The Cold War Deluxe; 1950-1991 [Archive] - Page 17

Mprilla

Mar 24, 2007, 08:51 PM

I downloaded and tried to install this senario as I wanted to play it. After many hours of downloading when I extracted the file I got the following messages.

! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Terrain\xdpc.pcx. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\A1\Run.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\A26\A26Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Anti-tank Infantry\x_american Anti-tank run.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Argentinian Infantry PW\GermanRiflemanVictory.wav. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Avro Vulcan\run.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\BTR60\BTR70AttackA.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\CF100\CF100Bomb.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Collossus\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Coral Sea\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\E2C\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Essex\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Essex\Run.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\F14\TomcatAttack.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Indonesian Infantry\DPeacekeeperDefault.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Iowa Class BB\Fidget.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Iowa Mod\AttackA.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Iowa Mod\IowaBBDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Kashin\death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Leopard1\Attack.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Leopard1\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Lynx\LynxDeath.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\M4\M4A1Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\ME Infantry\TanParachutisteFortify.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\MiG15\MiG15Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\NJ\IowaWWIIRun.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Oriskany\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\P51\P51Run.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\PLO Guerilla\SikhRifleDefault.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Richelieu\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Skory\Run.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Slava\Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Spanish Infantry PW\x_germanRM victory.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Sverdlov\Default.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\T62\T-62Default.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\T80\T-80Death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Tarawa\AttackB.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Tucano\death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\UH60\BlackhawkAttack.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Vanguard\Attack.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Vanguard\Run.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\Yak38\death.flc. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\ZSU\ZSUDeath.wav. The file is corrupt
! C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios\TCW.zip: CRC failed in TCW\Art\Wonder Splash\wall.pcx. The file is corrupt

As you can see several files are corrupt. I am not sure why?

Could someone please send me the files that are listed as corrupt and I will install them? I cannot play this senario without them it crashes every time I try.

Thanks.

Mprilla@aol.com

Klyden

Mar 24, 2007, 10:08 PM

I would say try to do another download and see what happens.

Mprilla

Mar 25, 2007, 07:53 AM

Post deleted by poster

Samez

Mar 25, 2007, 11:31 AM

well to me it seems strange in all error msgs being the last sign of the file a dot
e.g.:
CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\ZSU\ZSUDeath.wav.
hmm don't know if thats normal, just seemed strange to me..

Mprilla

Mar 25, 2007, 12:40 PM

Post deleted by poster

El Justo

Mar 25, 2007, 01:43 PM

Mprilla,

the files are not corrupted. trust me...they've been uploaded for almost 2 years and the folder is one of the most DL'ed scenarios on the entire forum.

emailing the files to will serve no purpose since you would receive the files in a compressed format thus leaving you w/ the exact same dilema.

the error is clearly on your end - either your decompression programs aren't working or some sort of error occurred while you were extracting them. those error messages you've received seem strange to me also. so please stop dogging those who are trying to help you.

psweetman1590

Mar 25, 2007, 02:34 PM

Hmmm, it would take just as long to dl the files from an email attachment as it would from the dl site, so I'm not quite sure what good that would do.

Perhaps you can dl overnight? I used to do that before I had broadband. Just set it up before you go to bed, wake up in the morning and VOILA! It's ready to go. Plus, several users have reported that they have better luck (as far as corrupted dls go) when they download the files at a time when the internet is not as busy. Assuming you live in a populous timezone, overnight would work perfectly.

Lastly, you're not the first to have this problem, so don't worry. Downloading again seems to have helped most who had this problem -- including me! So, stick with it, my good man.

Good luck and I hope you find it worth the effort when you finally can get it running.

Mprilla

Mar 25, 2007, 05:31 PM

Post deleted by poster

Mprilla

Mar 25, 2007, 05:36 PM

Post deleted by poster

I_batman

Mar 25, 2007, 08:42 PM

Gee Mprilla, sorry that one of El Justo's projects is not to your liking. I have helped El Justo a fair bit with TCW over the past couple years, and the files have been used many, many times.

If I recall, I had corrupted files myself the very first time I downloaded. However, the problem was definitely on my side. I would bet on that being the problem.

Now, as to El Justo not supporting this scenario, there are a number of users and a couple hundred pages in this thread that prove that statement quite wrong.

I checked out all 10 of your posts over the last two years. This is an extremely large, detailed scenario and you will have the same problems you had two years ago with Rocoteh's WWII-Global scenario. Based on that, I would make a recommendation. Don't try to download this scenario. Don't try to play it. It will only bring you frustration and anger.

Mprilla

Mar 25, 2007, 09:10 PM

Post deleted by poster

I_batman

Mar 25, 2007, 10:01 PM

You are in fact lying. I had problems with Rocoteh's WWII global scenario just as 99.9% of all people do. Not anything unusual there at all.

The problem here is an entirely different one. simply send me the files I requested and the problem will be solved. End of story. It's not my fault at all. I have a dial up and I don't feel like spending another 10 hours downloading the entire file only to have some corrupt files show up. And you know perfectly well I didn't do anything to make those files corrupt. As to this senario not being to my liking I have no idea since I cannot even play it. If you or it's maker were men and not children you would have sent me the files I requested long ago without the bull and been done with it. Be childish and don't send them to me. Or be a man and send them to me. Your choice. Be the better person and shut me up by sending the files I asked for or prove to the entire world that you are a child and don't send them and keep acusing me of all sorts of things without any foundation.

You know Mprilla, you are right.
You have proven to the TCW world I am a liar and a child.

I am also pretty sure as that as I sulk like a child I won't be sending you any files, uncorrupted or otherwise. I am also fairly certain none of my childish TCW friends won't be either, even though you have asked so politely and shown great patience with the immature lot of us.

Being a child, I will now also copy cat the behaviour of another person you were so polite with two years ago. I will now ignore you and not post a reply to anything comments you post.

You win.

Klyden

Mar 25, 2007, 10:11 PM

Considering several people have had corrupted downloads and have followed the sound advice of simply doing another download and having that fix their issue, then I would say the help/advice I gave you was based on what had helped other people and not a lack of help at all but rather very sound advice that has proven to work for others who have gone on to enjoy the scenario.

Sorry, but I think I am with I Batman on this one.. obviously we are wrong and you are right.

Plotinus

Mar 26, 2007, 03:42 AM

Mprilla, when people offer you advice in a pleasant way, you are free to take it or not, but there is no need to react like that. In particular, please do not report a whole string of completely inoffensive posts. The offering of advice does not necessarily constitute an attempt to begin a flame war.

Equuleus

Mar 26, 2007, 04:10 AM

I MISSED THE NASTY POSTS.
wHAT WERE THEY ABOUT?

Keroro

Mar 26, 2007, 09:01 AM

Don't know, but there's a quote in post 4024 and you should be able to piece together the rest from the answers.

Equuleus

Mar 26, 2007, 12:17 PM

I see.............
I missed that 1.
LOL.

Mprilla

Mar 26, 2007, 03:13 PM

Thanks to Samez I now have the files I asked for. And it worked like a charm. Had any of you simply sent me the files I asked for I would have stopped having to post here long ago. All anyone had to do was send me the files I asked for as Samez did and the problem would be solved. Not accuse me of stuff or say this or that. Just send me the files. I knew what I needed and it worked. Samez is an adult and I thank him.

well to me it seems strange in all error msgs being the last sign of the file a dot
e.g.:
CRC failed in TCW\Art\Units\ZSU\ZSUDeath.wav.
hmm don't know if thats normal, just seemed strange to me..

x7-ChoBo

Mar 26, 2007, 03:37 PM

You know you could dl while you sleep I used to do that when i had dial up

El Justo

Mar 29, 2007, 09:34 AM

i figured now is as good a time as any other to announce that we've been working on the next version of TCW. abd there's lots of changes and adjustments that we're going to introduce.

first off - we've adopted a much larger map. now, of course, this will impact turn times some. however, it was always our grand wish to have TCW play out on a larger map. so now is the time :) furthermore, in order to sort of mitigate the effects of the longer turn times, we've limited this v2.0 to only the 1950s. out initial intent is to keep each base unit of time at a month or 4 weeks. but this hasn't been confirmed yet. it may shake out to be 3 weeks for every turn. we'll have to hash this part out.

secondly - i've completely revamped the buildings and wonders. lots of the original buildings are still in there. however, i added in a bunch of new ones based off of the new resources. this is similar to how the buildings in AoI are formatted (ie a coal mine needs coal w/in the city radius, uranium mine needs uranium, etc etc). and we are in the beginning stages of testing out the 'reverse capture the flag' method that was so successful w/ AoI (ie the 'raw material' units). this will be a w-i-p though.

next is the govt types - this is one area we pinpointed a while ago. by this i mean that we wanted to even out the field some by allowing for the red civs to be able to rush units via paid labor instead of sacrificing population points. quite frankly, the population sacrifices had a terrible effect on the commie civs. so we even it all out in this regard. in addition to this, i added in several other govt types and we're going to adjust each type accordingly to place a stronger emphasis on the unit support costs rates. this willmean that more gold will have to be allocated to maintaining, say, one's armored forces. for example, infantry units will not require support but armored units will. so if you want to build a slew of armor and ignore your infantry then you'll have to ante up :) again, this is a w-i-p and we'll need to do a good deal of testing to be sure that it works as we have envisioned it.

there is also an ongoing unit line audit that we've been doing. and this is clearly the most grueling aspect of the design phase. i've got most of the naval unit lines finished and we've started w/ the air units. now, it is not as if we're taking any type of radical departure from the previous TCW unit lines. instead, what we're trying to do is to supplement the existing lines and sort of plug any gaps and/or enhance the existing models. more on that as i post my notes from the audits.

lastly - the eventual release of v2.0 is contingent upon the release of SOE since many of the gfx will be used from it. so i can't say for certain when this'll be. but it is closer than you may think :D

i hope to post periodic updates from my r&d notes to keep people updated.

Virote_Considon

Mar 29, 2007, 09:43 AM

I was playing this scenario for the first time in a few months the other day as the Arabs. It was crazy! First, I practically bulldozed the North Africans (their last city was saved because the Central Africans declaired peace on them :(). Then, it was on/off war with the "West", and I lost (but re-gained, just about) Basra to the South-East Asians!

I like the sound of a new update. I bet the new VP's make the AI use its navy in this scenario, too, which is always a bonus. However, have you thought of streching the scenario, so that instead of just the 50's, it encompases the 60's too? Maybe even the early 70's? (although 70's may be too out of the scope ;))

El Justo

Mar 29, 2007, 09:56 AM

below is a rough list of what is in store for the new naval lines for this TCW version. note that a new class of units will be introduced on a broad scale: frigates. i know that in the past we steered clear of putting them in there since they're so small and the map did not really accomodate them. however, this larger map and the asw roles of frigates during this time period neccessitated their inclusion.

Canada

CLs: Crown Colony class (1 pre-placed) – Minotaur class (1 pre-placed)

DDs: Tribal class (pre-placed-unbuildable)  St Laurent class (1951)
Restigouche class (mid ‘50s)

CV: Colossus class (2 pre-placed)

Subs: Amphion class Porpoise class  Oberon class (early ‘60s)

South Africa
escort DDs and asw frigates (ie generic units)

DDs tribal class (pre-placed-unbuildable)

France
BBs: Richelieu class (2 pre-placed-unbuildable)

CVLs: Avenger class (1 pre-placed-unbuildable) – Colossus class (1 pre-placed-unbuildable) – Independence class (2 obtained in the early ‘50s from the US)

CVs: Clemenceau class (late ‘50s – 2 of them)

CLs: La Galissonnière Class (3 pre-placed) - Capitani Romani class (2 pre-placed-ex Regia Marina boats) – de Grasse class* (1 pre-placed-aaa cruiser)
* another of this class, or one similar to it, was launched in ’56 and it was the flagship of the french med fleet (Colbert). Perhaps we could have a pre-placed imp/wonder in france which spawns them roughly every 70 turns?

CAs: Suffren class (1 pre-placed) - Duquesne class (1 pre-placed)

DDs: Le Fantasque class (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Cannon class (pre-placed-unbuildable)  Surcouf class (mid ‘50s)  Duperre (late ‘50s)

Frigates: Le Corse class (early ‘50s)  Le Normand class (mid ‘50s)  Comandand Riviere class (late ‘50s)

Subs Diesel-Electric: Sapphire class (pre-placed-unbuildable ~ ex RN boats)  La Creole class (pre-placed-first build) Narval class (mid ‘50s)  Aréthuse class (late ‘50s) Daphne class (’60)

UK
CVLs: Colossus (6 pre-placed)

CVs: Audacious class (2 pre-placed)  Illustrious class (1 pre-placed)  Hermes class (’59)

DD/DDGs: C class (pre-placed-unbuildable) Battle class (starting unit – unbuildable)  Daring class (1st build - already in)  county class (early 60s)

Frigates: Type 15 class (start unit)  Whitby class (mid ‘50s)  Blackwood class (late ‘50s) Rothesay class (‘60)

CLs: Town class (pre-placed)  Crown Colony class (Starting unit – unbuildable)  Tiger class (Starting unit – unbuildable)  Tiger class CG conversion (late 50s)

Unbuildable & Pre-Placed: the BB HMS Vanguard (post war until ’59 or ’60)

SS Diesel-Electric: Amphion class (pre-placed-start build)  Stickleback class (mid 50s) Porpoise class (late 50s)  Oberon (early 60s)

SSN: Dreadnought class (ie S101-early ‘60s)
5. Iran/Pakistan/Afghanistan
escort DDs - asw frigates – coastal SSs

SS Diesel Electric: Daphne class (late ‘50s)

CLs: Dido class (1 preplaced)

Italy
escort DDs – coastal SSs

frigates: Cannon class (’51)  Canopo class (mid ‘50s) Bergamini class (’60)

DD: Benson class (2 pre-placed)  Impetuoso class (mid ‘50s)

CLs: Abruzzi class (2 pre-placed) - Capitani Romani class (2 pre-placed)

Subs: Gato (mid ‘50s)

Turkey
escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

DDs: Gleaves class (4 pre-placed)  M-class (late ‘50s)

BC: Yavuz Sultan Selim (1 pre-placed)

West Germany
asw frigates – coastal SSs

DD: Fletcher class (late ‘50s)  Hamburg class (’60)

Frigates: Köln class (late ‘50s)

Argentina/Chile/Bolivia
escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

CVL: Independencia (x HMS warrior – acq’d ’58)

Cruisers: 2 Brooklyn class cruisers (2 unbuildable & pre-placed)

DDs: Buenos Aires class (5 pre-placed)

China/N Korea

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

US
Carriers: original Essex class (8 pre-placed) --> Midway class (3 pre-placed) --> modernized Essex* (’50-’55) --> Forrestal class (4 of them - mid to late 50s)
*15 cranked out via the SCB-27 & SCB-125 programs

the modernized essex is imo the best candidate for the US king flag. Total tally would leave the Yanks with 30 CVs (!) by the end of the scenario. Of course, this is w/out any being lost but I’m wondering if that is too much. All CVs will be autopro’d btw and they can be ‘timed’ to spawn the units we want and then made obsolete when we deem it appropriate (in game terms via the obsolete function in the editor for the building).

BBs: Iowa class (4 pre-placed)

CAs: Des Moines class (3), Baltimore class (6), Oregon City class (2) --> CG/CAG conversions (3 autopro’d or kinged)

There are 6 baltimores in reserve but activated in early 50s. I’m leaning towards leaving them out though. 11+ CAs is more than enough imo.

CLs: Cleveland class CLG/CG conversions (6 autopro’d)

SSs: Gato class (pre-placed – unbuildable) --> Tang Class (GUPPY- ‘51) --> Albacore* class (’53) --> Nautilus* class (mid 50s) --> Skate class (late 50s)
*for lack of a better term

I’m considering making all subs autopro’d. I mean, we’ve got a lot of space to add in the buildings. This’ll also guarantee 100% that there’ll be subs in the oceans. And this after all is a true submarine era. The barbell class could be added to the end of this unit line. However, I think that is enough for 120-30 turns.

DD/DDGs: Fletcher* class (pre-placed & unbuildable) --> FRAM I upgrades (early 50s) --> Forrest Sherman class (mid 50s) --> Charles F. Adams class (late 50s)

* the fletchers will be plentiful. The task I think will be to narrow down exactly how many we want on the map. They also encompass the sumner and gearing classes, too. However, I’m not looking to place all of those classes on the map. Some other civs get them though but not the US. The fram upgrades could come via a straight forward upgrade (hence a buildable ‘fram’ DD) or a king flag although the king flag for the US can be awarded to one class (however – this plentiful a class may warrant consideration). So we’ll have to make a decision on exactly which class gets the king. It won’t be the iowas either since they’re sorted out already for the 50s version.

Warsaw Pact

BBs: Novorossiysk (former Italian BB, Guilio Cesare [conte di cavour class])

DDs: Gnevny class (pre-placed – unbuildable) - Soobrazitelny class (pre-placed – unbuildable) – Osmotritelny class (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Skoryy class (1st build) - Kotlin class (’55) - Kilden class (’58 & missile upgrade of kotlin) - Kanin class (’60)

not listed are the possible foreign DDs from the US (lend-lease wickes perhaps), Rumania, Germany, and 1 Italian DD.

CLs: Kirov class (6 pre-placed–unbuildable) – Chapayev class (5 pre-placed-unbuildable) - Sverdlov class (starting build)

Subs: Zulu class* (Starting unit and build) - Whiskey class** (Starting unit and build) - Golf class*** (mid-to-late ‘50s) - November class**** (late ‘50s) - Hotel class***** (late ‘50s)
• *1 upgrade: the first ever SSB – 6 total conversions. King flag?
• ** 3 potential Whiskey upgrades: Single Cylinder, TwinCylinder, and Long Bin – all SSBs
• *** successor to the zulu conversions
• **** 1st soviet SSN
• ***** 1st soviet SSBN – based off of November but w/ launch system. Hotel II in the late 50s, too.

Brazil
escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

CLs: Bahia class (ex USN-2 pre-placed)

CVLs: Colossus class (1 acquired in mid ‘50s)

DD/DDGs: Marcilio Dias class (3 pre-placed) - Acre class (6 pre-placed) Fletcher class (late ‘50s) (already in)

subs: Gato class (late ‘50s)

Australia
escort DDs

Frigate: River Class (several pre-placed) – Yarra class (RAN Type 12s-late ‘50s) – Rothesay class (’60)

CVLs: Colossus class (1 loaned by UK from ’52-’55)*
What to do here? This ship was returned to the UK in ’55 and subsequently sold to brazil (minas gerais). I say include it for the sake of giving the Aussies/Kiwis some more projection. It’ll have to be autopro’d though.

CV: Majestic class (1 pre-placed) - modernized Majestic class (1 in the mid ‘50s)

Destroyer: Tribal Class (3 pre-placed) - Battle Class (2 pre-placed) - Daring Class (mid ‘50s)

SS Diesel-Electric: Amphion class (starting build)  Porpoise class (late ‘50s)

CAs: County Class (1 pre-placed)

Central America

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

Lowlands
escort DDs – asw frigates

CVL: Colossus class (1 pre-placed)

CLs: De Zeven Provinciën class (2 pre-placed)

SSs Diesel-Electric: Gato class (mid ‘50s)

Colombia/Venezuela/Peru

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

Japan

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

SE Asia (essentially indochina minus vietnam)

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

S Korea-Taiwan-Philippines

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

Indonesia

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

North Africa

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

Austria-Swiss

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

India
escort DDs – coastal SSs

Frigates: Hunt class (mid ‘50s) – Blackwood class (late ‘50s)

DDs: R Class (ex RN-3 pre-placed)

CLs: Leander class (ex RN-2 pre-placed)

Yugoslavia

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

Arab League

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

Israel

escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

Scandinavia
escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

BB: Sverige class (coastal defence ships-3 pre-placed)

Spain
escort DDs - asw frigates – coastal SSs

DDs: Churruca class (several pre-placed) – Audaz class (mid ‘50s) –
Fletcher class (late ‘50s)

CLs: Navarra class (1 pre-placed) - Blas de Lezo class (2 pre-placed) –
Almirante Cervera (3 pre-placed)

CAs: Canarias class (1 pre-placed)

SS Diesel-Electric: Gato class (late ‘50s)

Greece
escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

DDs: Gleaves class (2 pre-placed) Fletcher class (late 50s)

Subs: Gato class (late ‘50s)

Portugal
escort DDs – asw frigates – coastal SSs

DDs: Douro class (5 pre-placed)

Samez

Mar 30, 2007, 09:44 AM

Orhan

Mar 30, 2007, 04:02 PM

..that we wanted to even out the field some by allowing for the red civs to be able to rush units via paid labor instead of sacrificing population points. quite frankly, the population sacrifices had a terrible effect on the commie civs. so we even it all out in this regard...

Very good idea my artist friend El Justo.

In fact that was how I played the Russians with this beautiful scenario of yours earlier. Otherwise, it was nonsense and no fun playing the Russians. Too much messacre for no real outcome!... Ihhh... I enjoıy producing, not the killing! By the way, pls. excuse my bluntness here, but I certainly wouldn't have mentioned it this way unless I saw the above message anyhow.

Also, economically speaking, all forms of governments, one way or another, use or have used some form of money -or some medium of exchange, meaning the very same thing to be exact- during their existence. I don't even know why killing populations for speading production idea was even acknowledged, except may be for the very first stages of "theoratical" human existence, about which we hardly and "really" know anything for sure.

So, a very good shot friend. :)

..and, waiting for it anxiously of course!.. :goodjob:

El Justo

Mar 30, 2007, 04:27 PM

Will west germany and lowlands be splitted?
There will be austria and swiss, does it mean there is an other neutral faction?
And if Portugal and Spain are split is there any chance Spain not being part of the NATO (they joined in 1982 (?)) or will it be part of the neutrals?

BTW is there any chance for china to get some soviet ships? Don't know how it was in rl but it might be hmm challenging if even India will have it's own shiptype...
hi Samez :)

yes, W Germany will now stand alone which is how we've always wanted it really but the smallish map prevented us from doing so. now WG will have about 10-12 cities.

Austria and Switzerland now have a place on the map as well. i know it seems a little weird to have them combined like that. but there was no real option to let them each stand alone. the Swiss btw have only one city.

the neutral question is a tough one b/c it is hard to leave a civ out in the open like that b/c either the reds or the blues will come knocking. or worse, both of them. so generally speaking, we're inclined to lump Spain and Portugal and even the Austria-Switz civ into the blue alliance. however, nothing is locked in stone and we'd much prefer to have them neutral assuming that game-play and balancve are where we want for it to be :D

China in the 1950s had almost zero 'blue ocean' type ships in its inventory. however, they did, in time, receive some of the garbage soviet ships. but most of them were of the coastal variety (MTBs & midget subs & a few ww2 era DDs). of course, if we can find a class of ships that may enhance them so in line with history then by all means, we'd toss them into their line. for the time being though - they stand to recveive the generic line.

El Justo

Mar 30, 2007, 04:30 PM

Very good idea my artist friend El Justo.

In fact that was how I played the Russians with this beautiful scenario of yours earlier. Otherwise, it was nonsense and no fun playing the Russians. Too much messacre for no real outcome!... Ihhh... I enjoıy producing, not the killing! By the way, pls. excuse my bluntness here, but I certainly wouldn't have mentioned it this way unless I saw the above message anyhow.

Also, economically speaking, all forms of governments, one way or another, use or have used some form of money -or some medium of exchange, meaning the very same thing to be exact- during their existence. I don't even know why killing populations for speading production idea was even acknowledged, except may be for the very first stages of "theoratical" human existence, about which we hardly and "really" know anything for sure.

So, a very good shot friend. :)

..and, waiting for it anxiously of course!.. :goodjob:
hi again Orhan :D

yes, yes, i think it was you who made a brief mention of the gold rush v. population rush. so yeah, it should make a big difference as you noted. and i've thought along similar lines as you mentioned w/ the 'medium of exchange' thingie :)

i hope to post some more info over the weekend, primarily air force stuff and their audit. it gets a little easier after the high-end civs are finshed...so stay tuned.

I_batman

Mar 30, 2007, 05:18 PM

RedwallFortress

Mar 30, 2007, 06:38 PM

Great to hear that v2.0 is in the works. Am enjoying currant one vastly.

Orhan

Mar 30, 2007, 09:57 PM

..i hope to post some more info over the weekend, primarily air force stuff and their audit. it gets a little easier after the high-end civs are finshed...so stay tuned.

I'll be tuned - at leat every once in a while, that is!- and I'm sure you'll do an excellent job..

Given this opportunity let me ask you for something small in your AOI scenario El Justo, when I go back to it for another turn.

I briefly llooked at the files once, but couldn't immediately figure out how to change the pics of "mine" developments, the original ones that is, which I really find disturbing to my taste!! I believe you did, or may be someone else used another more meaningfull pics for them before. But don't know which files they are saved in, or if there are other codes that might require changes!? Can you help me on that, so I don't see those "cold" mine pics on your nice map?

You see, I play around with this game mostly to make myself feel better with bulding "usefull" infrastructure, and getting strong on that permanently, rather than betting on the pre-set troop strength of AI to beat other parties, especially when they all get an easy alliance against me, as soon as I start doing fine!! I am toooo old for that kind of stuf!

I know, it is a different perspective, but that is how I look at it, period.

If you can help, I'll appreciate it.

Thanks friend.

Rocoteh

Mar 31, 2007, 01:06 AM

One big thing with the economy is getting more balance into costs vs GP production. One of the keys is this game will be no more building up a massive mechanized forces with tons of high end units without financial conseqeuences.

This will mean a lot higher support costs for high end units, high end city improvements, and zero or low costs for low end units.

Yes, for sure economy is crucial in modern scenarios.

In my own WW3-scenario (Not sure I will find time to complete it) I am now
working with GDP-counting.
Thus GDP of the "Arab-coalition" (all Arab-nations) equals the GDP of Spain.

Rocoteh

Samez

Mar 31, 2007, 03:00 AM

I_batman

Mar 31, 2007, 01:08 PM

Samez, the new map definitely has Hong Kong. El Justo has taken great pains to add as many colonies as are historically possible without wrecking gameplay.

Rocoteh, you are absolutely right about getting GDP's balanced in the modern world. Today, Spain is a approx 1 trillion dollar economy, same as Canada. The U.S. is approx $11-13 trillion, depending on how they want to calculate it.

What is nuts is how little benefit the Arab world gets from all the oil pumped out of there. To put in perpective, the CIA world page had Saudi Arabia's GNP at $340 billion U.S. in 2005. Exxon's 2005 revenue (its equivalent of GNP) was $371 billion. My source for this is MSNBC.
The 5 biggest oil companies in the world could combined finance armed forces with the same ability as Canada or Spain.

What does that mean? I think it means that El Justo and you have major headaches trying to balance the game engine's economic emulation with reality/history.

Simon Darkshade

Mar 31, 2007, 01:32 PM

Also to be calculated is that the Arab world was not the major world oil source in the 1950s. The United States was still right up there, IIRC

I_batman

Mar 31, 2007, 01:51 PM

Also to be calculated is that the Arab world was not the major world oil source in the 1950s. The United States was still right up there, IIRC

The U.S. was, and still is, one of the top 3 oil producers in the world.

Rocoteh

Apr 01, 2007, 01:06 AM

Rocoteh, you are absolutely right about getting GDP's balanced in the modern world. Today, Spain is a approx 1 trillion dollar economy, same as Canada. The U.S. is approx $11-13 trillion, depending on how they want to calculate it.

What is nuts is how little benefit the Arab world gets from all the oil pumped out of there. To put in perpective, the CIA world page had Saudi Arabia's GNP at $340 billion U.S. in 2005. Exxon's 2005 revenue (its equivalent of GNP) was $371 billion. My source for this is MSNBC.
The 5 biggest oil companies in the world could combined finance armed forces with the same ability as Canada or Spain.

What does that mean? I think it means that El Justo and you have major headaches trying to balance the game engine's economic emulation with reality/history.

I batman,

I agree. The huge oil resources has not created industrial or economic
power in the Arab nations.
There is still no independent production of advanced weapons.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Apr 01, 2007, 01:17 AM

Also to be calculated is that the Arab world was not the major world oil source in the 1950s. The United States was still right up there, IIRC

Simon Darkshade,

That was also the case 1939.
US was the number one oil-producer, while lack of oil meant that
Germany could only motorize a fraction of its infantry divisions.

Rocoteh

Simon Darkshade

Apr 01, 2007, 06:04 AM

Certainly, and that necessitated the heavy use of horse transport, which did encounter difficulties at various stages, including the Russians deliberately spreading equine diseases to cripple Jerrie logistically.

For independent weapons construction of the level referred to (ie not just modifications of missiles, tanks and artillery, but wholesale production of indigenously designed prototypes of ground vehicles, aircraft and ships) you need a lot more infrastructure, expertise and equipment. That is beyond most nations.

As such, the weak position of the Arabs in the 1950s is realistic, but it is not bereft of hope in the hands of a thoughtful player; as always, weaknesses can be used as strengths.

El Justo

Apr 01, 2007, 10:06 AM

I'll be tuned - at leat every once in a while, that is!- and I'm sure you'll do an excellent job..

Given this opportunity let me ask you for something small in your AOI scenario El Justo, when I go back to it for another turn.

I briefly llooked at the files once, but couldn't immediately figure out how to change the pics of "mine" developments, the original ones that is, which I really find disturbing to my taste!! I believe you did, or may be someone else used another more meaningfull pics for them before. But don't know which files they are saved in, or if there are other codes that might require changes!? Can you help me on that, so I don't see those "cold" mine pics on your nice map?

You see, I play around with this game mostly to make myself feel better with bulding "usefull" infrastructure, and getting strong on that permanently, rather than betting on the pre-set troop strength of AI to beat other parties, especially when they all get an easy alliance against me, as soon as I start doing fine!! I am toooo old for that kind of stuf!

I know, it is a different perspective, but that is how I look at it, period.

If you can help, I'll appreciate it.

Thanks friend.
yes, yes :) this is a relatively simple task.

the mine images are stored on the terrain_buildings pcx file which is located in the Terrain folder. this pcx has lots of the other terrain type buildings like the trenches etc.

so there's 2 ways of doing it -

1.) if you're savvy enough w/ PhotoShop, you can paste the mine you want over the exisitng one that is on the terrain_buildings pcx

2.) find a new terrain_buildings pcx file that has the mine gfx you want and simply plug in this whole new file in place of the existing one. this is the easier of the two steps. however, the trench gfx will be different. but this may be a decent trade-off for you :D

El Justo

Apr 01, 2007, 10:22 AM

Wow WGermany 10-12 cities ie the map will be much bigger!
This will make the cold war at the German/German border more interesting!
About income and maintenance cost: I think the biggest problem were the metropolis with 50 or more citizens ie with 30 or more specialists, so it's possible to run your research at min researchtimes without paying for it (directly)...
On the one hand it's fun to have big cities but on the other hand this would be very easy to restrict.
I hope the new map will also have Hong Kong.. This would also involve some new strategies with mi6 operations in china...
yup, and we've always wanted to have the German border area to have played a more important role. so i think this will help w/ this some :) it's 10 total cities btw

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5460/tcw20germanycx5.jpg

and to add onto the middle east discussion :D

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/5739/tcw20middleeasttf5.jpg

Israel
Fighters
Avia S-199 (starting unit-unbuildable) – P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Spitfire LF Mk IXE (starting unit)- Gloster Meteor F 4 (few pre-placed-starting build)- Dassault Ouragan M.D.450B (1954) - Dassault MD.454 Mystère IV (1956) - Dassault Super Mystère B.2 (1958)

Variants
Meteor F 8: larger and stronger airframe, uprated engines, entered service 1952

Light and Medium Bombers
Mosquito (pre-placed-starting unit) – Sud Aviation Voutour (1958)

Arab League
Fighters
Hawker Hurricane MkII (pre-placed-unbuildable) – P-40 Kittyhawk MkIV (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Supermarine Spitfire Mk.22 (starting unit-unbuildable) - Macchi C.205V (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Gloster Meteor F4 (few pre-placed-starting build) - DH Vampire FB5 (1952) - MiG-15bis (1955) - MiG-17F Fresco (1957, aka Fresco C) - MiG-19S Farmer (1959, aka Farmer C)

Light and Medium Bombers
Il-28 Beagle (1955)

Virote_Considon

Apr 01, 2007, 11:34 AM

vingrjoe

Apr 01, 2007, 02:10 PM

El Justo, do you have any plans to use Ares de Borg's new terrain if it comes out before the newest TCW release ?

Adler17

Apr 02, 2007, 12:24 AM

Between Hamburg, Dortmund and Berlin you should add also Hannover. And the city names are not so correct, especially with the cities of the Ruhr area.

Adler

El Justo

Apr 02, 2007, 07:04 AM

Using this map, Russia's going to be MASSIVE! I'd hate to be the one to have to do their first-turn micromanagement! :p

On a different note, I can't wait to start re-enacting the Arab-Israeli conflict. I guess 'nam would be pretty fun, too, as the US should easily stomp them, although I doubt that they would too easily.

EDIT: 'Nam? in the 50's? whoa! :p
yes indeed. soviet russia will be a beast :)

that's what we're hoping for w/ the middle east. now that there's more cities there, it may be spiced up a little.

vingrjoe,
i'll check out that terrain when it's finished.

Adler,
that is actually an old shot of Germany...i mean, i actually included Hannover despite it not being shown :D

Samez

Apr 02, 2007, 11:38 AM

I would have prefered Frankfurt west of Nürnberg (shifting nbg directly north of Munich) but nevertheless itlooks like great fun!

dferrill

Apr 02, 2007, 01:20 PM

yes indeed. soviet russia will be a beast :)

that's what we're hoping for w/ the middle east. now that there's more cities there, it may be spiced up a little.

vingrjoe,
i'll check out that terrain when it's finished.

Adler,
that is actually an old shot of Germany...i mean, i actually included Hannover despite it not being shown :DThat terrain is awesome El Justo hope you like it thats what I use for all my downloaded scenarios.

Virote_Considon

Apr 02, 2007, 01:46 PM

That's the terrain he currently uses, Warpstorm's Watercolor terrain, I think. (most of it came with the PTW scenarios :))

Anthropoid

Apr 02, 2007, 03:00 PM

Hey guys,
Great to see TCW is alive and well! The changes to v2.0 sound absolutely terrific. Sorry I have not been able to be more involved. Just lots of RL stuff. If you ever need a playtester or something, I'm always happy to spend a weekend jamming away on a new version :)

capitaine_choc

Apr 03, 2007, 08:43 AM

I wanna play to TCW on my Civ3 conquest 1.22 FR.
I've placed the scenario in Civ3/Conquest/Conquest, loaded it but then I got the message "Art/Unit/MP/../Marine/MarineDefault.flc is missing"
By looking inside the directory of civilization 3 I realised that those morons localized the names of files and folders. There should be a lot of "missing" files. How can I fix the problem?
http://www.civpax.com/ developed a tool to fix that but the website is not working.

El Justo

Apr 03, 2007, 08:54 AM

capitaine choc,

it needs to be in the scenarios directory...

ie-
Civilization III/Conquests/Scenarios

capitaine_choc

Apr 03, 2007, 09:07 AM

My mistake, I've misstaped the name of the directory. TCW is located in Civilization III/Conquests/Scenarios
The problem is this ****ing localization :mad:

El Justo

Apr 03, 2007, 09:12 AM

i'm not sure what you mean :confused:

my next piece of advice would probably be to review to see if your problem is the 'folder within a folder' issue that often arises after extraction of the file.

please advise - thanks :)

capitaine_choc

Apr 03, 2007, 09:18 AM

Ok here is a couple of screenshots:
Here is where I've installed TCW
http://www.zimagez.com/miniature/civ3tcw.jpg (http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/civ3tcw.php)

And here is the matter
http://www.zimagez.com/miniature/civ3fr.jpg (http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/civ3fr.php)
As you can see all the folders and files had been localized.

psweetman1590

Apr 03, 2007, 09:40 AM

By localized, do you mean "put in a different language"? That's the only thing I see wrong, and don't have a clue what you mean by "localized".

El Justo

Apr 03, 2007, 09:44 AM

hmm...could it be a compatability issue w/ the French? i mean, do you have a French version of civ3? i'm not too versed on these compatability issues.

it appears that you have the files in the right directory...but the text files for the scenario will try and locate the unit folders et als in English...

capitaine_choc

Apr 03, 2007, 09:48 AM

By localized, do you mean "put in a different language"? That's the only thing I see wrong, and don't have a clue what you mean by "localized".
Yep, how do you call that? Translated?

hmm...could it be a compatability issue w/ the French? i mean, do you have a French version of civ3? i'm not too versed on these compatability issues.

it appears that you have the files in the right directory...but the text files for the scenario will try and locate the unit folders et als in English...
Yes I do have a French version "I wanna play to TCW on my Civ3 conquest 1.22 FR." of civ3 :cry:

El Justo

Apr 03, 2007, 10:08 AM

let me see if i can round up some info on it...stay tuned mon ami :)

El Justo

Apr 03, 2007, 10:17 AM

see if this works:

English-to-French civIII converter (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=119876&highlight=french)

to be more specific:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1589585&postcount=15

capitaine_choc

Apr 03, 2007, 10:24 AM

Woh nice!! I'm gonna try this right now!

El Justo

Apr 03, 2007, 10:36 AM

let us know if it works :)

Tank_Guy#3

Apr 03, 2007, 10:56 AM

About that last PM, I'm more concerned if they work and look decent, than if they're implemented. I don't want to take away from the scenario, degrade it so to speak (AoI).

On Topic:
I'll try to find pics for the ships listed on page 202. But I won't go further than that without your say so.

This post in particular (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5258837&postcount=4034)

El Justo

Apr 03, 2007, 01:39 PM

it would be the wonders themselves that would need to be pinpointed, not the units. for example, a shipyard or air craft manufacturer - iow not the product but the producer :)

Simon Darkshade

Apr 04, 2007, 03:21 AM

Those would depend on the nations in question for the locations of the wonders. I have an excellent selection of resources as to the production facilities to be called upon if and when necessary.

capitaine_choc

Apr 04, 2007, 03:22 AM

let us know if it works :)
It does!!! That's wonderfull I'm gonna start playing right now!!
Merci mon ami!

El Justo

Apr 07, 2007, 09:49 AM

happy Easter and Passover all :)

TCW v2.0 Air Audit

1. Warsaw Pact
Light Bombers:
Pe-2 (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Pe-3 (pre-placed-unbuildable)

Medium bombers:
Tu-4 (pre-placed-unbuildable)  Ilyushin Il-28 (starting build)  Tu-16 (early to mid ‘50s)

Long-range heavy bombers:
Tu-95 (mid ‘50s)

Fighters:
Yakolev Yak 9U (pre-placed-unbuildable) - MiG-9 Fargo (pre-placed-unbuildable) - La-9 Fritz (pre-placed-unbuildable)- MiG-15 Fagot (few pre-placed-starting build) - MiG-17 Fresco (1952)- MiG-19 Farmer (1955)- MiG-21 Fishbed (late ‘50s)

Variants:
- MiG-15UTI Midget: 2 seat advanced jet trainer, similar to the T33 trainer exported by the US; could be 1st jet unit for many civs prior to MiGs, lots and lots built
- MiG-15bis: improved power plant, other slight modifications; entered service in early ‘50s, lots of civs flew ‘em
- J-2 : Chinese designation of the MiG-15 single-seat fighter
- JJ-2 : Chinese designation of the MiG-15UTI two-seat jet trainer
- Czech and Polish variants existed but since they’re part of WP, there’s no reason to add them.

MiG-17P: improved radar for all-weather fighter status; NATO designation: Fresco B, entered service c. 1953
MiG-17F: improved power plant w/ afterburners; NATO desgination: Fresco C, entered service c. 1953
MiG-17PF: afterburners + radar, NATO designation: Fresco D, entered service c. 1954
Shenyang J-5: Chinese variant of the Fresco C, entered service c. 1956-7
Shenyang J-5A: Chinese variant of Fresco D, entered service c. 1958
Polish vairants existed. However, they were similar or even identical to the Soviet variants (built under liscence)

MiG-19P: radar, improved aerodynamics, added provision for rocket packs, air-to-air missiles added, NATO designation: Farmer B, entered service c. 1956
MiG-19S: radar, improved aerodynamics, added provision for rocket packs, larger cannons, long-range navigation receiver, NATO designation: Farmer C, entered service c. 1956
MiG-19PM: all cannons removed, beam-riding air-to-air missiles added, NATO designation: Fresco E, entered service 1957
Shenyang J-6: Chinese variant, first production run, siginificantly exported, entered service c. 1958-9
Shenyang J-6A: similar to MiG-19S improvements, also a significant export, entered service c. 1960

MiG-21F-13: 1st mass production model, 1 cannon removed in favor of air-to-air missiles x2, NATO designation: Fishbed C, entered service c. 1960
MiG-21PF: 2nd mass production run, improved radar, NATO designation: Fishbed D, entered service c. 1960

2. UK
--not done yet --

3. US
Medium Bombers
B-45 Tornado (pre-placed-starting build) - B-47 Stratojet (1953) - B-57B Canberra (1956)

Long-range heavy bombers:
B-29 Superfortress (pre-placed & unbuildable) - B-50 Superfortress (pre-placed-unbuildable) B-36 Peacemaker (pre-placed-autopro’d from start) – B-52 Stratofortress (1955-autopro’d)

Fighter/Bombers:
P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-unbuildable) - F-80C Shooting Star (pre-placed-unbuildable) F-84G Thunderjet (pre-placed-unbuildable - F-86A Sabre (starting build) - F-100A Super Sabre (1954) - F-102A Delta Dagger (1956) - F-104A Starfighter (1957) - F-105B Thunderchief (1958)

Variants:
F-84F Thunderstreak: improved aerodynamics, larger payload, entered service ‘54

F-86D: improved performance and more fuel capacity, 2nd mass production run, entered service c. 1950 -USA only-
F-86E: improved flight control, some built in Canada, many delivered to NATO civs, entered service c. 1951 -export only-
F-86F: uprated engine, 300 built in Japan under license, entered service c. 1951 –export only-
F-86H: g/a attack conversion, entered service c. 1952 -USA only-
F-86K: improved NATO version, entered service c. 1952 –export only-
F-86L: upgraded D version w/ new electronics and uprated engine, entered service c. 1952 –USA only-

F-100C: more fuel, uprated engine, 1st F100 designed as f/b, entered service in 1955
F-100D: improved avionics, better aerodynamics, f/b model, entered service in 1956

F-104C: f/b version, improved fire-control radar, improved aerodynamics, entered service c. 1957
F-104G: f/b version, more fuel, improved fire-control radar, improved aerodynamics, many delivered to NATO civs, entered service c. 1958

F-105D: advanced avionics, entered service in late ‘59/early ‘60

Carrier-based fighters:
F4U-5N - F2H Banshee – F9F Panther – F9F Cougar – F8 Crusader

Carrier-based attack:
A-1 Skyraider – A-4 Skyhawk

4. Canada
Fighters
P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-unbuildable) - DH.100 Vampire (pre-placed-starting build) – Canadair Sabre Mk.2 (1951) - CF-100 Canuck Mk.3 (1953) - CF-100 Canuck Mk.4 (1954) - Canadair Sabre Mk.4 (1955) Canadair Sabre Mk.6 (1957) - CF-105 Arrow Mk.1 (1958) – CF-105 Arrow Mk.2 (1959)

carrier-based
--not done yet--

5. Afghanistan/ Pakistan/Iran
Fighters
Hawker Tempest II (pre-placed-unbuildable) – Hawker Typhoon (pre-placed-unbuildable) – P47 Thunderbolt (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Hawker Sea Fury (pre-placed-unbuildable)  Supermarine Attacker (1952) - T-33A Trainer (1955) - F-84F Thunderstreak (1957) - Canadair F-86 Mk6 Sabre (1959)

Medium Bombers
HP.57 Halifax (1 preplaced) - B-57B Canberra (1957)

6. Arab League
Fighters
Hawker Hurricane MkII (pre-placed-unbuildable) – P-40 Kittyhawk MkIV (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Supermarine Spitfire Mk.22 (starting unit-unbuildable) - Macchi C.205V (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Gloster Meteor F4 (few pre-placed-starting build) - DH Vampire FB5 (1952) - MiG-15bis (1955) - MiG-17F Fresco (1957, aka Fresco C) - MiG-19S Farmer (1959, aka Farmer C)

Light and Medium Bombers
Il-28 Beagle (1955)

7. Scandinavia
Fighters
P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-unbuildable) – Me-109G (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Saab J21 (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Saab J21 R (pre-placed-unbuildable) - J 28B (starting build, aka DH.100 Vampire) - F-84G Thunderjet (1951) - Saab J 29A (1952) - F-84F Thunderstreak (1954) - Saab J 32 Lansen (1956) - F-100D Super Sabre (1959) - Saab J 35 Draken (1959)

Variants
J 29B: 50% increase in fuel capacity, increased payload, entered service c. 1953
J 29F: uprated engine, improved aerodynamics, entered service c. 1955

J 32B: improved f/b version, entered service c. 1958

Light and Medium Bombers and strikers
Bristol Blenheim Mk.1 & Mk.4 (pre-placed-unbuildable) - English Electric Canberra B(I).Mk.8 (1955)

8. France
Fighters
P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Vampire FB 53 (pre-placed-starting build) - Dassault Ouragan (1952) - Dassault Mystere (1954) - F-84F Thunderstreak (1955) - Dassault Super Mystere (1957) - Dassault Mirage IIIA (1958)

Light and medium bombers and strikers:
Mosquito (pre-placed-unbuildable) - A 26 Invader (pre-placed-unbuildable) - F8F Bearcat (pre-placed-unbuildable) - English Electric Canberra B(I).Mk.8 (1955) - Sud Aviation Voutour (1958)

Carrier-based*
F6F

*incomplete

9. Israel
Fighters
Avia S-199 (starting unit-unbuildable) – P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Spitfire LF Mk IXE (starting unit) - Gloster Meteor F 4 (few pre-placed-starting build) - Dassault Ouragan M.D.450B (1954) - Dassault MD.454 Mystère IV (1956) - Dassault Super Mystère B.2 (1958)

Variants
Meteor F 8: larger and stronger airframe, uprated engines, entered service 1952

Light and Medium Bombers
Mosquito (pre-placed-starting unit) – Sud Aviation Voutour (1958)

10. Turkey
Fighters
Supermarine Spitfire Mk. IX & XIX (pre-placed- unbuildable) - P-47D Thunderbolt (pre-placed- unbuildable)- T-33A Trainer (1951)- F-84G Thunderjet (1952) - F-86E Sabre (1954) - F-84F Thunderstreak (1956) – F-100D Super Sabre (1958) - F-102A Delta Dagger (1959)

Light and Medium Bombers
A-26B & C Invader (pre-placed-unbuildable)

11. South Africa
Fighters
Supermarine Spitfire PR IXe (pre-placed-unbuildable) - P-51 D Mustang (pre-placed-unbuildable) - DH.100 Vampire FB-5 (starting build) - F-86F Sabre (1951) - Canadair F-86 Mk6 Sabre (1956)

Variants
DH.100 FB-6 (1951) – DH.100 FB-52 (1953)

12. China/N Korea
Fighters
Yakolev Yak 9U (pre-placed-unbuildable) - La-9 Fritz (pre-placed-unbuildable) - J-2 (starting build, aka MiG-15) - J-4 (1952, aka MiG-15bis) - MiG-17A (1954, aka J-5 & Fresco A) - J-5 (1955, aka Fresco C) - J-6 (1958, aka Farmer A) - J-6A (1960, aka Farmer C)

Medium Bombers & Strike Fighter
Tu-4 Bull (1954)- Xian H-6 (1958, aka Tu-16 Badger) - Q-5A (1960)

13. West Germany
Fighters
F-84G Thunderjet (1955) - F-84F Thunderstreak (1955) - F-86E Sabre (1956) – Canadair F-86 Mk6 Sabre (1957) – F-104G Starfighter (1959)

Light and Medium Bombers
B-26 Marauder (1955) – English Electric Canberra B(I).Mk.8 (1956) - Hawker Seahawk (1957) - Aeritalia G.91 (1958)

14. Central America
Fighter
P-47D-30 Thunderbolt (pre-placed) T-33A Shooting Star (early ‘50s)  AT-33A Shooting Star (mid ‘50s, attack version)  F-86K Sabre (late ‘50s)

15. Col/Venez/Peru
Fighter
P-51D Mustang (pre-placed) - T-33A Shooting Star (early ‘50s) - AT-33A Shooting Star (mid ‘50s, attack version) - Canadair F-86 Mk6 Sabre (late ‘50s)

16. Brazil
Fighter
P-47D Thunderbolt (pre-placed) - T-33A Shooting Star (early ‘50s) - F-80C Shooting Star (mid ‘50s) - Gloster Meteor F 8 (late ‘50s)

17. Arg/Chile/Bol
Fighter
Gloster Meteor F 4 (starting unit) - FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II (‘52, aka focke-wulf ta 183) - F-80C Shooting Star (’54) - F-86E Sabre (‘56) - F-86K Sabre (’58)

Medium Bombers
Avro Lincoln B 1 (pre-placed-unbuildable) – Avro Lancaster B 1 Special (pre-placed-unbuilable) – English Electric Canberra B(I).Mk.8 (1956) - Hawker Hunter F 6 (‘58)

18. Spain
Fighter
Hispano Aviacion Ha 1112 (pre-placed-unbuildable, aka Me-109G-) - P-47D Thunderbolt (pre-placed-starting build) - T-33A Shooting Star (‘52) - F-86E Sabre (‘54) - F-86K Sabre (’56) - F-104G Starfighter (‘59)

Medium Bombers
CASA 2.111 (pre-placed-unbuildable, aka He-111) – CASA 2.111B (’53)

19. Portugal
Fighters
Supermarine Spitfire PR IXe (pre-placed-unbuildable) – P-47D Thunderbolt (’51)  T-33A Shooting Star (‘53) F-84G Thunderjet (’55) - F-84F Thunderstreak (1956) F-86F Sabre (’58)

Light and Medium Bombers
SB2C Helldiver (pre-placed) - B-17G Flyine Fortress (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Aeritalia G.91 (1958)

20. Lowlands
Fighter
Supermarine Spitfire (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Gloster Meteor F 4 (pre-placed-starting build) – F-84E Thunderjet (1951) – F-84G Thunderjet (1952) – F-84F Thunderstreak (1954) - F-86F Sabre (1955) - F-86K Sabre (1957) - F-104G Starfighter (1959)

21. Yugoslavia
Fighter
Me-109G (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Hawker Hurricane Mk IIC/IVRP (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Supermarine Spitfire Mk VC/IX (pre-placed-unbuildable) – P-47D Thunderbolt (1951) - T-33A Shooting Star (1953) – F-84G Thunderjet (1954) F-84F Thunderstreak (1956) - F-86E Sabre (1958)

Light and Medium Bombers
Ju-87D (pre-placed-unbuildable) - DH Mosquito Mk 3/6/38 (starting build)

22. Italy
Fighter
P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-starting build) - P-47D Thunderbolt (pre-placed-starting build) - F-84G Thunderjet (1952) – F-86E Sabre (1953) - F-84F Thunderstreak (1954) - F-100D Super Sabre (1956) - F-104G Starfighter (1959)

Light Bombers and Strikers
Aeritalia G.91 (1958)

23. Greece
Fighter
Hawker Hurricane Mk IIC/IVRP (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Supermarine Spitfire Mk VC/IX (pre-placed-unbuildable) – T-33A Shooting Star (1951) – F-86E Sabre (1953) - F-84F Thunderstreak (1954) - F-86K Sabre (1956) - F-102A Delta Dagger (1958) F-104G Starfighter (1959)

24. N Africa
none

25. S Korea-Taiwan-Philippines
fighters
P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-starting build) – T-33A Shooting Star (1952) – F-84G Thunderjet* (1954) - F-84F Thunderstreak* (1955) - F-86F Sabre (1956) – F-100D Super Sabre* (1958) – F-104G Starfighter* (1959)

*Taiwan only

26. Japan
Fighter
T-33A Shooting Star(1954) - F-86F Sabre (1956) - F-104J Starfighter (1959)

27. SE Asia
Fighter
T-33A Shooting Star (1952) - F-84G Thunderjet (1954) – F-86F Sabre (1955) – F-84F Thunderstreak (1957)

28. Australia/NZ
Fighter
DAP Beaufighter Mk 21 (pre-placed-unbuildable) – P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Gloster Meteor F 4 (pre-placed-starting build) - DH.100 Vampire F 30 (1951) - Gloster Meteor F 8 (1953) – CAC Avon Sabre (1956, aka F-86F) -

Light & Medium Bombers
DH Mosquito Mk III (added in) – Bristol Blenheim V (pre-placed-unbuildable) – Avro Lincoln Mk30 (pre-placed-unbuildable) – English Electric Canberra Mk.2 (1952) - English Electric Canberra Mk.12 (1956)

Carrier-based
fighter
Hawker Sea Fury FB.Mk 11 – DH.112 Sea Venom (1956)

29. Austria-Switzerland
Fighter
Me-109 E-3a* (pre-placed-unbuildable) - DH.100 Vampire FB 6 (1952) - DH.100 Vampire FB 52 (1955) – Hawker Hunter F.6 (1958)

*Swiss

30. India
Fighter
Supermarine Spitfire Mk.V (pre-placed-unbuildable) - Hawker Tempest Mk.V (pre-placed-unbuildable) - DH.100 Vampire FB 6 (1951) – Dassault Ouragan M.D.450B (1954) – Folland Gnat F Mk.1 (1955) - Dassault MD.454 Mystère IV (1957) - Hawker Hunter F.6 (1959)

Medium Bombers
B-24 Liberator (pre-placed-unbuildable) – English Electric Canberra Mk.6 (1955)

31. Indonesia
Fighter
P-51D Mustang (pre-placed-starting build) – DH.100 Vampire T 55 (1956) –
MiG-15UTI (1957) – MiG-17F (1958)

Medium Bombers
B-25J Mitchell (pre-placed-starting build) – Il-28 Beagle (1958)

Mailman_Posty

Apr 14, 2007, 10:37 AM

I keep getting an error saying missing pedia buld_thearter what should i do? (i already tried redownloading)

psweetman1590

Apr 15, 2007, 10:41 PM

Are the files in the proper place? (civ3 -> Conquests-> Scenarios)

There is something called the folder-within-a-folder issue. Basically, check to make sure that when you open the TCW file, you can see the game folders themselves (that is, I think the files inside the TCW file are Art and Text). If you open the TCW folder, and see another TCW folder inside of it, that's your problem. What you do is cut the inner folder, go back to the scenario folder of conquests, delete the original TCW folder, and paste the copied folder into the scenarios folder. Voila, problem solved.

If it's neither of those, I don't have a clue. Sorry.

Thorvald of Lym

Apr 19, 2007, 03:38 PM

I had a similar problem a while back. It appears as though an 'unassisted' download may suffer some file corruption. I found the solution to involve using a download manager (such as GetRight or Free Download Manager). Theoretically, this ensures that unseen interruptions do not cause holes in download continuity, leading to missing files.

Hope that helps!

Tobert

Apr 23, 2007, 04:21 AM

happy Easter and Passover all :)

hi El Justo! What is this list about these planes? will there be a new version of TCW?

thanks

tobert

El Justo

Apr 23, 2007, 07:09 AM

hi Tobert :)

yes, there will be actually...and we've started on it already, back in January or February of this year. it's going to take a littl ethough as we're revamping the basics of it a good deal (ie things we learned from AoI).

those planes i listed are the new lines for it, too.

i'll probably pick these files up once again after the Vietnam War Deluxe scenario i've been working on for even longer is launched - which should be very shortly :)

cubsfan6506

Apr 23, 2007, 04:02 PM

Will the new version be of the same level of increase from aoi2 to aoi3 or just a point increse.

Simon Darkshade

Apr 24, 2007, 02:17 AM

From what has been gathered, the former.

El Justo

Apr 24, 2007, 10:21 AM

we're going to take a little from AoI in terms of 'raw materials' and the mechanics involved w/ the sea units and the AI.

but the 'raw materials' format will operate a little differently than AoI. i'll get into all of that later but it is similar...with a slight twist :)

cubsfan6506

Apr 24, 2007, 03:22 PM

Sweet. Are u going to give colonies though to the civs that had them.

Wyrmshadow

Apr 29, 2007, 08:24 PM

I hope you've been paying attention. I just pulled a whole Soviet naval air wing out of thin air and posted it.

Theryman

Apr 29, 2007, 08:37 PM

They will not be too happy about that, Wyrmshadow. The Kremlin is probably calling right now demanding the return of it's airforce!

Lord Dom

May 01, 2007, 05:55 PM

hey justo, sorry that this may hav been asked but is there a way to speed up the turn speed, also whats this talk of making the scenario lik aoi, when coud this be expected?

Theryman

May 01, 2007, 08:39 PM

cubsfan6506

May 01, 2007, 08:53 PM

I do think this scenarios turn times are pretty long. Especially when in aoi there much shorter on a bigger mpa.

Lord Dom

May 01, 2007, 09:39 PM

just wondering why aoi has faster turns?

cubsfan6506

May 01, 2007, 09:44 PM

Not as many units in aoi. Also in this most nations are on one continent. Making for more trade.

T.A JONES

May 01, 2007, 10:45 PM

For a scenario of this size, Dom, the turn times are positively speedy. The only way to increase turn time is to either delete a whole bunch of units and cities or to upgrade your computer.

Just read the box at the bottom- TCW has fast-ass loading times!

True True Lazy T :) , but I found the memory bottlenecks after youve met 500MB. Assumin we dont' have a onboard G, it won't do anymore good to upgrade with more memory. Its up to your processor to burst through those turns that seem to be taking an eternity. (1-3 minutes)

So ya the big blingy upgrade (processor) is what you need to get the data chewed up fast and spit past that mem bottlenecky. I dropped in a 3.2 AThelon and diced that Sh#t up! Now 30 seconds on GiGa maps :eek: (no joke, even with the fan runnin the thing can heat the house, and the fan is loud!! ..to loud, so there are drawbacks :( )

Edit 30 sec, not counting AI vs AI battle sequences or special programing steriods like this mod uses to step it up! )

El Justo

May 02, 2007, 06:43 AM

hey justo, sorry that this may hav been asked but is there a way to speed up the turn speed, also whats this talk of making the scenario lik aoi, when coud this be expected?
hi Lord Dom :)

yes, there are some ways to speed the turns up some. and the primary one is to remove the 'show unit anim's' in the preferences screen. this does not compromise game play at all and it imo helps reduce the times some.

as for the TCW revision - i don't know when it'll be finished to be honest. i have the vietnam files on my plate right now and i want to finish them and then move onto the TCW ones. however, i was able to get a good deal of the R&D stuff out of the way over the last few months. the R&D (research and design) stuff is absolutely the most brutal aspect of putting a scenario like this together. so that is good news.

what to expect? well, the new version will differ some from the previous incarnations. first, there's a bigger map. i know turn times are an issue but hang with me on this. this larger map will enable for much, much more use of the oceans (ie subs), more production centers, and just an overall boost in gameplay due to more locations etc. also, this version will be restricted to the 1950s only (for now). thus a rough turn limit of 180 turns will be in effect. as a result, the unit lines will be more diverse (as depicted in some of those screenies from last month w/ the air units). there'll be more autoproducing wonders (mainly for subs and some capital ships like CVs). but most importantly, the context of the scenario will be altered some to mirror that of AoI.

the similarities w/ AoI will be the 'raw material' race. now, i can't transfer the exact model from AoI into TCW b/c of the alliance issues (locked alliances w/ the 'reverse capture the flag' [ie the raw materials] feature produce undesirable results). so, instead of having to ship the goods by sea, the TCW raw materials will be shipped over land to bypass the undesirable effects of the locked alliances.

for example - in AoI, one had to ship their RMs back from, say, Africa, to the mainland (where the VP is so that they can be cashed in for points). in the new TCW, these RMs will not have to travel overseas to end up at a VP b/c VPs will be placed on the map to accomodate land travel. as a result, RMs won't be getting dropped off onto an ally's land (ie the undesirable effects).

the RM outlets will be determined by the resources ont he map (which've been completely overhauled already). so the mountains in wyoming have uranium. Cheyenne can then build a Uranium Enrichment Plant since the resource is within its city radius. this building will then autoproduce a raw material-like unit every so many turns which would then be shipped back to the continental VP for points. another example would for the french city of Bordeaux. since Wines are w/in its city radius, it can build the Wine Industry building and spawn its product (ie an RM) every so many turns and then be sent to the VP city of Paris for shipping (ie VPs).

the key to all of this will lye in the economics of the game. this aspect is also receiving quite an overhaul. the point is to chip away at the huge gold reserves that accumulate during the course of the game. so we're going to test out a whole new scheme where we jack up the unit support costs (per govt type - and there's lots of new unique govt types in now too). units like armor and capital ships will cost plenty to operate. foot units though will not have support costs. however, w/ each return of an RM to a VP, a healthy sum of gold will be awarded (AoI grants 25 gold/return). the gold value will likely be much higher than that for AoI. we'll need to determine all of the finite details of this once testing has begun to have a more firm idea of where it'll be. if i were to guess, i'd say they'd be several hundred up to maybe 1000. i don't know for sure though...

so the name of the game for the new TCW version will be to accumulate resources, then build the appropriate city imp's and wonders to spawn the RMs to generate both VPs and scratch :) all in an effort to fuel your war machine. so you want piles and piles of armor? you're gonna have to have a good enough economy to support it.

we'd also like to look at reformatting the small sized TCW map w/ some of the above. that project though is behind the others though. an MP version of the 50s biq will also be a priority at some point.

why are turn times in AoI faster in AoI compared to TCW? that is a good question actually :) I_Batman asked me that a few times over the last year or so and honestly, i don't have a good answer. the TCW map is actually a smidge smaller than the one for AoI :confused: and despite what cubsfan posted, there are actually far more units on the AoI map than TCW. the 2 things that struck me as a possibility are the espionage abilities in TCW (from the get-go unlike AoI). tech stealing is disabled in AoI and not in TCW. the locked alliances may also play a part but i can't say for certain.

Virote_Considon

May 02, 2007, 11:18 AM

I think it may be the locked alliances, especially with all of the wars that go on. In my Greek Scenario, I've noticed that my turns seem long, but if I play on Debug mode, I can see it is because the various alliances are border-skirmishing a lot.

El Justo

May 02, 2007, 11:28 AM

debug mode lengthens turns. that's for sure. i've seen it w/ a few different files and the time differences are fairly substantial.

there's also one sm wonder in TCW that allows for air and sea trade. so that is definitely not speeding things up any.

in my experiences, shutting off the non-essential unit anims seems to reap the best time-saving dividends. and of course, shutting trade off altogether is perhaps the best time saver of them all :D

cubsfan6506

May 02, 2007, 01:56 PM

Really what wonder. In my game as china i noticed a monumental slowdown at around turun 65

psweetman1590

May 02, 2007, 08:51 PM

The Overseas Trading company enables sea trade. :)

cubsfan6506

May 02, 2007, 10:16 PM

In my opinion there are more wars in aoi to though. because with one click of the buttone most of the world civs are at peace again.

Virote_Considon

May 03, 2007, 02:15 AM

But with another, they're back at war. Almost all of them ;).

cubsfan6506

May 03, 2007, 04:07 PM

I shrank my game's alliance to what i consider to be more or less the core of the alliances and turn times are significantly increased.

Prometheus1992

May 05, 2007, 10:33 AM

This is tied with best scenario by far with Rocoteh's WW2 Global...I have a question/suggestion though...would there be any way that we could maybe organize a multiplayer game where all/close to all of the nations could be filled with human players, and could be ongoing? Then when everyone folds/is defeated, just start another one? The problem would be the amount of time it would take >_<. Just a suggestion from my mind :)

cubsfan6506

May 05, 2007, 10:49 AM

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=128628

A multiplayer game can only be eight people and here is one somebody started.

Prometheus1992

May 05, 2007, 09:16 PM

shall we organize another?

Red Door

May 05, 2007, 09:22 PM

shall we organize another?

I'd certainly be more than interested.

dferrill

May 06, 2007, 08:29 AM

shall we organize another?I have never played multiplayer before but I would be interested also.

cubsfan6506

May 06, 2007, 09:59 AM

Yeah go to that thread somedody made a multiplayer version i suggest we do play by email though. (I'll be in if you make one.)

Prometheus1992

May 06, 2007, 12:43 PM

eh...i don't know how to organize one...just proposed the idea :P

if anyone else wants to help with the organization, i'd be happy to play :)

(p.s: i call Latin America :))

dferrill

May 06, 2007, 01:13 PM

eh...i don't know how to organize one...just proposed the idea :P

if anyone else wants to help with the organization, i'd be happy to play :)

(p.s: i call Latin America :))I dont know how to set it up but im interested in playing if someone can set it up and should we start a thread on house rules etc.? that is if i can participate lol. P.S.I call Warsaw Pact.

cubsfan6506

May 06, 2007, 02:21 PM

I call china by the way i cant set it up.

dferrill

May 06, 2007, 03:50 PM

Well maybe Alcosta knows how to set it up.:)

Red Door

May 06, 2007, 03:54 PM

First of all, I can set it up if no one else knows how to do it, but we need 8 players in if we are to play. If we get 8 players, I'll do it. Plus, we need to find the MP .BIQ for 1.6/1.7. (Looks at El Justo). :mischief:)

If we can find these, I'll play and set-up if necessary.

cubsfan6506

May 06, 2007, 04:12 PM

Just use the 1.52 biq.

Red Door

May 06, 2007, 04:23 PM

Just use the 1.52 biq.

Last time I checked, I had some problems with it. I can try again, or I can do the good old fashioned way of doing it myself.

I'm really waiting for confirmation of which .biq El J and the guys are using for their version. ;)

cubsfan6506

May 06, 2007, 04:41 PM

Ill do it.

Red Door

May 06, 2007, 04:43 PM

Ill do it.

Wait until we get 8 players, and I already said I'd do it.

cubsfan6506

May 06, 2007, 04:52 PM

Ok
but i think we should do the fifties.

dferrill

May 06, 2007, 04:52 PM

The latest biq i have is 1.51 and it just crashed playing on hotseat mode while i was upgrading my palace why thats even in there im not sure.is there a later biq then 1.51?

Red Door

May 06, 2007, 05:49 PM

Ok
but i think we should do the fifties.

You realize that only a specific map (1.51 MP) works for MP, don't you?

cubsfan6506

May 06, 2007, 06:15 PM

You just have to get it down to eight civs. Then it will work.

Simon Darkshade

May 07, 2007, 06:28 AM

I'll go for the Commonwealth and Empire.

dferrill

May 07, 2007, 07:17 AM

We got 5 players now need 3 more.:scan: Alcosta you here from El Justo yet on that biq.?

El Justo

May 07, 2007, 08:16 AM

vingrjoe

May 07, 2007, 08:54 AM

I'm up for playing a game.

dferrill

May 07, 2007, 09:43 AM

I'm up for playing a game.We now have 6 players and 4 civs has been taken Warsaw Pact,Latin America,China,British Common Wealth so far. Alcosta hasnt chosen yet I dont think.

I_batman

May 07, 2007, 10:38 AM

dferrill

May 07, 2007, 12:20 PM

I will play. One thing, I would come up with some house rules that are different than what is going on in the Nuclear Winter PBEM. NATO and SEATO have run roughshed over WP and Indo-China.

I am playing U.S. in Nuclear Winter, so will play any position but that.
We have also found in that game there is not much for South America and Africa/ME to do, given the rule set we are using in Nuclear Winter.We should get some house rules hashed out then.We still need 1 more player if your in.I chose Warsaw Pact as my civ but am open to change if necessary.not sure what the protocol is for choosing a civ.whats your suggestion on the changes that need to be made on house rules that didnt work in your game.?

Red Door

May 07, 2007, 05:47 PM

whew - i'm gone for a few days and you guys have been busy :)

here's my suggestion:
wait a day or 2 until i can sort out a few things w/ the most current biq file for the MP. i say this b/c i recognized a few real maluses in the MP game that we've had for this since Oct '05. it's just a few things and shouldn't be too tough to adjust.

the main question is when do you guys want to start?

i'll have to beg off on this one b/c i've got so much on the plate as it now stands. but i'll keep and eye out and can give whomever has the Africa-ME position some intel reports :)

I can wait more than a day or two, up to a week or two would be preferable. :p I personally think we should do the full game.

I'm up for playing a game.

Who do you want to be.

I will play. One thing, I would come up with some house rules that are different than what is going on in the Nuclear Winter PBEM. NATO and SEATO have run roughshed over WP and Indo-China.

I am playing U.S. in Nuclear Winter, so will play any position but that.
We have also found in that game there is not much for South America and Africa/ME to do, given the rule set we are using in Nuclear Winter.

I'll take the US then, and I agree, some house rules must be established before we start playing, especially with dealing with carrier-based planes and other things like that.

cubsfan6506

May 07, 2007, 08:28 PM

I think we should govern a house rule along the lines of this isreali spys can only attack the middleast. Also only building isreali units in isreal.

dferrill

May 07, 2007, 08:46 PM

I can wait more than a day or two, up to a week or two would be preferable. :p I personally think we should do the full game.

Who do you want to be.

I'll take the US then, and I agree, some house rules must be established before we start playing, especially with dealing with carrier-based planes and other things like that.I have the no raze exe file installed in my game will there be a no raze rule. as for razing cities I dont like razing cities anyhow as far as strategy is concerned.and another question will my no raze exe file have a effect in our game.?other then the obvious that I wont be able to raze cities.

cubsfan6506

May 07, 2007, 09:59 PM

Definatly a no raze rule. I believe it might go try to play a regular multiplayer game and tell us how it goes.

Adler17

May 08, 2007, 12:35 AM

That patch makes it impossible to raze cities for all. Also for the user. If it has consequences for an MP game I don't know.

Adler

I_batman

May 08, 2007, 12:55 AM

OK, my thoughts on this specific PBEM and house rules. First off, remember that El Justo, with some small help of others, is working on TCW 2.0, huge map, so anything we do in this PBEM he may be able to learn from, assuming the game moves at a good clip. He is working on 2.0 now, but it is a massive undertaking. I should know, I did a fair bit of naval modification for him, and that is almost trivial in the entire scope of what he is working on.

Although a human only PBEM on a small map may be radically different than a huge map SP scenario, there is always info and wisdom to be gained through experience.

OK, now specific to the current MP small map PBEM, Nuclear Winter.
If you check out the thread, we are into the mid-50's. Taken us over 18 months real time with 8 very dedicated players to get there. So based on that I think we should think of this game having a lifespan of 1950-1960. Frankly, that means 960 plays by humans, and that means 22 months to play based on 1.5 "plays"/day.

In my opinion, (and this is my opinion only, I have not asked the other guys), the game is heavily skewed towards the West. They were able to roll over the WP in Europe pretty much at will. Same thing has happened in Yugoslavia.
Also, there is not much for Africa/ME to do, same with South America, in the current game.

To make things more interesting, I would make the following changes to the biq. These are all easy and fast and I can make these changes in about 2 hours:

1. All formal alliances are trashed. Natural historical alliances should continue, but civ's can opt out of wars if so desired. Essentially, this can happen within the game today, but trade gets messed up if allies go to war against a third party you are trading with. eg. If Isreal and the ME mix it up, there is no reason for SEATO and Europe to stop trade with ME if those two civ's so choose. This should allow for more regional conflicts, without worldwide involvement.

2. WP and Indo-China must have significantly cheaper 1st gen infantry to counter the high end war machine of the West. Quantity vs quality, plus it gives WP a better chance to threaten Europe.

3. Increase nuke missile output. Make the threat of nuclear catastophe more real and immediate right off the bat. More stategic nukes for WP and U.S. immediately. Even though the U.S. historically had a massive lead in nukes over WP, I think both sides should have the ability to lay waste to the enemy's country. The game engine today does not do justice of the true potential destruction caused by a nuke, hence we need a lot more to represent that.
The U.S. may have been able to kill everybody in the world 5 times over, but if they had a 5:1 lead over WP, that still means the WP had the ability to kill everybody in the world once.

4. B-52 bombers have to be scaled back in HP and firepower slightly. They can be game-breakers.

5. Make workers buildable, or dramatically increase the build frequency. Indo-China and WP would likely benefit most from this.

6. Oh, and if it is not on now, all trade enabled.

7. Double aircraft carrier capacity.

House rules, or more specifically, victory conditions, are a little more tricky. Anthropoid suggested a ton of them about 8 months ago. I thought they were a little complicated, but the intent was excellent. I think he was pushing towards more regional dominance, which I think is cool and leads to a better game for all in my mind. I also suggested more simplistic ones, based on each civ having different goals to win the game. I say my victory conditions were simplistic because mine were based soley on territory captured, or initial territory captured.

So at first thought, something like this:

Africa/ME Victory conditions: At any time in the game they capture all Israeli cities.

Indo-China(plus Yugoslavia): Hold all initial territory, except for Yugoslavia, in 1960 or:
Capture and hold for three turns all South Vietnam and South Korean cities at anytime in the game.

WP: Capture all West German cities anytime during the game, or:

capture all of Scandanavia during the game while holding all initial territory. (that has no historical or political reason for this, but think it makes things interesting.) or:

Capture and hold for 5 turns 5 Chinese cities while still holding all initial WP cities, once again at anytime in the game.

SEATO: Capture and hold for 3 turns all North Vietnam and North Korea cities anytime in the game.

Commonwealth: Not sure. Maybe something to do with capturing X amount of South American cities, or capturing X amount of Chinese or WP cities. (also, see below for U.S. victory conditions about policing the world)

South America: Not sure. Maybe something to do with capturing X amount of ME/African cities. I have to admit, I think this is the most boring civ to play. Klyden has played it for over 18 months, and should be able to give good insight into the position.

Euro: Capture and hold 5 WP cities (have to include East Germany) for 5 turns anytime during the game.

U.S. Not sure. Should probably involve Central America, but it is too easy for it simply be U.S. captures all of Central America. Maybe, simply if no one else wins, they, Euro, and Commonwealth get a shared win. I am playing the U.S. position, and I tell you, the U.S, is not as strong at the outset as it seems, especially when it comes to land battles in Europe. Twice I have attacked with what seems very strong forces, and been hammered.

But to act as a foil in hotspots all over the world, that would be very interesting. The U.S. would have to be able to help out Isreal in the Middle East to head off a Africa/ME victory, and at the same time help out in West Germany, South Vietnam, and South Korea. The U.S. gets stretched pretty thin, and tough to play then.

I think that there can be team victory conditions as well.
1. NATO captures Moscow, or Bejing, game over.
2. U.S. with SEATO captures North Korea, North Vietnam, plus 10 other Indo-China cities, combined win for SEATO/U.S.
3. Any number of scenarios where Indo-China and WP ally to hammer SEATO or Euro, or capture Central America or Cuba.
4. South America joins an alliance or by itself manages to capture and hold Cuba and two U.S. mainland cities for 3 consecutive turns.

These above are starting talking points.

Some basic rules though still apply:

1. No razing cities, ever.
2. No trading cities. You capture a city, you can't give it to anybody else but the original owner.
3. No trading tech.
4. No stealing tech.
5. Non-carrier based aircraft can't board carriers. We can make that list up as we move in the game, but I think it is done now for TCW 2.0

Well gents, what do you think?

I have a number of other ideas, but they involve considerable changes in the biq, and I don't know how long you want to wait to start the game.

Simon Darkshade

May 08, 2007, 07:07 AM

Seems in order. British Empire and Commonwealth objectives should be something along the lines of the US, rather than accented towards South America.

Should be interesting, albeit without some of the 2.0 goodies and named carriers.

dferrill

May 08, 2007, 08:06 AM

That patch makes it impossible to raze cities for all. Also for the user. If it has consequences for an MP game I don't know.

AdlerI better use the original conquests exe file for our game just in case.it might cause problems and game instability and crashes due to everyone not having the same exe file.better to be safe then sorry I think.The no raze patch was designed to stop the AI from razing the cities.which works very well i might ad,atleast so far since i installed it.

dferrill

May 08, 2007, 08:19 AM

Definatly a no raze rule. I believe it might go try to play a regular multiplayer game and tell us how it goes.Im playing this multiplayer version 1.51 in hotseat mode and have had no problems so far but its still early in the game.

dferrill

May 08, 2007, 08:54 AM

A question will turns in the game be turn based or simultainius moves or is that even a option im PBEM.?And I like all the suggestions you gave so far.and the victory conditions for all civs will have to be worked out.especially the weaker civs in the game.And is the Warsaw Pact that weak in Europe.?I would of thought they would be strong.Im up to the challenge regardless of what changes are made to them.looking forward to playing against humans.The AI is too predictable. team work and strategy will be key and surprise never hurts :crazyeye: .Im getting pumped up allready.:D

vingrjoe

May 08, 2007, 12:43 PM

Who do you want to be.

I was going to say the US, but I see you called it. So, I'll have to think on that one.

dferrill

May 08, 2007, 01:30 PM

I was going to say the US, but I see you called it. So, I'll have to think on that one.I think there is only 2 civs to choose from ME/Africa and South East Asia.your still playing right.?

cubsfan6506

May 08, 2007, 03:58 PM

Anthropoid

May 08, 2007, 04:12 PM

It is interesting, the Cold War is today, in 2007, supposedly "over," and yet few if any of the victory conditions you outline above have come to pass. I realize I'm probably alone . . . :) but, I'd like to see house rules and victory conditions defined in those realworld terms.

. . . . Not that winning by war in the PBEM should be impossible. But making military conquest the only way to win is IMHO, just not realistic at all. In real history, the Western powers "won" the Cold War without taking a single city from the Communists. There should be other options that involve playing a (primarily) defensive, else passive-aggressive, sit-back and build up and maybe engage in a couple small "proxy" wars just to keep your rivals busy.

Maybe the easiest way to include a "non-militaristic" win option would be to allow a win if a guy did not lose more than one city, and builds a couple of the late game wonders or something along those lines? I dunno how many Wonders there are in the game. Maybe build 3 Wonders you win?

1. All formal alliances are trashed. Natural historical alliances should continue, but civ's can opt out of wars if so desired. Essentially, this can happen within the game today, but trade gets messed up if allies go to war against a third party you are trading with. eg. If Isreal and the ME mix it up, there is no reason for SEATO and Europe to stop trade with ME if those two civ's so choose. This should allow for more regional conflicts, without worldwide involvement.

The one exception I'd suggestion: for the "Free World Powers" you CANNOT win if you ever declared war on one of your historical alliance members. Basically means that UK, US, EU, and SEATO cannot win if any of them ever declares war on any of the other ones. Doesn't mean they might not actually try to THWART one of their fellow FWP members by NOT agreeing to participate in a war at the last minute, or by sending cash, an ROP, trade or what have you to a commie or 'neutral nation,' or even for that matter espionage and spies/sabotage.

2. WP and Indo-China must have significantly cheaper 1st gen infantry to counter the high end war machine of the West. Quantity vs quality, plus it gives WP a better chance to threaten Europe.

I think pretty much ALL the infantry should be cheaper. I also think drafting should be possible, albeit with the normal severe unhappiness. Along these lines, I think that it would be worth putting some thought into the numbers of units allowable as they relate to the real world, and to the size that each unit is meant to represent in the game.

Basically, I think it should be fairly easy for everyone to have a medium or even large military, but that for the Democracies, and maybe to a lesser extent the "Republics" or whatever they are being called (for Lat Am and Africa-ME) it should become VERY expensive per unit over the allowance. Communists on the other hand, should be able to field considerable larger militaries, and not pay as big a penalty until it is considerably bigger.

Really cheapo cannon fodder units like Nat Guard, paramilitary, etc. should be free (and make Nat Guard able to move). Basically, make it so proxy wars are more likely to be fought with lots of cheapo units, and a few expensive ones.

3. Increase nuke missile output. Make the threat of nuclear catastophe more real and immediate right off the bat. More stategic nukes for WP and U.S. immediately. Even though the U.S. historically had a massive lead in nukes over WP, I think both sides should have the ability to lay waste to the enemy's country. The game engine today does not do justice of the true potential destruction caused by a nuke, hence we need a lot more to represent that.
The U.S. may have been able to kill everybody in the world 5 times over, but if they had a 5:1 lead over WP, that still means the WP had the ability to kill everybody in the world once.

I agree. Indeed, I think nukes should be buildable in at least one city each for the nations in the nuclear club. Make 'em cost 999 shields to build only in the cities that have the nuke plants, and take away the auto-production. Also make ICBMs movable. Too bad there is not a way to make nukes have an effect on happiness and also a high economic burden . . .

4. B-52 bombers have to be scaled back in HP and firepower slightly. They can be game-breakers.

If you say so. Were they overpowered?

5. Make workers buildable, or dramatically increase the build frequency. Indo-China and WP would likely benefit most from this.

I agree. Keep the auto-production as it is, but just allow them to also be built in a limited number of cities (ones next to rivers or something like that?) but cost a lot, maybe 400 or 500? Also make them require support

6. Oh, and if it is not on now, all trade enabled.

Wow. That is a bold move! I agree though. Why not see how it does?

Only thing is, there is so much possibility to make people happy in the game, and so few of the strategic resources really do anything, I'm not sure there is much point to reintroducing trade. I think if you wanted trade to matter, you'd need to up war weariness, up unhappiness, eliminate a few of the buildings that promote happiness (maybe), and also give the communists a hefty bonus from military police.

7. Double aircraft carrier capacity.

Sounds reasonable.

How about allowing spy and specops units to be transported by subs?

Also, how about taking away "spot invisible" from most subs until maybe one of the Techs in the latter half of the second era? That might make subs as important as they actually were in the Cold War. I'm pretty sure if you try to co-occupy a tile with a rivals sub, the game gives you a warning about "do you want to start a war!?" so it would still be possible to play cat-n-mouse with subs.

Red Door

May 08, 2007, 05:21 PM

I was going to say the US, but I see you called it. So, I'll have to think on that one.

I didn't know ME/Asia was open, so I'll take that instead, you can have the US.

cubsfan6506

May 08, 2007, 05:23 PM

Two things i think we should do.
Get rid of alliance but people have to play it real.
air and water trade.

I_batman

May 08, 2007, 06:45 PM

Well Anthropoid, as usual, I like most of what you are saying.

But I think that the changes I suggested in the biq are dead simple to make, and don't take much time, and I think we have played enough in our current PBEM game to know the impact/need for them. As for more extensive changes in the biq, I want to avoid them, for now, since it sounds like these guys would like to get the game started pretty soon. El Justo and I talked today and he said that he wholeheartedly endorses the changes I have proposed. Some of the stuff you suggested, like making subs impossible to see until later in the era would require more of a naval audit, and I am not sure I want to tackle that right now, even though I think this is a great idea.
As for infantry being cheaper for all, the reason I suggested WP and Indo-China only was you and I know how the Nuclear Winter game has gone, and those two civ's need some help.

Consider the changes I am proposing as a quick and dirty bandaid. I see no reason why we could not start yet another game in the near future with a more extensive set of changes to the biq.

But I defintely think you are absolutely correct about no one should be able to win by attacking a historical ally.
So how about your input on victory conditions? I agree that all I am proposing are simplistic, miltaristic conditions. Once again, a quick and dirty bandaid.
If you can think of some that would be non-militaristic, but simple to implement, that would be great. But they have to be something that we can be fairly certain would be easy to measure.

I am hoping the other guys in the Nuclear Winter game, or anybody else who has or is playing a PBEM with this biq will weigh in regarding victory conditions and the relative strengths/weaknesses of each civ position.

vingrjoe

May 08, 2007, 09:20 PM

I didn't know ME/Asia was open, so I'll take that instead, you can have the US.

AlCosta, are you sure ?

Klyden

May 09, 2007, 06:32 AM

With the current version of TCW-MP, the big issue is that the "Allies" have a solid block to work from and there is no effective opposition. It sort of should be Europe, UK, Seato and US vs South America, ME, China and WP. It has not worked out that way very well.

I played the South American position and while they start with a good navy, they have little else and producing things like tanks (which are second rate to start with) and aircraft is something they don't do very well at first. The position can do well economically if the player works at it, but producting big ticket items in quantity is going to take a bit.

Easy targets might include capturing Cuba, but the WP has enough problems. I think something a bit more realistic might be to include some cities in the south US and perhaps Hawaii. This will put them in direct conflict with the US, who has the ability to roll over the top of Central America without too many issues and the US fleet is certainly strong enough (along with US air power) to take care of the navy SA has, so I hate the idea that the US is going to be in a postion that the SA is going to have to attack him at some point to achieve victory. If I were the US under such conditions, I would just roll over Central America and call it a day to start with early in the game. Another objective for them could be the UK airbase on the Falkland Islands.

One thing you guys may consider doing (which is easy and quick enough to do) is to add some units to the WP at start forces. You can put them in the middle of nowhere to make him move them to the rail lines, so they are not available right off the bat. During this time frame, the WP had huge land forces available and a large lead in armor.

Production wise/unit wise I believe SA is ok at this point.

Simon Darkshade

May 09, 2007, 07:08 AM

I like the sound of that - Motor Rifle divisions and various T-34/JS-3 Tank Divisions.

Is this the version where the 1950 RN is veritably cruiserless?

dferrill

May 09, 2007, 07:59 AM

Im not sure which way we will go concerning victory conditions.I think it might be better to go with coalition type victory conditions to keep the weaker civs from getting bored with not much to do in the begining and would encourage team work to win and keep everyones interest higher especially the weaker civs.but since this is my first multiplayer game I dont know what works and what doesnt. so i will leave them decisions to the ones that have the experience in playing multiplayer games.P.S make no mistake about it this is my first multiplayer game but i consider myself a good tactician in the art of war. long live the Soviet Union.and as Khrushchev once told the United States and there western allies in a broadcast at the United Nations in New York October 11 1960 We will bury you.but in this case it will be 1960.

El Justo

May 09, 2007, 08:12 AM

you guys ahve been busy here :) sorry for not having responded but i'd been tending to the winning turns of our AoI succession game.

i like most of the ideas here - but we should remember that this next pbem game will not have the full scale changes that is to be implemented in v2.0. it's just far too much work to transfer and i just don't have the time really to get that type of file ready for you guys.

so w/ that being said - any version we put together for this next pbem will be what I_b noted - a band-aid version. and that's not all that bad imo. i mean, the 1st pbem ran smoothly save for a few small issues. but these are the things we're seeking to address and I_b's list a few posts backs is pretty much the whole bag of changes.

@Anthropoid
your concerns are being addressed moreso in v2.0, especially w/ alternate and non-military vicotry conditions. it was your ideas long ago that actaully planted that seed. so check out that forum i sent to you guys to see the new victory scheme that will be present for the TCW v2.0. ity's vastly different from the existing scheme and will imo allow for a much, much more diverse set of winning conditions.

what I_b and i would really like to see would be opinions from the players of the original pbem (like Kly's informative post) - especially wrt their own position. for example, i know that as the ME-Afr position, Baghdad has lousy food and sheild production. so thatis something i'd want to address in any new version for you guys. China, too, had a city which was a little bunk on food and sheilds, too. that kind of stuff...that takes only a few minutes to change.

dferrill

May 09, 2007, 09:15 AM

Warsaw Pact has 2 cities wth food shield problems also cant remember which 2 they are. one may be Odessa and another near southeastern border of Europe.I will check for sure in the game and update what cities they are.Actually there is 3 Rostov,Sevastopal and Tallinn.

El Justo

May 09, 2007, 09:34 AM

that's helpful deferrill. thanks.

I_batman

May 09, 2007, 11:23 AM

As El Justo has confirmed, I am working on the biq for this new PBEM game. The 7 changes I noted a few posts (that is, my posts) ago are very cosmetic changes, and in all likelihood ready by tonight, except I am waiting for comments from Nuclear Winter players or people who have run their own games. I am looking for glaring errors and production weakspots from them.

Since these are essentially interim changes for a much larger future overhaul, I don't want to dive deep into the biq and get bogged down making significant changes that delay the start of this.

I also want you guys to think about this: we are up to mid-50's in Nuclear Winter and we have been playing for 18 months. Unless you expect to play this game to 2020, we will not finish the entire game. I really think we should focus on playing just the 50's, which would still be a 3 year committment.

Al Costa, from what I am reading this is your baby to organize, once the biq is ready to go.
How many players do you have, and what position do you want me to play?
I will play any available position.

From what I have read, I see:

Vingrjoe and I are undeclared.
Who is the 8th player? I saw Adler commenting earlier. Is he in?

US:Al Costa
WP: Dferrill
Africa/ME:
SA:Prometheus
Euro:
Commonwealth:Simon Darkshade
SEATO:
Non-Alligned (though I think Indo-China sounds sexier): Cubsfan

dferrill

May 09, 2007, 01:28 PM

Red Door

May 09, 2007, 03:09 PM

AlCosta, are you sure ?

More than sure. ;)

von_Clausewitz

May 09, 2007, 10:33 PM

If you need an 8th I'll play. Any position doesn't matter.

I'll also give my opinions on the Commonwealth position in a few hours (need to go to work and don't really have time atm).

cubsfan6506

May 10, 2007, 12:48 AM

We dont need an eight but we need a seventh but you cant have commonwealth.

I_batman

May 10, 2007, 05:28 AM

As I see it, Vingrjoe, myself, and as yet unconfirmed 8th have to choose between SEATO,Africa/ME, and Euro.

Samez

May 10, 2007, 07:51 AM

concerning houserules and victoryconditions:
It would be good to make nuclear war (more than let's say 5 nukes are launched before sdi is build) a lose-condition (for all nations) but ai will just very seldom use nuke aso this is not very important to singleplayer game.
The nuclear war would still be an option in a multiplayer game if a player knows he has no chance to win the game anymore (and is still in possesion of enough nukes) this ist a kind of preventing the game to have a winner.

von_Clausewitz

May 10, 2007, 10:15 AM

7th player, 8th player, 1st alternate doesn't matter. Europe, SEATO, Middle East are all fine for me. One note is that with the 'Nuclear Winter' .biq the first position is Europe and unless significant changes are made that player would be the one to start the game.

As for the Commonwealth here are my opinions from Nuclear Winter. The CW, made up of the SP postions of UK, Canada, South Africa and Australia-New Zealand is a very strong position and strong early. Isolated by water nearly everywhere and a strong navy to protect it is an distict advantage. I have relied on the starting navy nearly the entire game up to the current point (I built a few more subs and transports but not much else). I don't mind discussing strategy up to the end of the war with the Soviets, after that can be considered national security secrets since the game is still being played.

Early on it was understood that the threats to the Commonwealth could only come by sea. The only nation capable of an amphibious assault, that wasn't part of the locked alliance, was Warsaw Pact. That is where the focus was since about turn 3. The first two turns were used to realize that there was no threat to South Africa from Africa-Middle East. From there a quick look at the map showed that any amphibious threat from WP would come from Murmansk-Archanglesk. At around turn 15-18 I felt that I had the capability and forces in place to capture and hold those two cities. Murmansk from overland through Scandinavia; Archanglesk from the sea by amphibious assault. It took much longer for my allies to be prepared for the repurcusions of an attack on WP. During the waiting I built up a force that I thought had a good chance at capturing Berlin (the area around Berlin was the only place that WP could launch a nuke and hit the UK, London specifically). The factors in favor for the Commonwealth were 1) the reduced need for defensive units; Naval superiority of the Commonwealth vs the WP in the Atlantic 2) the superiority of the Centurion tank against early opposing units even though its attack strength is reduced from the SP game 3) ability to use Canada as a production center (over 2/3s of my tanks were built in Canada, the capture of Berlin-Tallinn was more a Canadian effort then British) for European use 4) great economic strength due to the starting golden age 5) the Royal Marine unit.

For the CW player -
it is important to set priorities for resources in the UK with regard to the cities. There is enough food for all the cities, but the default start has several cities starving. You'll need to shift the labor in the cities to feed everyone. I have production prioritized as well with 2 strong production (for tanks and APCs), 3 medium production (for planes, infantry, marines) and 2 weak production cities (flak, transports artillery). The rest of the CW is decently spaced and doesn't need such effort, except maybe eastern Canada. South Africa has the worst corruption/waste; Canada and Australia it is minimal and almost nonexistant in the UK. CW is one of 4 scientific positions and gets a free tech at the start of each era including the game start. MI6 HQ allows spy missions. Airbases in Falklands, Crete, Singapore, Gibraltar. Centurion MBTs have the strongest attack of any land unit to about half way through the second era and can be built in all 4 countries. The starting bomber and sub can upgrade fairly early depending on research path. Starting golden age gives a relatively good ecomomy early and production benefit; economy drops off until you can use the cash specialist.

So, what needs to be fixed for the UK specifically?

-Hermes and Collossus class carriers should have their tech requirements switched.
-Lack of a second era armor unit (other then the South Africa exclusive Oliphant). Move the Chieftan to the same tech as M-60 and T-62.
-South African Infantry-Postwar should be able to airlift.
-Starting naval aircraft should rebase, maybe (it was a pain getting them off the decks so they could be replaced with better aircraft).
-I would like to see an earlier ballistic sub capability, I don't have a quick and easy solution to this off the top of my head.

General things that need to be fixed

-KGB HQ Small Wonder should allow espionage missions equal to MI6, CIA and Mossad HQs.
-The capitols should be reviewed to only allow one. This should prevent the possibility for the EU capitol to end up as Ankarra.
-That route that was used to capture Murmansk should be tweaked a bit so that the city can't be reached from Scandiavia in 1 turn. Perhaps put in a forest on the bare tundra or remove the small feeder road to the border on the Scandinavia side. It is just to easy for the CW to buy some Centurions and use a EU RoP to take Murmansk (it would not be to difficult for the CW to put 6 Centurions in Scandinavia to attack Murmansk by turn 12, I am not sure that WP can commit enough defense that soon to that city when they would need to defend their European border cities equally as well; the difference between losing Berlin and losing Murmansk is significant).
-Yankee class sub for WP should come earlier in the tech tree (perhaps even switching places with US Ohio class).
-China needs an earlier APC replacement for the BTR-152
-EU needs armor earlier - I would like to see the M-4 Sherman or T-34 available from the start at reduced cost for all nations

Things I would like to see changed (simple, things I know can be done with the editor)

-sea and air trade (the small wonder that allows air trade is only available to democracies, that at least needs to be fixed)
-gold rush for all postions (some positions may need to reviewed for balance, I am guessing that some do not have the economy to make good use of gold rush)
-no locked alliances; instead house rules that do not allow war between US-CW-SEATO-EU.
-Israel belong to US rather then EU. Along with a house rule that restricts the stationing of US troops (Infantry, marines, paratroops, rangers, CIA ect - the exclusively US type units) in Israel. I would not consider it to far fetched to see US built tanks and aircraft being used by Israel (it would be a logistical challange for the US player to get those tanks to Israel though), perhaps more so then European. It also gives the US a potentially vulnerable position where there is strong intrest in holding the territory but it is difficult to reinforce with heavy equipment.
-Workers can be built by China-India, SEATO, Latin America, Africa-Middle East. Even if it is a reduced strength peasant type worker so that the autoproduced regular worker is still in effect. Why not everyone? I think that by allowing the less developed position to build workers it gives them some chance at decreasing the gap with the more developed positions. It would also give a commodity for trade. In the SP game I use spies to gather up an auxilliary work force, this is not a viable option in MP. Either everyone makes the effort to protect their workers, or you run the risk of offending someone by encouraging the defection of foreign trained labor. It is possible that a position that cannot build workers may be willing to pay someone for some auxilliary workers.
-More unique government types for the 8 positions. In particular see use of the espionage immunities - immune to expose spy, immune to steal plans etc.

I thought I had more, but I can't remember right now.

dferrill

May 10, 2007, 01:00 PM

I want to make sure whats going on concerning alliances.to my understanding there will be no locked alliances right.?and are we going to go buy historical alliances only or no alliances at all?.example US cant go to war with say Great Britain am i correct.?My concern is whats stoping 3 major powers from ganging up on Warsaw Pact.is this why Warsaw Pact is not doing well in the Nuclear Winter game.?And last but not least can someone explain who is or has played Warsaw Pact know what there biggest problems would be.

cubsfan6506

May 10, 2007, 01:43 PM

I will say that as china i will not attack the wp in the before the seventy's because we should keep it real.

Red Door

May 10, 2007, 02:26 PM

Just updating the player list:
US:vingrjoe
WP: Dferrill
Africa/ME: AlCosta
SA:Prometheus
Euro:
Commonwealth:Simon Darkshade
SEATO:
Non-Alligned (though I think Indo-China sounds sexier): Cubsfan

dferrill

May 10, 2007, 02:59 PM

I will say that as china i will not attack the wp in the before the seventy's because we should keep it real.Well if we keep it real there will only be minor skirmishes if any during that time period Korean war comes to mind.for the sake of gameplay if we keep it real it will be very boring. since there was ony 1 or 2 skirmishes in that time period.I just dont want to be sitting around expecting no one to attack me and get creamed by someone.:lol:

dferrill

May 10, 2007, 03:22 PM

I will say that as china i will not attack the wp in the before the seventy's because we should keep it real.Sorry for double post

dferrill

May 10, 2007, 03:52 PM

I will say that as china i will not attack the wp in the before the seventy's because we should keep it real.I should be somewhat aggressive playing as the Soviet Union as should the United States especially towards each other I would think.thats not really my style of play im more defensive minded but i can adjust if need be.

cubsfan6506

May 10, 2007, 04:08 PM

By keep it real i mean no stupid wars. Like the great Commonwealth nuetral nations war.

I_batman

May 10, 2007, 04:12 PM

Just updating the player list:
US:vingrjoe
WP: Dferrill
Africa/ME: AlCosta
SA:Prometheus
Euro:
Commonwealth:Simon Darkshade
SEATO:
Non-Alligned (though I think Indo-China sounds sexier): Cubsfan

So Euro and SEATO available still?
I have no problem with either one. I think if we do the house rules properly, either one will be interesting to play, though the Euro position definitely has more diversity.

So who is the 8th player? Von Clausewitz? If so, most excellent.
Sir, what would you like, SEATO or Euro?

dferrill

May 10, 2007, 04:14 PM

By keep it real i mean no stupid wars. Like the great Commonwealth nuetral nations war.Ok I understand now thanks for the clarification that wouldve been real boring the other way.

I_batman

May 10, 2007, 04:29 PM

Will post my thoughts on some, not all of the proposed changes besides the 7 I already described, but need some time to absorb.
Keep in mind, this is a SIMPLE bandaid set of biq and rule changes. They will hopefully make the game more fair than the Nuclear Winter game, but are NOT the be all and end all of changes. To make all the changes suggested would take a significant amount of time.

Example: Changing the play rotation to a more fair set is an extremely important thing. But I tried to change it a year ago and it was a disaster. As far as I can see, you have to completely recreate 8 new civ's, then transfer everything to those 8 civ's. I have not found a better way.

I want to keep these changes as simple as possible, as fast as possible to implement.

Wyrmshadow

May 10, 2007, 04:43 PM

Russian bombers are up an posted

dferrill

May 10, 2007, 05:32 PM

How many turns will there be and will it be in weeks or months and from 1950 to 1960 ? and will game stop then regardless if victory conditions are not met.?

Red Door

May 10, 2007, 05:35 PM

I say we do normal game (1950-1991) with months.

I_batman

May 10, 2007, 07:52 PM

I say we do normal game (1950-1991) with months.

Once again, I state you will never finish a 1950-1991 game. There are 12 turns/year (one month = one turn), but the game has to pass through 8 sets of human hands to finish one turn. One game year = 96 human touches. We will be hard pressed to average 1.5 human touches/day. But say we manage to crank out 2 human touches/day. That means 48 real days to finish one game year.
10 game years = 480 real days. 40 game years = 1920 real days = approx 6 years.
No way we will keep everybody together for 6 years.

cubsfan6506

May 10, 2007, 07:55 PM

Yeah theres no way.

Red Door

May 10, 2007, 07:58 PM

Yeah, there isn't any conceivable way. I say we do months by one decade, but I'd rather do Seventies and Sixties than Fifties. That'd be a little quick editing to get rid of some obsolete techs, units, etc. If someone can do that quickly, I think that'd work best.

El Justo

May 10, 2007, 08:05 PM

dferrill

May 10, 2007, 08:10 PM

I say we do normal game (1950-1991) with months.I prefer the normal game also (1950-1991) also.I doubt the game will last to the end though.the neat units in this game are after 1960.I also might try my hand in turning the modern version that was converted, to a multiplayer version from around 1979 to 1991. I think that would be awesome because you would be starting with really cool units from the beginning and would make a very interesting multiplayer game for all civs especially the weaker civs because they would have access to advanced units from the very start.I emailed Psweetman what he thought about converting his modern version to multiplayer but havent got a reply back yet. with help from those of us that is interested seeing it turned to multiplayer. I know i am interested in helping as much as possible.and of course we would need approval from El Justo.

I_batman

May 10, 2007, 08:29 PM

Al,

that'd take some long-range tinkering i think...you guys should really just go w/ those main 7 points and some other cosmetic changes. I_b has got it covered. so give him a day or so and it'll all be ready. :)

Guys, I am on it. Have had some very stupid setbacks (non-civ real life crap ) last couple days, but I promise we shall something to play with by late tomorrow afternoon.

As for changing to a 60's or 70's start, like El Justo said, that is far from trivial.
You would have to build the scenario from scratch. That may sound like an exaggeration, but just consider the placement of existing units, altering what tech's each civ starts with, altering each and every city's starting infrastructure build, etc . Trust me, you don't want to go there. Simplistic tweaks are what we should do now, and debate on the house rules, for a shorter, more interesting game.

dferrill

May 10, 2007, 08:49 PM

Guys, I am on it. Have had some very stupid setbacks (non-civ real life crap ) last couple days, but I promise we shall something to play with by late tomorrow afternoon.

As for changing to a 60's or 70's start, like El Justo said, that is far from trivial.
You would have to build the scenario from scratch. That may sound like an exaggeration, but just consider the placement of existing units, altering what tech's each civ starts with, altering each and every city's starting infrastructure build, etc . Trust me, you don't want to go there. Simplistic tweaks are what we should do now, and debate on the house rules, for a shorter, more interesting game.Great news im ready to go. as for the later start for this scenario that has allready been done by Psweetman except its not multiplayer so it wouldnt be starting from scratch just converting cities over to the proper civs and deleting the other civs. units and tech tree stuff is allready in place.check out psweetmans modern BIQ if you havent allready its on page 199.P.S. can someone post our house rules and tweaks that have been implemented all ready.

von_Clausewitz

May 11, 2007, 07:20 AM

Europe would be fine, so would SEATO. Between the two I would like Europe.

Anthropoid

May 11, 2007, 08:37 AM

dferrill, I think the idea is that, the locked alliances are still "allies" in the sense that, they cannot fight each other and win (according to house rule). However, they also are not _locked_ into acting as one team on every single thing. If UK wants to buddy up with WP (by trading, giving gold, offering ROPs, standing out on wars, etc.) that is their perogative. If US, SEATO, or EU are pissed off, well that is just tough luck, cause no fighting allowed between the allies: well anyone who declares war on an ally automatically excludes themselves from "winner" eligibility (though that doesn't not in anyway mean "game over," or that they are "out of the game" . . . so this definitely allows for political spitefulness and intrigue).

Reflecting what von Clausewitz reported about specific changes to his position in the Nuke Winter . . . I think EU is about right as far as production, units, everything. She might be a big more vulnerable to WP with the other changes that are being proposed (loosening of the alliance, more units to WP, etc.), so you guys might CONSIDER giving her a few more cheap units at start, but otherwise, I'd say she is pretty well tweaked.

Re victory conditions: I'm glad to hear that my ideas from long ago planted some seeds :) and I'm sorry I have not participated in that other thread much. Indeed, I'm not sure I still have the url in my favs. Just so many sites and passwords and stuff :) I look forward to seeing the updated version, and I'll see if I can make it around more often.

Batman, as for some quick and easy ways to implement "non-military" win conditions: everything I can think of requires more detailed knowledge of the mod than I have (e.g., what are all the Wonders in the game); but I'll just offer some general ideas, that might serve as food for thought for you guys to come up with two or three "non-military" victory conditions that will be easy to implement in not requiring ANY changes to the .biq, and only requiring a bit of perhaps 'inventorying' or 'auditing' of the tech tree/wonders list, etc.

If you think about 'how the Cold War was won,' it was basically something along the lines of: _Having the largest / happiest populace_. The Berlin Wall fell, NOT (strictly) because of the number of cannons and rockets sitting on the Western side targetting sites on the Eastern side, but because of the number of "happy faces" in the cities on the Western side, and the "leakage" of discontent to the peoples on the Eastern side. There are a number of pretty straightforward, though perhaps SLIGHTLY tedious ways to account for this.

First the demographics screen that you can see at the end of a game: not sure if you can access this during a game or not, and not even sure what it has in it. Assuming that it CAN be accessed during games, and it has salient data in it, there is one potentially quite easy way to use it as a 'house rules' victory condition in a PBEM. After a certain point in the game, any player can on any turn call for a "UN Forum on Global Conditions" or something. When this is called. Every player must within one or two turns submit to the forum a screen cap from their demographics screen. If any player is 'significantly ahead' on a 'significant' number of the demographic indicators, they win. I'm not trying to be vague here, I just don't know what indicators are there. From a 'statistical sense' a T-test is a simple way to establish when a data point is a significant outlier. An even simpler alternative would be simply: Any civ which is at least 50% higher than the next highest on at least 2/3 of the indicators WINS. The real challenge here is agreeing what margin of difference would constitute a big enough margin for victory, and which demographic indicators are salient etc.

Another option would be Wonder construction. Build a certain number of them, or build a certain combination of them, and you win.

Another option would be "diplomatic" though how to inact this with a bunch of wiley human opponents seems difficult. The way a player wins "diplo points" would also need to provide some benefit to their buddies whose votes or alliegance or whatever are the source of the diplo points. Overall, I don't think this is a particularly promising avenue for a quick and easy.

Others would be sheer geographic size, but I do not think that this is suitable because of the disparities in size (e.g., Africa ME is probably huge compared to EU).

Money in the bank is a fairly easy option, though pretty boring on the face of it. Still, it is not a bad approximation of how the thing was actually won in real life. Given the options that paid rush afford, as well as the tradeoffs involved in NOT allocating economy to build things or techs, having a big treasury, in effect liquid assets, is really not a bad proxy measure of economic power. I just don't know if the cutoff would need to be 500,000 gp or 1,000,000 or what. Maybe again, a "significantly higher," but AT LEAST 100,000 gp or something. In our Nuke Winter, EU was gaining loads of cash each turn (something like 4000 gp per turn). I think it started out at about 1000 excess (even with Science at max) so if you think about those rates of accumulation spread out over the long haul (30 years * 12 turns per year = 360 turns * ~3000gp [avg?] per turn that comes to 1,080,000. So, based on this totally rough estimate, it would be at least SOMEWHAT challenging, but doable for EU to have accumulated 1,000,000 gp in the treasury by about game end or even earlier had she been NOT rushing units and buildings.

So, two possible non-military conditions that emerge from a consideration of the demographics and treasury: (1) pure demographic: at any time have at least 50% higher on at least three of the demographic indicators than any other civ you win; (2) Get 1,000,000 in the bank, and if you are HIGHER on at least 3 demographic indicators than any other civ, you win.

Also this is something that (because of espionage) could shift the entire dynamic of the game. Instead of simply looking in their espionage window to see how many units or what Techs an opponent has, players will be trying to figure out how much of a treasury their opponents have, and moreover, maintaining a zero or even a low balance (in effect representing the degree of 'budget deficit' or balance of trade in real world terms) would be a potentially VERY risky direction for a warmonger who is building up his military too fast.

I realize that all of these may seem "complicated." But the simple fact of the matter is, the actual 'winning' of the Cold War WAS a complicated sociopolitical, but especially economic process. Military units, military strategy, and military engagements certainly were NEVER irrelevant, but they simply were not the winning play.

I_batman

May 11, 2007, 11:56 AM

Europe would be fine, so would SEATO. Between the two I would like Europe.

Al Costa, guess this answers the final questions on who is playing what.
I will play SEATO then.

cubsfan6506

May 11, 2007, 04:06 PM

BTw there will be air and water trade right.

Red Door

May 11, 2007, 04:23 PM

Al Costa, guess this answers the final questions on who is playing what.
I will play SEATO then.

Sounds good.

I_batman

May 11, 2007, 05:13 PM

psweetman1590

May 11, 2007, 05:56 PM

but for some reason, could not insert in a city.

Not that it matters for now, but for future reference, this is because of the way you selected the Active Player. Note that after you click the button, there are three ways to select the active player. The one you want to pick is the bottom drop down list, that has the players ordered by player number. :)

I_batman

May 11, 2007, 09:07 PM

Not that it matters for now, but for future reference, this is because of the way you selected the Active Player. Note that after you click the button, there are three ways to select the active player. The one you want to pick is the bottom drop down list, that has the players ordered by player number. :)

Thanks, I will test.

psweetman1590

May 11, 2007, 09:33 PM

I had the exact same problem when I tried to make the modern biq, that's how I know. It had me darned confused for the longest time too.

cubsfan6506

May 11, 2007, 09:55 PM

Heres what i do when i want to upload a biq. Copy and Paste it into a zip.

von_Clausewitz

May 12, 2007, 07:10 AM

Changes I have made: (base 7 discussed a few days ago):

1.Removed all forced alliances. House rules will dicate that we play within natural alliances, but no civ will be forced to stop trade with another if they choose not to if one of their "natural" allies begins a battle they want no part of.

How strict is the no war house rule? Say that for what ever reason (lack of response to cleaning pollution, spy activities that are disrupting relations with neighbors, etc) SEATO decides they don't want the CW to have the airfield at Singapore (one example of many). CW agrees to leave peacefully and the tile is empty. Unless a hidden nationality type unit occupies the tile any other unit that 'captures' the airfield will start a war. Of course peace can be offered and accepted quickly, its still a war.

2. WP ands Indo-China 1st gen infantry cheaper.
Soviet reduced to 90 from 150
PLA from 150 to 75
Paramilitary stay at 50

Any consideration to reducing the cost of the T34 and M4 and allowing them to other nations?
First allowed tank builds-
WP, none - IS3 = 25.18 +1hp
US, none - M26 = 26.18 +1hp
CW, none - Centurion = 30.24 +2hp
SEATO, none - M24 = 22.14
America Latino, Civil Engineering - M4 = 24.14
Africa/ME, Military Organization - T34 = 24.16 +1hp and AMX13 = 26.16 +2hp
China/India, Military Organization - T34 = 24.16 +1hp
Europe, Military Organization - AMX13 = 26.16 +2hp

My suggestion is move the T34 to no tech requirement, reduce the cost of from 450 to 350 and allow WP to build. For the M4, move to no tech requirement, reduce the cost from 400 to 500 (and the M24 from 500 to 350) and allow US, CW, and Europe to build.
They may not be built but it does provied an early option for some positions.
(BTW the cost of the Centurion is 700, equal to the T-62 which is 34.24 +2hp; the advantage is the early availability. I do think the Cheiftan, the upgrade for the Centurion, needs to be moved to Armored Tactics with the T62, M60, Leopard1 and AMX30.)

Nuke capacity increased dramatically:
Tactical nukes frequency build increased to 1 per 3 turns from 1 per 20 turns.
Strategic nukes frequency build increased to 1 per 4 turns from 1 per 20 turns.

I added additional starting poistion tactical nukes to the 5 nuke powers, but for some reason, could not insert in a city.
They are now parked outside the capital city of the civ:
WP +10
US +8
Commonwealth: +4
Euro: +4
China: +4

The quantities are very easy to tweak, so if someone can make a good historical arguement to change these numbers, I am listening. (Hint: I have taken historical nuke liberties with the WP, to make the position more interesting to play)

that is a huge starting number for WP, considering they are going to start getting +4 every year.

4. B-52's slightly reduced in firepower:
From +3 HP to +1 HP, 100 damage reduced to 80 damage, ROF reduced from 6 to 5, and eliminated lethal bombard of sea units, but did keep it for land units.

Are you sure this is needed?

5. Workers buildable for all civs, cost 100 for all.

OK

6. Trade enabled:
Harbors allow sea trade, airports allow air trade.
This makes one of the wonders redundant, but it is so far down the tech tree to make it irrelevant.

OK. It should help out positions like SEATO immeasurably. How will mixed production (example: building Canadian units in South Africa) be handled?

7. Doubled all aircraft carrier capacity.

OK. What about allowing Hawker Sea Fury - RN to rebase? The Hawker Sea Fury - RCN can rebase already.

8. Bonus change: Dramatically increased nuke-carrying capacity of missile boats. Only one this really impacts in the 50's is the GW.

Balance this by giving WP a Hotel class sub? I would switch the GW to Amphibious Warfare and Skipjacks to Submarines (GW is a modified Skipjack, why does it appear earlier?) and put the Hotel (a modified November) at Amphibious Warfare as well. Better yet make some use of the Special Operation tech and place both the GW and Hotel there.
Skipjack = 25.15.5
GW = 20.15.4 trans cap 2 (doubled to 4?)
November = 20.10.5
??Hotel = 15.10.4 trans cap 3 ??

Still to do: Alter terrian around some WP cities, Baghdad.
Any other cities that need some production help?

Check Ankarra and remove the Capitol improvement. Africa/ME has double Capitols as well in Algiers and Cairo.
Remove the Utilities Plant requirement from Hospital (regular civ3 doesn't require an aqueduct to build a hospital; the improvement that allows city size level 3 can't be built by a city that is not level 2). It is preventing cities on a river from growing past size 24 unless a Utilities Plant is preplaced. The WP city of Omsk is the city that comes to mind being effected but I am sure there are others.

Also want to improve spying capabilities of WP. But remember: NO TECH STEALING, NO TECH TRADING!!!!

I REPEAT, NO TECH TRADING OR STEALING!

If you want to skew this game in a hurry, and essentially ruin it, allow tech trading and stealing. If two or three civs start trading amongst themselves, they will have a huge advantage over anybody else.

I am not sure on your intent here. Do you want to limit WP from tech stealing or everyone? If you want to improve WP spy capabilities just check the box for 'Allows Spy Missions' on the Soviet Secret Police HQ (the Small Wonder that autoproduces the KGB unit, maybe change the name of the SW to KGB HQ). Mossad Intel Agency and British SIS Agency already have this. I thought that Central Intelligence Agency had this as well, it does not. So that may need to be reviewed as well. I would think that it should either be all 4 of them or none of them should get the 'Allows Spy Missions'.

As it is in Nuclear Winter, technology stealing is allowed by Embassies and Spies. Effectively anyone can steal techs during peace and only requires a spy during war. Has that game been skewed and ruined because of tech stealing? I think it is much more reasonable to allow tech stealing between humans rather then in the SP game with locked alliances. I think the only way it can really be skewed is if players collaberate on tech research with the intention of stealing from each other. I think this should remain a part of the MP game but limited to Spies only putting the risk of being detected as a reasonable limitation. As it is a player can attempt steals every turn with no risk other then loss of gold through the embassy. Perhaps also raise the base cost from 10 to either 60 (same as plant spy) or 80 (same as expose spy).

Now, I find I can't upload it because the system won't allow me to upload a .biq file. When did that change?
Anyway, I have sent to El Justo, and I am hoping he can zip it or rar it and upload. It is really irrelevant, since I still have to make the terrain changes, but I wanted to get this one out for public consumption.

I_batman

May 12, 2007, 08:42 AM

Guys, I am prefacing the responses below with this statement: I am one guy. There are 8 people playing this game. While only one person can work on the biq at a time, I don't have a monolpoly on wisdom or what makes the game interesting and fun. If the majority of guys want to make changes I don't agree with, I will still make those changes. So think carefully about what you want, and reach an agreement that all will be comfortable with.
A dictatorship where one person makes the decisions on what the game will look like and makes the biq alterations is much more efficient, but ultimately, if the majority don't enjoy those changes, what is the point of the game?

How strict is the no war house rule? Say that for what ever reason (lack of response to cleaning pollution, spy activities that are disrupting relations with neighbors, etc) SEATO decides they don't want the CW to have the airfield at Singapore (one example of many). CW agrees to leave peacefully and the tile is empty. Unless a hidden nationality type unit occupies the tile any other unit that 'captures' the airfield will start a war. Of course peace can be offered and accepted quickly, its still a war.

You make a good point. The intent is not to have a free-for-all where say WP and Commonwealth gang up on Euro.
I am talking about traditional historical alliances. I would suggest if a situation like you are proposing comes up, we as a group address it during the game. If people agree that it is reasonable, we let it happen.
Remember, many of the house rules we will be using are new, and we may realize in-game they don't work. If we can get concensus during the game, I see no reason why they can't be altered.

Any consideration to reducing the cost of the T34 and M4 and allowing them to other nations?
First allowed tank builds-
WP, none - IS3 = 25.18 +1hp
US, none - M26 = 26.18 +1hp
CW, none - Centurion = 30.24 +2hp
SEATO, none - M24 = 22.14
America Latino, Civil Engineering - M4 = 24.14
Africa/ME, Military Organization - T34 = 24.16 +1hp and AMX13 = 26.16 +2hp
China/India, Military Organization - T34 = 24.16 +1hp
Europe, Military Organization - AMX13 = 26.16 +2hp

My suggestion is move the T34 to no tech requirement, reduce the cost of from 450 to 350 and allow WP to build. For the M4, move to no tech requirement, reduce the cost from 400 to 500 (and the M24 from 500 to 350) and allow US, CW, and Europe to build.
They may not be built but it does provied an early option for some positions.
(BTW the cost of the Centurion is 700, equal to the T-62 which is 34.24 +2hp; the advantage is the early availability. I do think the Cheiftan, the upgrade for the Centurion, needs to be moved to Armored Tactics with the T62, M60, Leopard1 and AMX30.)

Well, the intent of the lowered WP and Indo-China infantry costs is a "quick and dirty simple" fix to the fact that the West ran roughshod over WP and China (though that war is not really finished.) I agree that the entire tank lines should be revisted longterm, but if we make wholesale changes, do we want the PBEM to be the first game they are playtested in? The changes you are suggesting are not earth-shattering, time-wise, but testing them would take time. Do guys want the start delayed until these changes are made and tested for bugs and game balance? The more changes made, the more game balance testing required. The 7 or 8 changes I have made I don't think we need to game balance test, since the only significant one reagarding units is the infantry costs, and we already have Nuclear Winter as a baseline.

that is a huge starting number for WP, considering they are going to start getting +4 every year.

Not sure I understand. WP will start with 10 more, but will produce 1 more tactical nuke/3 turns. All 5 civ's will still only be able to build one nuke plant.

Are you sure this is needed?

After listening to guys state how in SP games the B-52's wiped out a stack of units in no time, yes. I personally have not had much luck using them in Nuclear Winter, but have been on the recieving end of their devastation in SP games enough times to know what they can do.
From a simple point of view, their "power" (damage x ROF) has been reduced from 600 to 400. They were also unstoppable in the air. I can't remember the last time I saw a fighter plane intercept and shoot one down. I could see increasing their ROF back to 6, giving them a "power" of 480, which would be a 20% reduction.
I am open to discussion on that one.

OK. It should help out positions like SEATO immeasurably. How will mixed production (example: building Canadian units in South Africa) be handled?

You make a good point, and this is the negative of trade. The only way to handle this is house rules. Players will have to build units only where they are supposed to be built. Nations most affected by this are Commonwealth, Euro, and SEATO. Considering you and I are playing Euro and SEATO, and Vingrjoe and Simon have been around a lot with US and Commonwealth, I think we can handle this.
This trade thing has zero impact on WP, little impact on Indo-China, no impact on SA except for Central America, but some impact on Africa/ME, given they are sitting pretty much split on two land masses.

OK. What about allowing Hawker Sea Fury - RN to rebase? The Hawker Sea Fury - RCN can rebase already.

Agreed, this is a bug that should be fixed.

Balance this by giving WP a Hotel class sub? I would switch the GW to Amphibious Warfare and Skipjacks to Submarines (GW is a modified Skipjack, why does it appear earlier?) and put the Hotel (a modified November) at Amphibious Warfare as well. Better yet make some use of the Special Operation tech and place both the GW and Hotel there.
Skipjack = 25.15.5
GW = 20.15.4 trans cap 2 (doubled to 4?)
November = 20.10.5
??Hotel = 15.10.4 trans cap 3 ??

Ah, I was hoping this one was going to slide by not noticed. :)
You are quite correct that the WP needs the Hotel top counter the GW, since they appeared within something like 11 months of each other. The first Hotel was commissioned Nov 1960. The first GW was commissioned Dec 1959.
If people want, I can create a new unit, and make the required changes, but in reality, I don't think either will ever be built, or should be built until 1959.
The fact that I was able to build one in 1956 in Nuclear Winter should be corrected. Just like the land and air units, we need a complete audit on naval units as well. When El Justo finishes the overhaul of SP Huge map, I am positive most of those edits will make it into the MP games, but that is quite a distance off.

So the immediate question is, do we push back the GW so it can't be built till later in the tech tree, or add the Hotel as a contemporary (one tech later), and alter the November class and Skipjack units' required techs. The second option opens Pandora's box on a naval audit, in my opinion.

Check Ankarra and remove the Capitol improvement. Africa/ME has double Capitols as well in Algiers and Cairo.
Remove the Utilities Plant requirement from Hospital (regular civ3 doesn't require an aqueduct to build a hospital; the improvement that allows city size level 3 can't be built by a city that is not level 2). It is preventing cities on a river from growing past size 24 unless a Utilities Plant is preplaced. The WP city of Omsk is the city that comes to mind being effected but I am sure there are others.
Cool, thanks. Will add these changes.

I am not sure on your intent here. Do you want to limit WP from tech stealing or everyone? If you want to improve WP spy capabilities just check the box for 'Allows Spy Missions' on the Soviet Secret Police HQ (the Small Wonder that autoproduces the KGB unit, maybe change the name of the SW to KGB HQ). Mossad Intel Agency and British SIS Agency already have this. I thought that Central Intelligence Agency had this as well, it does not. So that may need to be reviewed as well. I would think that it should either be all 4 of them or none of them should get the 'Allows Spy Missions'.

As it is in Nuclear Winter, technology stealing is allowed by Embassies and Spies. Effectively anyone can steal techs during peace and only requires a spy during war. Has that game been skewed and ruined because of tech stealing? I think it is much more reasonable to allow tech stealing between humans rather then in the SP game with locked alliances. I think the only way it can really be skewed is if players collaberate on tech research with the intention of stealing from each other. I think this should remain a part of the MP game but limited to Spies only putting the risk of being detected as a reasonable limitation. As it is a player can attempt steals every turn with no risk other then loss of gold through the embassy. Perhaps also raise the base cost from 10 to either 60 (same as plant spy) or 80 (same as expose spy).

I am firmly against tech stealing, mainly because it has such a negative effect on when units can be built. BTW, I have never tried stealing tech in Nuclear Winter. I erroneously thought we had a house rule against it.

In my opinion, if a civ has deep pockets, they can steal their way to a massive lead. Plus, as we have found out in Nuclear Winter, the engine is broken that allows for notification to the offended party if the offending party fails. There are no repercussions to stealing techs. As for trading techs within a small group, well, that is worse, as you have alluded to.
Imagine if Euro, U.S., and Commonwealth get together and agree to work together in tech research. Essentially, they can triple their research rate. Huge advantage over the other civ's.

Oh, I do agree though that the CIA and KGB should have the same stats as SIS and Mossad. I have altered so all 4 now double research in the city they are built (was turned on for Mossad already) and allow spy missions.

Klyden

May 12, 2007, 09:21 AM

Although I am not involved in the second MP game (sounds like you guys are going to have some fun with it) I will chip in a couple of comments.

First, tech stealing is just a quick way to break the game because it circumvents the time line totally. You will have M1's in the 60's pretty easily and for the side that has the production and ability to put that stuff out, they will roll over the top of everyone else. Leave the time line alone for the most part and you will be fine in that regard.

I agree with all the changes on the B52 with the exception that they should remain lethal against sea targets. I have always insisted that if you hit a ship with enough bombs, it will sink regardless of how tough it is. Granted, B52's were not meant to bomb ships, but a person doing so really runs a risk early in the game doing it. While B52s are all but invulnerable to fighters for the early part of the game and the lowly flak unit in cities just doesn't have the power to shoot them down, the ships at sea are absolutely another matter as several have fair AA ratings. I am not afraid to run a B52 into an area that there might be fighters early. Having it bomb a city early is not so bad but when you start getting them shot down by flak, that is another matter.

Prometheus1992

May 12, 2007, 09:32 AM

I_batman

May 12, 2007, 11:41 AM

Simon Darkshade

May 12, 2007, 12:08 PM

They were not in any anti-ship roles at that stage.
That was reserved for the naval strike bombers and fighters.
SAC in the 50s was very much focused on their key delivery mission, and there was not the need to put a lot of concentration on anti-surface strikes -there was not the big surface opposition to merit such developments.

Given that we cannot simulate their nuclear role, we are limited to conventional strikes, which were not B-52 missions in the 1950s. Furthermore, high altitude level bombing against ships was not the most successful of tactics.

In the earliest part of the 50s, taking out any Soviet surface ships was the task of USN tacair, submarines and at a very distant third, the gunships of the fleet; cruisers were mainly employed as carrier escorts, and battleships for miscellaneous purposes whilst they lasted. Later in the 1950s and in the 60s, there was the airburst option for nuclear ASROC. Tacair had of course a lot of nice goodies.

Thus, I think it is probably best to keep the non lethal sea situation for the 1950s B-52s.

I_batman

May 12, 2007, 02:22 PM

Making terrian changes, will play a few turns hotseat to make sure it works. Right now, I am rebuilding TCW from a fresh download becuase I fouled up the units some time ago fooling with the changes for TCW 2.0.

I_batman

May 12, 2007, 08:06 PM

Having problems with terrain changes. Seems the game craps out when I implement terrain edits, but it seems to have accepted everything else.

I_batman

May 12, 2007, 10:14 PM

I have been toying with this idea for some time. Bounced it off of El Justo, and I think it only works for MP games.

We want to increase trade in a big way, but also want to force naval traffic up.
So I am thinking of a construct that does that.

Assume we have also increased infrastructure and unit costs to the point that no civ can survive without trade. This is no trivial balancing act, but can be done.

So lets say you are the U.S.. Unless you trade with the world, you won't be able to afford you fancy carrier task forces and wonderful jet planes.
You have a resource on mainland, parked under one of your main cities, like Chicago. This resource is called US Oil. It is absolutely useless to you for any build or infrastructure. But IS useful to a few civ's. These would be civ's that you historically import oil from. Namely Commonwealth (Canada), ME/Africa, maybe SEATO (Indonesia), SA (Venezula).
Each of these civ's would need it to build and maintain a small wonder (hence each civ can only build one). All that wonder does is pump out a treasure unit every X turns. So now, lets say U.S. was trading with ME. They offer the US Oil resource to ME, plus Y amount of gold/turn. Price negotiated between civ's. In return ME builds the small wonder, and starts churning out treasure units. These treasure units are "captured" by a "US trade envoy" unit. They would then be loaded onto a U.S. transport, shipped back to Washington, and U.S.A. gains the gold.

Clearly there are some problems with this:

ME has to get the treasure unit out of the city, then have their unit sacrificed to allow the "trade envoy unit" grab the treasure.
Other trade envoy units from other civ's might grab the treasure, but that would quickly lead to war, I am sure.
ME can easily move the treasure to their capital city and keep the gold themselves, but I am sure that the U.S. would have a very dim view of this, and break off trade, at best, go to war at worst.

We could do this with any number of resources, any number of civ's, but I think one or two resources would make the most sense.

Does this sound like something that would work?

Simon Darkshade

May 12, 2007, 10:39 PM

A very interesting idea, and one that would encourage naval convoys and control of the seas. It does sound like it would work.

Question: Have you ever seen the AI upgrade the immobile Iowas to their modern, moving versions?

johnnyjal

May 13, 2007, 12:50 AM

Wow, this is an interesting development!
If I knew for sure I would not need a new pc to try this,
I would offer myself as an alternate.

I'll stay tuned anyway just to see how things go.....

dferrill

May 13, 2007, 09:24 AM

I_batman

May 13, 2007, 10:18 AM

Is this being implemented in our game.?and how would this effect the other civs such as Warsaw Pact.I would like to see trade and economy improvements put in that would increase the strategy level of the game.like what was discussed earlier that the cold war was won mostly buy economic strategys then it was with actual war.so i think thats a good idea you have making strategic resources it would force civs to use a strategy other then just brute force.example say the Warsaw Pact has a resource that the United States would need to build a certain unit or vice versa for example or something else that would benefit them.of course the rest of the civs would need there special resources also.possibilitys are endless with a little imagination.I think economy and trade should be a high priority.And will trade embargos be in effect?.I would think they should.And is it ok if i start a missile crisis in Cuba early lol.

This concept will not be implemented for our game. There is way too much work and testing required to bring something like that onboard. It is a concept in the formative stage.
As for our biq, I think I have captured all the changes, but I think the game craps out when I change the terrain. The bizarre thing is it is saying it can't find an Sistine Chapel entry in PediaIcons, which is nuts since none of my changes go anywhere near any text files.

von_Clausewitz

May 13, 2007, 10:28 AM

Anthropoid

May 14, 2007, 12:01 AM

Unfortunately, the way the treasure units work, they are really only good for overseas colonial holdings, ala the Age of Discovery scenario in C3C.

El Justo

May 14, 2007, 07:44 AM

ok, sorry for not mentioning it earlier but i was away all weekend w/out internet access. so i've just now managed to look through the many responses.

now - this is I_b's baby so to speak. so i'd rather him comment directly on all of the nitty-gritty changes etc. however, keep in mind that a wholesale overhaul of the file is not what we've intended here. sure some of the ideas are good and all and we're actually implementing a bunch of them in the v2.0 file. but we should all remember that making some of these large scale changes would take a great deal of time. and by that i mean that while it is not too intensive to actually change these things in the editor, it is the testing of it all (ie to make sure it ain't bunk) that would take time. and we don't want to go down that road w/ this new MP file. we'll save all of that for v2.0.

so the bottom line is that the changes being made are ones that will not entail any type of testing.

a few other comments -

i am strongly against allowing sea and air trade. and it's not for turn times b/c that doesn't come into play a whole lot for MP games. instead, my reservation is that allowing for trade would screw up (big time i might add) the 'resource isolation' format i spent so long on constructing. now, i don't care about the time it took etc. my main concern is that it'd have a detrimental impact on game play. is there a way around this? yeah - but it'd mean revamping the entire resource setup and that takes a pretty long time (it took me weeks to do it for v2.0 which is in the pipeline btw). and furthermore, trading of resources in this current file is pretty much useless b/c all civs start with all of the necessary resources. so there's no real need to even inquire to another civ about trading for them (unless some are lost from a war).

the flag units will work. trust me on that. i've tested it thoroughly (back in feb of this year) and AoI is a testament to its success as well.

so i'll ask everyone to not make suggestions for the newest MP file b/c it might start to become information overload. and we want for you guys to get started on it soon. however - all of these ideas are great imo and make a good deal of sense but we should look to review them for v/2.0 instead.

I_batman

May 14, 2007, 08:51 AM