEMBANG (Indonesia), TAIPEH (Taiwan), BANGKOK (Thailand), Vientiane (Vietnam), BELFAST (Ireland), BUSHEHR (Iranian coastal city)
3. Increase happy citizens from milit police for Monarchy to 4

v. Change France to “FW Aligned Powers” FWAP) (Capital is Paris, Democracy)
1. Set Player 2 to “FWP Aligned Powers”
2. Reassign cities to FWAP: JAKARTA, KILAKAP (Indonesia), RANGOON, Rangpur (Burma); LUANDA (Namibia); Bogota (Colombia), TRUJILLO, LIMA (Peru-Equador); PORTO, LEON, Madrid, LISBON, CARTAGENA, VALENCIA (all Spainish cities), TRONDHEIM, OSLO, STOCKHOLM (all Scandinavia), TEL-AVIV, ELAT, Jerusalem (all 3 Israeli cities), TUTICORIA (roughly Sri Lanka to allow for Tamil Conflict between FWAP and NN); PERTH, DARWIN, ADELAIDE, Alice Springs, CAIRNS, MELBOURNE, SYDNEY, Canberra, WELLINGTON (all Australian & NZ cities); ST. JOHNS, HALIFAX, VANCOUVER, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Churchill, Ottawa (most Canadian cities on the map)

vi. Change China to “Communist Aligned Powers” (CAP) (Capital is Beijing, Communism)
1. Set Player 1 to “Communist Aligned Powers”
2. Reassign cities to Communist Aligned Powers: KUPANG, DENPASAW, BORNEO (Indonesia area) DAKAR (W. Africa), CAPETOWN (S. Africa), CARACAS & BARANQUILLA (Venezuela area), ADEN (Arabian Peninsula), THESSALONIKA, ATHENS (both Greek cities), DAMASCUS, Mosul, Baghdad, BASRAH (Iraqi cities); Jalalabad, Islamabad, Hyderabad (all Pakistani cities); ZARZIS, TRIPOLI (Libya/ Tunisia); Cao Bang, La CHau, Hanoi; MONTREAL, ST JOHNS, HALIFAX (for geostrategic deterrence issues); OULU, HELSINKI (Finland)

Apart from making sure the special units for tribes work this should not involve too many other changes, though the troop levels might be shown by game-testing to need to be adjusted.

2. Victory Conditions for each Alliance

i. Player 1 “Communist Aligned Powers” (CAP) (aka China-bloc) Must achieve three conditions
1. Do not lose any of their original holdings (cannot win if they do not have all their original cities in their possession
2. Expand by a small-moderate amount, anywhere on the globe, say possible 3 or 4 cities? (exact number of cities would need to be figured out based on game testing)
3. Be first to build at least one of the late game Great Wonders (e.g., Genetics, Space Race, Cure for Cancer etc.)

ii. Player 2 “Free World Aligned Powers” (FWAP) Must achieve three conditions
1. Do not lose any of their original holdings (cannot win if they do not have all their original cities in their possession
2. “Re-take” at least three BORDERING cities that are in the hands of either WP or CAP
3. Accumulate a ton of material wealth. This can be vague until game-testing establishes what sorts of numbers are superlative for this tribe. This could be treasury, income/turn, number of happy people something like that.

iii. Player 3 “Neutral Nations” (NN) achieve any two of the following
1. Expand by a small-moderate amount, anywhere on the globe, say possible 3 or 4 cities? (exact number of cities would need to be figured out based on game testing)
2. Be first to build at least one of the late game Great Wonders (e.g., Genetics, Space Race, Cure for Cancer etc.)
3. “Re-take” at least three BORDERING cities that are in the hands of either WP or CAP
4. Accumulate a ton of material wealth. This can be vague until game-testing establishes what sorts of numbers are superlative for this tribe. This could be treasury, income/turn, number of happy people something like that.

iv. Player 4 “Warsaw Pact” (WP)
1. Domination exact percentage would be vague until game-tested, maybe 5 cities held for one full year?

v. Player 5 “Bystander Nations” AI cannot win

vi. Player 6 “Free World Powers” (FWP)
1. Wins if no one else wins by time out (Dec 1991?)

3. Set major alliances to permanent war to allow for Proxy Wars
i. Player 1 Communist Aligned Powers = Alliance 1

ii. Player 2 Free World Aligned Powers = Alliance 2

iii. Player 4 Warsaw Pact = Aliance 3

iv. Player 6 Free World Powers = Alliance 4

v. Set the following to permanent war
1. Alliance 1 vs Alliance 3
2. Alliance 1 vs. Alliance 4
3. Alliance 2 vs Alliance 3
4. Alliance 2 vs. Alliance 4

vi. Anyone can declare war, on anyone at anytime, as they choose

vii. Permanent war members (CP WP, FWAP and FWP) can wage war on anyone they choose at any time with the following restrictions
1. Light troops constituting “low intensity conflict” (infantry, specops, spies, helicopters, fighter-bombers, transports, cruisers or smaller ships, subs, light arty, or rockets) can be used offensively at any time

2. Heavy troop offensives constituting “escalated conflict” (mech infantry, tanks, bombers, big ships, heavy [>105mm] arty, nukes, etc.) can be used offensively at any time and suffering the following house rules penalties:

a. NN can use heavy offensives at their discretion without penalty

b. WP and CAP: Immediately after initiating escalated conflict (on anyone but NN), either of these two powers must begin paying an indemnity to the Neutral Nations of 30 gp for 20 turns. This rate goes up by 50% for each successive re-establishment of escalated conflict. Basically, to win the rights to fight an escalated conflict against FWP or FWAP, the Commies must buy out the Neutral Nations. Obviously, if the Commies declare war on the Neutral Nations it wouldn’t be necessary to pay them.

c. FWP and FWAP:
i. Must destroy “sell” one marketplace each turn that they use escalated conflict
ii. Pay the same indemnity that the commies pay to the NN (this is true whether they declare war for 1 turn or for the full 20 that the payment of gp/turn is set up to the NN
d. Once a payment of gp/turn has been established to NN by any of the four alliances, it can only be broken prior to the 20 turn culmination of the payment, if the payer destroys all marketplaces, and all banks

4. Create overseas trade networks to give something for navies to do besides escort troops
i. Set up at least one building type (e.g., could use any slot in the list that is not used currently) to auto-produce the Treasure units, and allow it to be built only in cities that have an inconsequential resource (like e.g., horse) in its radius.
ii. Delete all horses from the map
iii. Add horses to a couple key overseas cities for each tribe (ideals for each alliance below)

1. Player 6 Free World Powers (FWP) (Capital Washington DC)
a. Two Ideal: RIO GALLEGOS & MUSCAT
b. Other possibilities: SCAPA, ABERDEEN, GLASGOW, PLYMOUTH, DOVER COPEHAGEN, HAMBURG, AMSTERDAM, BUENOS AIRES, HONOLULU SAPPORO, AKITA, SENDAI, TOKYO, HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI, FUKUOKA MILAN, VENICE, ROME, PALERMO, TARANTO ISTANBUL, TRABZON, IZMIR,CRETE; MANILA, CEBU CITY

2. Bystander nations (capital optional Amaadabad might be good): SANTIAGO; AHMADABAD; ALGIERS, VINH; AMBOA

3. Warsaw Pact (WP) (Capital Moscow)
a. Two Ideal: CAIRO, HAVANA
b. Other possibilities: CIENFUEGOS, SANTIAGO DE CUBA, DURBAN, GUINEA, MAKASSAR

4. Neutral Nations (NN) (Capitals Brasilia and/or New Delhi)
a. Four Ideal: PANAMA CITY, RABAT, BELFAST, BUSHEHR
b. Other possibilities: VERA CRUZ, ANTANANARIVA, DAR ES SALAM, LAGOS, MEDAN, PALEMBANG BANGKOK (none of the coastal Indian cities will work because New Delhi is a possible capital city)

5. “Free World Aligned Powers” (FWAP) (Capital is Paris)
a. Three Ideal: RANGOON, TRUJILLO, OSLO (makes this a strategic city of high order)
b. Other possibilities: VANCOUVER, JAKARTA, KILAKAP, TRONDHEIM, , STOCKHOLM TEL-AVIV, ELAT, TUTICORIA, PERTH, DARWIN, ADELAIDE, CAIRNS, MELBOURNE, SYDNEY, HALIFAX, , (European coastal cities will not work because Paris is capital)

6. “Communist Aligned Powers” (CAP) (Capital is Beijing)
a. Three Ideal: CAPETOWN, ADEN, HELSINKI (also makes this a high strategic value city)
b. Other Possibilities: KUPANG, DENPASAW, BORNEO DAKAR, CARACAS & BARANQUILLA, THESSALONIKA, ATHENS, DAMASCUS, BASRAH, ZARZIS, TRIPOLI, MONTREAL, ST JOHNS, HALIFAX, OULU

II. Optional Changes
1. Turn trade of resources back on
2. Turn cultural conversion back on
3. Turn Great Sci Leaders back on
4. Reduce happiness from buildings in order to increase war weariness
5. Make some troops require population to build