A Cold War for this Cold Winter... Multiplayer Game

[civ2units]

No news

 

[JPetroski]

The United States declines to sign SALT. While not a bad idea, this is not the sort of treaty that can just be sprung upon us. We would suggest that when the treaty renews, a discussion precede it.

In other news, Brunei is captured by the Pro-West as America declines to abandon their support of SE Asia, but does sadly acknowledge that returning to the mainland may be difficult.

In South America, Belem joins the Pro-West fold.

 

[techumseh]

The European Union signs the SALT treaty. Meanwhile, the RRF(FEF) goes into action in Mozambique and Zambia.

 

[JPetroski]

@Prof. Garfield we will need to find another key for the ship inspection - I was doing some tests on AEGIS cruisers (which are ranged attack ships) and as k is utilized they can't fire their missiles. I'm not sure where you put ship inspection so I didn't fix it myself (I assume it's a quick fix, just change which key). Maybe shift+k? If that isn't used for something?

 

[civ2units]

Zambia and Malawi preparing for war against the European colonial troops. Let's start the fight for freedom.

Meanwhile in India: We choosed the way of Democracy even if I was thinking about to change into Communist Dictatorship, at least for a nanosecond

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Communists rise up in Uruguay.
Soviet battleship bombards Montevideo, destroys tank.
Communist forces capture Montevideo.
Tu-95 Bombs Kadena, damages 2 ships.
Tu-95 Bombs Brunei, destroys 2 tanks.

@Prof. Garfield we will need to find another key for the ship inspection - I was doing some tests on AEGIS cruisers (which are ranged attack ships) and as k is utilized they can't fire their missiles. I'm not sure where you put ship inspection so I didn't fix it myself (I assume it's a quick fix, just change which key). Maybe shift+k? If that isn't used for something?

In inspection.lua, you can remove the inspection ability from AEGIS, as the easiest fix.

local inspection = {}
inspection.kList = {}
inspection.kList[object.uBattleship.id]=true
inspection.kList[object.uFrigate.id]=true
inspection.kList[object.uFreighter.id]=true
inspection.kList[object.uCruiser.id]=true
inspection.kList[object.uDestroyer.id]=true
inspection.kList[object.uAegisCruiser.id]=true -- change to false to remove inspection ability from AEGIS.

If you want to change the key, this is the relevant code to move

    elseif inspection.kList[activeUnit.type.id] then
        inspection.initiateInspection(activeUnit)
    else

Of course, you'll have to change the elseif to an if.

 

[JPetroski]

If no one else has an objection I'll just remove inspections from the AEGIS. Frankly, I'd argue that frigates are probably the only unit that should have this ability (it'd certainly give cause to use them).

 

[Prof. Garfield]

If no one else has an objection I'll just remove inspections from the AEGIS. Frankly, I'd argue that frigates are probably the only unit that should have this ability (it'd certainly give cause to use them).

Fine with me. Make sure the freighter is still kept in the list so that it can toggle veteran and non veteran status to determine if it will submit to inspection.

 

[civ2units]

No news

 

[JPetroski]

The United States' response to the Soviet Union's flagrant disregard for the Monroe Doctrine in their sending a battleship fleet to bombard a South American ally is swift, but measured. While there are no open hostilities, the United States closely shadows a Soviet fleet off the American coastline. There is no good reason for it to be here, and we fear our other Allies are its target. Fighter aircraft, support vessels, and other units are deployed in a tight circle around the Soviet warships. While the United States will let the Soviet fleet return home next turn unscathed, we feel that this show of force is important. We will not tolerate direct Soviet engagement via their own units in the Americas and while we, at this time, will not directly attack the ships, we will use what resources are available to us to deny the Soviet fleet avenues to attack our allies in the Americas.

In other news, the United States has launched a new class of warships, the Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser. The first warship takes its name from the famous fortress in New York.

There is significant fighting in South America. The Argentinian fleet sorties from Bahia Blanca and destroys two antiquated Soviet vessels, including a badly damaged battleship. Montevideo is recaptured though significant rebels remain near the city. Further, rebels in Brazil are brought to heel with the capture of Manaus and Boa Vista. Havana too joins the western fold.

In Southeast Asia, fighters from Brunei engage Malayan MiG's but are destroyed. While both the Americans and Pro-West search for the bombers responsible for the dastardly raid on Kadena, they are not located.

I've attached a change to the inspection events - the only ships that can inspect are frigates and destroyers. It doesn't make much sense to have a battleship or cruiser conduct these inspections.

 

[techumseh]

A dastardly attack has been made on a European naval vessel by Non-Aligned air units. The frigate Hercule Poirot, on anti-smuggling patrol 200km W of Bombay, has been sunk by Indian aircraft. Moreover, the attack was not reported by the Indian side, as is customary. European reaction has been both immediate and powerful. The Combined European Far East Fleet (ComEuFEF) has launched a retaliatory raid. Chenai and Madurai have been bombarded, with heavy losses to the Indian side. Infantry, naval vessels and aircraft were destroyed, and much freight went up in flames at the port of Chenai. The Indian Corsair squadron that made the attack on the Poirot was intercepted on it's way back to base and shot down. The Admiralty regrets the loss of the Cruiser Benney Hill.

Meanwhile, Lilongwe has been recaptured, with heavy losses inflicted on the ZERO irregulars defending the city.

 

[civ2units]

The Indian government condemns the British attacks on Indian cities, but renounced of a counterattack at the moment because the parliament voted against it.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Fighting near Montevideo.
Pro Eastern Landing Party with air support liberates Brunei.

I'm inclined to think that disembarking units onto a beach should only be allowed if the transport has full movement points (unloading into a port would work as normal). It would be a fairly simple events change.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I'm about ready to add a "guerrilla recruitment" module to the game. Here's how I have it working at the moment, so let me know if you think there should be changes, or whatnot.

How it works:
Between turns, tiles are checked to see if any 'guerrillas' should be given extra units.

A tile qualifies if it has a fortified "revolutionary" or "nationalist" (unit with Rev. or Nat. in name). Barb nationalist/revolutionary units qualify even if not fortified. The "guerrilla" tribe must not have a city within 3 squares of the tile in question.

Each tile is given a "value", which is calculated in the following way:
Find the nearest city (as the crow flies, i.e. not taking terrain or water into account), and add up the raw food, trade, and shields that tile would produce for that city (taking into account technologies, city improvements, etc). (The nearest city can still be owned by the guerrilla tribe.) Subtract 2 times the distance in tiles to the nearest city.

If the tile is developing or devastation, it has a value of 8 regardless of how far it is from the nearest city. If the tile is industry, its value is the production total, regardless of the distance to the nearest city.

If the tile is directly adjacent to the nearest city, the value gets +4 (even for the special terrains).

There is a chance of 4 units being created: the revolutionary/nationalist type occupying the tile, a gun truck, an RPG, a field artillery. The chance for each unit is tileValue/(3*productionCost).

I figure that requiring the "guerrillas" to be at least 3 squares away from their own cities will mean that you can't recruit guerrillas from your own territory. The exception is that it might make sense to have a presence in the villages in the backwater areas of South America or Africa, or maybe to keep a close watch on some natural resource.

As for occupying enemy territory, basing the bonus on production and distance from cities means that there is little recruitment value in hiding in mountains and jungles, unless you control access to some resource. However, controlling villages and cities is always a good idea, if you can make it work.

 

[JPetroski]

The only thing I'd suggest getting rid of is the barbarian guerillas simply because barbarians aren't really such in this scenario - they're established governments.

I'm all for adding mechanisms that allow the Soviets to compete inland. We've all experienced what happens coastally, at least for now, and while you're starting to finally get some ways to hit back, who knows if in future games this wouldn't immediately lead to WW3. However, we'd probably better let everyone sign off.

As I understand this process, the player would still need to make the initial investment, wait a turn to get a unit fortified, and only then have some chance of it working, so it's not as though this is just going to pop randomly everywhere, and the other civs have time to react (also, given there's only a chance that a free unit pops each turn, it shouldn't be overwhelming). Am I reading you right?

 

[techumseh]

I'm not sure what the issue that you're trying to solve is. It it is to strengthen uprisings, then there are simpler ways to do it.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I'm not sure what the issue that you're trying to solve is. It it is to strengthen uprisings, then there are simpler ways to do it.

At the moment, spawning rebels is kind of pointless unless you can quickly capture a port, and then keep it. There is not much point in trying to have a prolonged guerrilla "campaign." There is also little reason for the defenders to bother leaving cities to deal with these forces, unless they happen to have the spare units around anyway.

The only thing I'd suggest getting rid of is the barbarian guerillas simply because barbarians aren't really such in this scenario - they're established governments.

Sure, makes sense. I should probably also make it so that the Europeans can't recruit more guerrillas. I don't think many people take to the hills to support reestablishing colonial rule compared to an independent government.

As I understand this process, the player would still need to make the initial investment, wait a turn to get a unit fortified, and only then have some chance of it working, so it's not as though this is just going to pop randomly everywhere, and the other civs have time to react (also, given there's only a chance that a free unit pops each turn, it shouldn't be overwhelming). Am I reading you right?

Yes. The idea is that if you don't deal with the men with guns in the hinterland, they can gather resources and support from the territory they control. Fortification is an easy way to show 'establishment' in an area. This also provides a way for the revolutionaries to get field artillery. It may also make sense to be able to get Stingers after someone develops Rocket Research I, so there is at least a little danger in sending out bombers to deal with revolutionaries.

 

[JPetroski]

I mean I like it because basically the super power can provide the spark (and can continue to do so) but then there's a natural growth unless it is checked. I'd argue stingers should become available as outlined.

Anything that makes fighting in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia more likely than Europe is a good thing.

 

[techumseh]

Interesting. I was thinking though, that the US and the USSR depended on different strategies to establish control of a country: the Soviets were more likely to use guerrilla warfare while the US is inclined to use military coups. Perhaps the non-aligned would be somewhere in the middle. Is there any interest in making modifications to reflect this?

 

[civ2units]

Interesting. I was thinking though, that the US and the USSR depended on different strategies to establish control of a country: the Soviets were more likely to use guerrilla warfare while the US is inclined to use military coups. Perhaps the non-aligned would be somewhere in the middle. Is there any interest in making modifications to reflect this?

Sounds interesting and is surely historical accurate. Maybe something like this could be a solution: For the USSR I would use the strategy above mentioned, for the US I would give some better weapons like tanks, helicopters and maybe one fighter to reflect the military coup. But military coups should be more expensive then inciting a revolt. Only the Non-Aligned could use both options.