Cold war scenario

[Namaspamus]

I'd love cold wars, proxy wars, either in a realistic world or not. But if the cold war turns hot it's all about nukes and mutual destruction, that's why this war never happened. So maybe something should be done to underpower nukes, or limit their number.

Espionnage should be very important too.

 

[Ahriman]

or limit their number.

I would imagine that the mod would be more fun with very few uranium resources, so that there were severe limits on the number of nukes you could build.

Espionnage should be very important too.

Why? Espionage soaked up a lot of money and public attention, but achieved very little of significance during the coldwar at all.
I guess if you count the Rosenbergs, but thats about it.

Much more important during ww2 (signals interception and code-breaking, and resistance uprisings/attacks).

 

[Namaspamus]

Why? Espionage soaked up a lot of money and public attention, but achieved very little of significance during the coldwar at all.
I guess if you count the Rosenbergs, but thats about it.

Much more important during ww2 (signals interception and code-breaking, and resistance uprisings/attacks).

True. Don't really know what missions they could accomplish but it's for adding another way to "fight" when the war is not bursted yet. Maybe just observing the movements of enemy troops to anticipate attacks.

Also they weren't that useful because the war never happened but if it did they could have been used for same missions as in WW2, and to detect the coming attack (well, maybe not stopping nukes with their little hands though. Don't know)

 

[Ahriman]

But detecting attacks would probably be much more about satellite technology and spy planes than espionage.

So, for a cold war civ5 mod I'd certainly add aircraft recon missions and satellites, but wouldn't lament not having an espionage system.

 

[PeterWimsey]

I think that this would be really interesting scenario, especially with the city-state mechanism.

I would have two superpowers (Nato and the WP), plus a lot of city-states variously aligned with the superpowers. China or India would probably be the strongest city state. It might make sense to have North Vietnam and S VN as two separate city states; the same with the Koreas.

The tricky part would be managing war - if you can win the scenario by winning WWIII, it's (A) not really a cold war scenario; and (B), IMO, it's how all games would be won and lost. And that wouldn't *at all* be a cold war scenario.

The CW was *not* about winning by having a hot war; it was about alliances, it was about proxy wars, and it was about military buildup.

So you would need some sort of non-war victory conditions, but also a reason to make the two sides continue with a military buildup. Perhaps you lose if you fall behind militarily. Or if you don't obtain certain military techs? And certainly if most of the city states start allying with your enemy.

And having oil reserves in the middle east would, of course, make things interesting.

 

[Ahriman]

China or India would probably be the strongest city state.

China I'd probably consider making a separate faction dealt with through normal diplomacy. The only one like that.
The rest of the world I'd probably chop up into city states (as long as city states can still control multiple cities).
So you have to choose which ones to support in order to access their resources. Both players will be lobbying really hard over the middle east for example to get their oil. Or support Israel, give them a ton of military stuff, and see if you can get them to go conquer some oil for you.

So you would need some sort of non-war victory conditions, but also a reason to make the two sides continue with a military buildup

This was driving my concept of victory points and a small random chance of WW3 breaking out.

If victory points come from controlling key cities (directly, as puppets or through city state alliances) then if the war comes really late, then no matter how successful you were unless you conquered the other player entirely then you might not make up enough VPs to counteract an inferior diplomatic position from many turns of having few city state allies.

* * *
This is definitely something I'd be interested in doing design work for, if anyone had the technical competence and interest to lead a mod team.

 

[Namaspamus]

But detecting attacks would probably be much more about satellite technology and spy planes than espionage.

The truth is I like spies and they're part of the cold war mythology. Two bad reasons maybe, but if I was the mod-maker* they would have a place, don't know exactly wich. (not saboting a tile every turn)

* not able to, alas

The tricky part would be managing war - if you can win the scenario by winning WWIII, it's (A) not really a cold war scenario; and (B), IMO, it's how all games would be won and lost. And that wouldn't *at all* be a cold war scenario.

The CW was *not* about winning by having a hot war; it was about alliances, it was about proxy wars, and it was about military buildup.

So you would need some sort of non-war victory conditions, but also a reason to make the two sides continue with a military buildup. Perhaps you lose if you fall behind militarily. Or if you don't obtain certain military techs? And certainly if most of the city states start allying with your enemy.

Agree it will be like any game if the war can turn hot any time. Non-war victory is needed in some way. As you said, it's tricky. Would we enjoy the game if we don't fight by ourselves at all, or almost not? If we're directly involved in local wars, should we have the certitude WW3 won't come out of it? And can the other giant only give troops to his proxy, without engaging his navy etc?..

 

[better days]

The CW was *not* about winning by having a hot war; it was about alliances, it was about proxy wars, and it was about military buildup.

So you would need some sort of non-war victory conditions, but also a reason to make the two sides continue with a military buildup. Perhaps you lose if you fall behind militarily. Or if you don't obtain certain military techs? And certainly if most of the city states start allying with your enemy.

I think a good way to accomplish this would be Ahriman's points towards victory based off of puppet states and cities in control etc. combined with making sure that there were lots of opportunities for these proxy wars, by making some of the city-states' traits irrational and/or militaristic and playing with the diplomacy modifiers so that, for example, North and South Korea hate each other off the bat, and Israel/rest of the Middle East.

Also, Warsaw Pact would have to be locked Social-Policy-wise into Order and Autocracy, and NATO into Liberty and Freedom.

 

[Namaspamus]

I would imagine that the mod would be more fun with very few uranium resources, so that there were severe limits on the number of nukes you could build.

Also, antimissile "umbrellas" could come at mid-game. Protecting city-states under our umbrella would be a good way to make them allieds. Maybe it wouldn't be realistic to make them very efficient, but it would have the advantage to split the game into a first phase where war is definitely cold, and a second where ballistic missiles become almost useless. Then we would fight, using the advantage won in phase 1 to conquer.

 

[Phoenix]

I've always liked the idea of making a cold war scenario (and did infact start making one a couple of times). It would be awesome to create a group of scenarios depicting WW1, WW2 and the Cold War; basically you could start from any of those points and could play through to the end of the cold war. Would be quite a project though... perhaps something that a team of modders would be best doing rather than just one person.

Rise of Nations did an Cold War scenario in an expansion pack which was rather nice. Heres hoping the we get something from Civ (even from an expansion - I've always though that the scenarios were a weak point from Civ, though often the modders can create some great things).

I didn't really get into the modding in Civ IV but hopefully Civ V will have some great tools.

 

[Ahriman]

Also, Warsaw Pact would have to be locked Social-Policy-wise into Order and Autocracy, and NATO into Liberty and Freedom.

I'd imagine that a mod like this would probably have entirely new designs for social policies, more appropriate to the particular eras.

It would be awesome to create a group of scenarios depicting WW1, WW2 and the Cold War; basically you could start from any of those points and could play through to the end of the cold war. Would be quite a project though

I think this isn't the best way to go.
Its better to keep these separate and do a good job of those than to try to merge them together.

A ww2 mod should basically be a wargame.
Whereas a cold war mod should be much much more about diplomacy and superpower politics.

Also, antimissile "umbrellas" could come at mid-game.

Not in a cold war mod!
Extremely late game, if at all. We still don't have them 20 years after the cold war ended.

 

[Phoenix]

Yes I see your point; I was more thinking about an alternative, hot, cold war. Though the diplomatic version could be rather interesting.

 

[Ahriman]

Yes I see your point; I was more thinking about an alternative, hot, cold war.

My point isn't about hot or cold, its that a coldwar mod is going to be primarily aimed at 1945-1990, during which no anti-missile umbrella was invented, and certainly not in the midgame (~1970?).

Even in 2010, we can't see a feasible ABM defense on the horizon. The tests have all been horrible failures, and even then those would only be effective against 1-2 missiles, so would have no impact on superpowers.

 

[nekom]

I agree that it would be cool. I also agree with those who suggest that the AI really isn't cut out for that kind of a scenario.