Battlefield New York 2

[Virote_Considon]

I prefer #2.

 

[WildWeazel]

The problem with #2- unrealistically limiting trade routes- is that with this map many cities will not be adjacent to roads (I wasn't planning to place any more in Manhattan, for example), unless I go road-crazy and lay down an artificial grid of highways.
The same applies to a lesser extent to #3, because flat ground will be sparse in most areas.

 

[Swargey]

I say number 2 or 4. Giving up wheeled vehicles wont be good tho :/

 

[WildWeazel]

How to differentiate very different factions with varying playing styles...
There will probably be several victory conditions, not all available to all civs. A modified SS victory, some kind of unification process, will be given to NYPD and/or ARM. Diplomatic victory for the major military players, which may represent a cease-fire or global peace treaty. I don't know what to do about VPLs. Conquest is out, but domination may be an option for the Soviets and NYPD/America. Obviously the little guys are going to have a hard time winning.
Not everyone will be able to wage open war. For the smaller factions, diplomacy, espionage, and trade will be important. Army and Hero units, spawned in battle or from wonders, will be strategically important. Nuclear weapons obviously wouldn't represent actual nukes, but maybe airstrikes or large-scale bombing. It would have to be something that would upset everyone, even in a warzone, so anything against the laws of war would be good.
Location will be very important. Lots of pre-placed wonders with special effects, resources required in the city radius, chokepoints for vehicles. You sholdn't be able to play as one faction, then apply your winning strategy to another faction.

 

[Balthasar]

It would have to be something that would upset everyone, even in a warzone, so anything against the laws of war would be good.

Terroristic attacks (Car Bombs, Suicide Bombers, IEDs) tend to piss everyone off; random rocket attacks are also pretty awful. Gas really gets everyone annoyed; "dirty" nukes are another variation with awful results.

BTW, looking at some of the older posts in this thread, did you ever think of using "invisible" roads? Very handy.

 

[WildWeazel]

I think rocket attacks/airstrikes is probably the most reasonable. Gas would be cool but nuke units destroy infrastructure, which wouldn't make sense.

"Invisible" roads meaning no terrain graphic? They will be buildable, so they should be represented visually somehow. They don't necessarily have to be "raods" though.

 

[Nwoll]

Anyone know where to download that truck unit pictured in the unit lines??
Second unit under "soviet" - looks like a machine gun on the back of a pick-up truck.

I'd like to find this unit if anyone knows about it

Sorry to hijack your thread Weasel Op - your scenario looks great btw.

 

[WildWeazel]

It looks like a Wyrmshadow unit. He may not have re-uploaded it yet though.

 

[Nwoll]

Yeah, I figured it was Wyrmshadow's or Ripptide's. I found it now, thanks.

 

[WildWeazel]

New units! Most of the unit lines are coming along very nicely. The difficult will be balancing out the stats and abilities so that vehicles will not be overpowered. It's hard to represent tactical differences in Civ3's combat system. One reason I would like to limit vehicles to roads is so that infantry can retreat into buildings for safety. Unfortunately on this map that would be a huge limitation.

 

[Swargey]

Weasel Op, I was just going over the story again and noticed something weird, you say the Soviets are invading the east, but wouldn't it be a bit hard to bring all those troops around Europe, through the atlantic, and all the way to the U.S.? Did they overrun Europe too? You'd think our allies in around the world would be going up against the new USSR and they'd have to commit troops elsewhere? Or maybe they have a stronghold in Cuba again?

I'd likely assume they'd invade from the west, as it's so close to the U.S.. Perhaps we should also include a "Battlefield Los Angeles"

 

[Quinzy]

Why would they have to march? Why not fly? Paradrop in!

 

[Swargey]

Why would they have to march? Why not fly? Paradrop in!

Wouldn't it still be hard to fly troops all the way from Russia, through Europe (who would likely be shooting up all kinds of anti-aircraft weaponry and enemy fighters) and into the United States who would also have a least a little anti-air firepower?

 

[WildWeazel]

Perhaps we should also include a "Battlefield Los Angeles"

Who do you think I am, Kurt Russel?


In order for this situation to make sense, the Soviets must have overrun or absorbed most of the major European powers. Japan may have remained strong, defending North America from the Pacific side. Maybe the western US is more secure, or maybe they're being invaded too.

 

[Swargey]

In order for this situation to make sense, the Soviets must have overrun or absorbed most of the major European powers. Japan may have remained strong, defending North America from the Pacific side. Maybe the western US is more secure, or maybe they're being invaded too.

I would assume the only superpower in the world would be strong enough to launch an invasion from two sides. Plus I doubt Japan could hold out, their military is quite small compared to the Soviets (and probably weaker at this fictional point in time as they have no trading partners now and no way to bring in oil from other countries or get supplies now that the world has gone down the toilet).

 

[Swargey]

Ok, is anyone actually fully working on this scenario? It looks as if it could be one of the best, but right now has the life of a 1,000 year old zombie. Seriously, anyone home?

 

[WildWeazel]

Read the first post. I'm doing it alone, in my spare time. Also, I've been away for a week.

 

[Swargey]

I'd very much appreciate if you'd give me run down on what is needed, I might be able to find something. Also, I can probably make some civilopedia entries for you.