Cold War Project

[PinkyGen]

Thanks for the words of encouragement Conmcb. Unfortunately, Academia has seen my darker side when I tried to take over his country in Age of War. Then again, his fascists sneak attacked me TSFE.

Of course, Darius is the best German a Frenchmen could ask for in that game.

I'll be glad to face what looks to be the challenge of USA.

 

[Yop73]

Pavlov, you wanna be USSR in game #1, or Arab League in game #2?
You can descide, I'll take the other one.

 

[Pavlov]

Well look at all the huppla I've caused. I'm sticking with the Arabs, so you can take the USSR Yop. Thanks for the offer.

 

[academia]

News...

* Oficial name of the scenario: IRON CURTAIN
* Modifications of Labels, Game and Pedia files completed.
* Names of the leaders / Technologies of the countries finished

 

[academia]

Question:

The city of Berlin... inside the USSR or NATO?

 

[SunTzu]

i would make two cities, East/West Berlin....

 

[The Art of War]

It should be USSR. Bonn was the capitol of the Federal Republic of Germany, so just give the Soviets Berlin.

 

[germanos]

Or you could make Berlin USSR, with an Nato airfield right next to it, with maybe one or two squares more being occupies with NATO or USA units behind Fortresses. Let them occupy a 'Trade-Special' to reflect the economic power of West-berlin.

I'm not sure about the historical accuracy, but I doubt West-Berlin was a big producer of goods (thus west-Berlin should not be able to build significant numbers of Units or the like), but it was a large financial center, and a pain in the ass for the USSR.

If you make it two cities, west-berlin should have very few squares available for its citizens, and it should have to rely on (existing) Food-caravans in order to survive, or even grow.

 

[Darius]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Of course, Darius is the best German a Frenchmen could ask for in that game.

Don't be so sure, you should know that when Russia's gone, you're gone!

 

[Darius]

As for Berlin, Pap and I were discussing the possibility of 'city' units in scenarios we were making, kinda similar to Paul Hanson's 'Airfield' units in Crises of the NWO. In a gigamap, even with 255 cities, there are going to be wide open spaces with no cities but that definitely had cities. For instance, having Saigon represent all of Vietnam or having St. Petersburg dubiously represent that region of Russia and Finland at the same time.

So I thought of making a unit called 'city', with a graphic copied straight out of a cities.bmp, and with a rather high defense value, which you would put in these cases at the positions of Hanoi and Helsinki, respectively (and of course anywhere else needed, those were just examples). You could also put airfields underneath them so you can land planes in them like a real city. You could even give it a garrison of units like a real city. It would represent populations more realistically, and it would also slow down invaders in a way that a city would have were it not for the pesky 255 cities limit.

Anyway, your Berlin issue reminded me of this, and it could be a solution. Have Berlin be USSR, and then have a NATO city unit and its garrison directly adjacent to it. Just an idea.

 

[Tracid00]

Too bad I´m too late...if I can help you with anything still, you know where to find me

Sincerly,

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by Darius


Don't be so sure, you should know that when Russia's gone, you're gone!

But see, hopefully you are going east instead of west first.

As for game- I like the idea of a city unit Berlin. There needs to be something there, as this was a Cold War flashpoint both the Soviets and the Americans worried about.

 

[academia]

Sorry Darius, but i won´t use the "city units" idea. Personally, the idea don´t convince me. Plus, i´ve already used all my slots for the units. In a 7 civs scenario, you have to use them all!!!

Regarding Berlin...
Germanos proposal won!!! I´ll use his idea:

Or you could make Berlin USSR, with an Nato airfield right next to it, with maybe one or two squares more being occupies with NATO or USA units behind Fortresses.

 

[academia]

Question:

I have a weird problem with the maximum movement limit. The game´s limit is 42. But i don´t know why the hell it doesn´t allow me to go beyond 31!!!!!!
I don´t understand

During the previous days, i modified some texts in the GAME, LABELS and PEDIA files... could that be the problem?

 

[academia]

Idea:
I was planning to begin this scenario with the possibility of a Vietnam War on the horizon...
I´m just setting up the general lineaments of the conflict...

Vietnam:
In my scenario, it consists of 3 cities: Hanoi, Hue and Saigon.
I´m planning to give Hanoi and Hue to CHINESE TROOPS. ok? China will represent the "north vietnam army"
USA will have Saigon and some troops in the area.

To make it clear:
It´ll be a "limited war" between China and USA in Vietnam. ok?


And I think that we´ll have to use that concept many times in the future... "limited war"
My idea? I´m talking about possible US-USSR conflicts limited to certain countries/areas of the world. Not a total war declaration.
Depending on the conflict, i think that the players should determine the "rules"
For example:
. Conventional War Option (no nukes)
. Only US-USSR conflict. Not NATO, China troops allowed
. War restricted to some country, area, continent

What do you think about it?
I´d like to hear your comments

 

[PinkyGen]

Hmm. One problem with the idea of limited war is that since you know is limited, you can pour all your recources into that one area. In real liffe, US had to worry not only about Vietnam, but keeping its committments to NATO and the homeland.

Also, another risk during the Cold War was the entire idea of escalation. There was always a risk of a local conflict growing out of control, finally culminating in a nuclear exchange.

I guess what you want to avoid is a nuclear first strike on the first turn. With that, a certain amount of role-playing is required.

 

[Darius]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Hmm. One problem with the idea of limited war is that since you know is limited, you can pour all your recources into that one area. In real liffe, US had to worry not only about Vietnam, but keeping its committments to NATO and the homeland.

Well I think he means the human players will keep it limited. The human Soviet player could very well attack Berlin while the U.S. is stuck in Vietnam, who knows?

 

[germanos]

The best way to make the concept of 'limited warfare' work would be giving the US/Nato and USSR sufficient nukes and the abilities to deliver them at spots that would REALLY hurt their opponents, possibly even MAD, that the human players would think twice before letting any conflict escalate.

I suggest that all nuclear powers at the time of the beginning of the scenario (was France allready a nuclear power in the early 60's? And what about China?) have their nukes being NON-Units (reflecting MAD even after a first strike).

Personally, I have never been in the position to consider MAD, and I think most players never have, so it would be really interesting to play this scenario.

 

[academia]

The best way to make the concept of 'limited warfare' work would be giving the US/Nato and USSR sufficient nukes and the abilities to deliver them at spots that would REALLY hurt their opponents, possibly even MAD, that the human players would think twice before letting any conflict escalate.

Exactly. That´s the point of the concept of "limited warfare"
You´ll have to think twice before using nukes... Anyway, it´s up to you. The players should decide.
I don´t know, there are some possibilities...
- Maybe a hot line between US-USSR. They can use it to talk before someone makes something EXTREMELY STUPID.
- UN Security Council integrated by the nuclear nations?

My goal is that negotiations must have a major role here. Plus, before using nukes, you should think twice.
Obviously, you can do it. You can ignore all the international rules (players should decide them) and begin a nuclear war.

One more time; in this topic (negotiations, international law) i´m giving you liberty to establish your own rules. ok?

I suggest that all nuclear powers at the time of the beginning of the scenario (was France allready a nuclear power in the early 60's? And what about China?) have their nukes being NON-Units (reflecting MAD even after a first strike).

Yea, France and China in 1964. That´s why my scenario begins in december 1964

Personally, I have never been in the position to consider MAD, and I think most players never have, so it would be really interesting to play this scenario.

MAD... what´s MAD?

 

[academia]

Pinkygen:

Hmm. One problem with the idea of limited war is that since you know is limited, you can pour all your recources into that one area. In real liffe, US had to worry not only about Vietnam, but keeping its committments to NATO and the homeland.

Yea, you may want to pour all your resources there... but what about Europe? would you leave it without US troops?

Like Darius said... "Well I think he means the human players will keep it limited. The human Soviet player could very well attack Berlin while the U.S. is stuck in Vietnam, who knows?"

When I say limited, i´m saying:
- restricted theater of operations (country, area, continent) Players should establish that
- conventional war. You can use ships, aircrafts, tanks... but not nuclear weapons

Do you want to send 80% of your army to fight there? you can do it.
The level of commitment to the conflict depends on you. Of course, if you send 80% of your troops to Southern Asia... what about europe? USSR may take advantage of the situation and would try to invade germany, sweden. who knows?
I think the goal is to achieve a proper balance

Also, another risk during the Cold War was the entire idea of escalation. There was always a risk of a local conflict growing out of control, finally culminating in a nuclear exchange.

That´s one of my goals in this scenario. Try to reflect that real life situation

I guess what you want to avoid is a nuclear first strike on the first turn. With that, a certain amount of role-playing is required.

In some way... that´s the idea. Plus, i´m forcing the players to begin negotiations and establish some "international rules" from day one