Cold War Project

[Tracid00]

I second insurgent, VERY few bombers are active.
France and the UK have some for carrying nuclear weapons, I think the vulcan in the UK...the french may have pulled them from active duty in favour of the nuclear-capable Mirage2000.

The only countries really able to field a high number of bombers are the US (B-1, B-2, B-52), China (H-5, H-6, H-7) and Russia to a degree (Tu-16, Tu-22, Tu-128)

All other countries depend on fighter bombers, because they are able to act defensivly and are less cost-and maintainance intensive.

Sincerly,

 

[academia]

So, what do you think?
Should I give NATO a bomber or not in the 80s-90s?
Vulcan maybe? Mirage 2000? US bombers?

Remeber that in this game, USA and NATO are two separate civs.

 

[Mikoyan]

The standard NATO bomber should definately be the Tornado IDS.

 

[Tracid00]

I wouldn´t give them a "bomber", just a fighter-bomber, preverably the Tornado. make the interceptor the mirage, and give the tornado better attack...it´s better suitet for ground attack anyways.

 

[insurgent]

Yeah, I agree, go with the Tornado IDS. And give the Europeans some Harriers, F-16's, and Mirages as fighters...

 

[academia]

Oakie Dokie
Thanx for the info. I´ll do that

 

[PinkyGen]

Academia, according to Tracid, the Vulcan is a UK bomber. If so, is it capable of being launched from the small British carriers in your Falklands scenario?

In general, how greatly would a European bomber be needed in this scenario? Bombers in real life were built primarily to deliver nuclear weapons, that can't happen in Civ2. On the other hand, their role has expanded back to more of its original role, like the B-52's carpet bombing in Afghanistan.

 

[Tracid00]

erm...afaik, NO bombers are capable of launching off carriers.
and to my knowledge, the vulcan ranges somewhere in the area of the B-52, so the carrier would have to be the size of...say....Ireland.

Sincerly,

 

[Mikoyan]

Originally posted by Tracid00


The only countries really able to field a high number of bombers are the US (B-1, B-2, B-52), China (H-5, H-6, H-7) and Russia to a degree (Tu-16, Tu-22, Tu-128)

Tu-128 is a long range fighter, not a bomber, and don't forget Tu-160 Blackjack! The Soviet Union's most capable bomber. (At least for the 4 last years of it's existanse)

 

[insurgent]

What a strange-looking aircraft, Mikoyan...

 

[Tracid00]

Originally posted by Mikoyan

Tu-128 is a long range fighter, not a bomber, and don't forget Tu-160 Blackjack! The Soviet Union's most capable bomber. (At least for the 4 last years of it's existanse)

You´re right, my bad....

Yeah, the Tu-160 is fairly capable, but after all only 40 were built, and those are only used for carrying nuclear weapons........

And the picture does look cool! After all, it´s supposed to be about 80% stealthy (with the B-2 counting as 100%).

 

[academia]

* News!!!!

1) Units selection periods 1975-1980 / 1980-1985 / 1985-1990 / 1990-1995 finished!!!
2) Now, i´m planning to check the tech tree one more time and see if I can add/remove some techs.

 

[Mikoyan]

* News!!!!

1) Units selection periods 1975-1980 / 1980-1985 / 1985-1990 / 1990-1995 finished!!!
2) Now, i´m planning to check the tech tree one more time and see if I can add/remove some techs.

Cool!

Yeah, the Tu-160 is fairly capable, but after all only 40 were built, and those are only used for carrying nuclear weapons........

In my opinion 40 is a sizable bomber force, and i am sure there was a cruise missile configuration as well, hmm, oh well....

 

[academia]

Great News!!!!!

Tech tree design finished!!!! I mean the entire tech tree; from 1964-1970 to 1990-1995

Now... build infraestructure: city improvements + farms, railroads, airbases, etc.

 

[Ohwell]

Airbases? Are you forgetting my unit idea, the "airbase" unit? I think it would be more realistic... because then you can't just march into an airbase. Though there is always the problem of re-building them...

Is this a primarily combat related scenario??? If not I think that you should have a later advance for farming so you can change from irrigation to farmland etc... I am also against railroads, just increase the road movement multiplier to something higher...

 

[academia]

Airbases? Are you forgetting my unit idea, the "airbase" unit? I think it would be more realistic... because then you can't just march into an airbase. Though there is always the problem of re-building them...

Sorry, but i don´t like the "airbase" unit

If not I think that you should have a later advance for farming so you can change from irrigation to farmland etc...

Well, that comes with the scenario. From the beggining, engineers have the ability of changing irrigation to farmland

I am also against railroads, just increase the road movement multiplier to something higher...

Yes, i´ve already done it

Is this a primarily combat related scenario???

Interesting question... to be honest, i´m not sure.
At first, I´d like to give players the liberty of doing whatever they want. I mean:
Do you want to isolate yourself and concentrate on developing your country? do it.
Do you want to research nuclear techs and just build hundreds of nuke bombs? do it.
USA vs. USSR nuclear war? it may happen.

I´d like to make a few tests, and the decide.
Anyway, THIS ISN´T A HISTORICAL SCENARIO. I just set the action in the cold war era (1964)

 

[Ohwell]

Oook

 

[academia]

Some questions:
* Albania... inside USSR (like warsaw pact countries) or not?
*Could somebody specify the members of the NATO in 1964?

 

[Mikoyan]

NATO Members in 1964 were:
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, USA, Greece, Turkey and West Germany

And Albania was definately Soviet Bloc.

 

[insurgent]

Albania was a member of the Warsaw Pact, while Yugoslavia wasn't.