Finishing Things Up

[Patine]

So, now that, after all these years, the Korean War scenario is finally complete, with great thanks to many (especially McMonkey, who, as I recall, had just joined the community on Apolyton as Werd100 shortly after I announced the project's start, and his tireless and volunteer labour to bring it up to it's full potential), I have decided that, though I have toyed with and asked for opinions and advice about several brand new projects to pursue, I think finishing my other two remaining unfinished, but with significant progress, ToT scenarios (both of which I had many new inspirations for improving and expanding while still working on Korea, but tucked them away in note form and collected graphics and such for later rather than actively pursuing at the time), that is Empire of the Rising Sun, which AGRICOLA had given significant time playtesting in his day, and my Modern Middle East (1990 to roughly 2020, or so) before starting something brand new from scratch.

 

[JPetroski]

Both sound very interesting! Any old development threads I can look at? I'm especially interested in Empire.

If you need a playtester, let me know.

 

[Patine]

Thanks for the playtest offer.

I actually think both of the actual development threads are back on Apolyton before the SL migration, actually... :S

 

[Patine]

Although, there a few big changes I had been toying with that might require a restart of the actual .scn files for each. I want a bigger map for my Middle East scenario (I was using that tiny map from the Alexander the Great and Gulf War scenarios from Conflicts in Civilization, the pre-MGE x-pac to Vanilla Civ2, and it's tiny and cramped), and I had been toying with possibly cutting out Burma, India, and Western China (to avoid unnecessary overlap with the territory of techumseh's Burma scenario) and starting in 1937, at the start of Second Sino-Japanese War, instead of December 1941, for Empire of the Rising Sun.

 

[JPetroski]

If you wind up restarting Empire and moving the start date to 1937, what do you have in mind for compelling the Japanese player to take on more and more conquests of the imperialist powers?

I'm considering making a WW2 (Europe) multiplayer scenario which I want to start in May of 1940. My plan to compel the German player to attack the Soviets, and then the United States, is to use technologies as "funnels." So for example, there would be two techs that would be vital: Let's call them, Broaden the War I and II. Once the German player researches the first one, they declare war on the Soviets. When they research the second, they declare war on the United States.

Now, they never really need to research either IF they can win quickly. But the British player has access to the first tech, and this tech gives the British player significantly better units, and significant help via flags if the German player doesn't have it. So your 109Es would be up against Spit IX's and such until you research it. Once you research it, your units gain parity with the Brits'.

Likewise, if the Soviet player researches the 2nd tech, they'll have T-34's and good weapons that outclass the Germans until the Germans research it. This brings the U.S. into war.

Perhaps you could use some similar method to compel the Japanese player to first take over French holdings (war with France) and then take on the United States? This way you do have a "sandbox" because the player can do what they want, but there is a legitimate desire to loosely follow history, because they'll be at a significant disadvantage if they don't.

Just some thoughts. You may well have already implemented something like this!

 

[Patine]

My initial idea had been quite different. I had thought to use the American and British economic sanctions as a vehicle (I don't think that applied to the Dutch, who are their own player, controlling the Dutch East Indies at start, especially after May 1940). The Japanese would have a small economic penalty, or drain, per turn, by events, that may increase over time, until they trigger a war with the U.S. and/or British players, which would shift the Japanese economy to a war footing with them and (at least through abstract convenice of gaming) render the event money drain moot. You're idea is intriguing too, though. Also, manging the French (post-June 1940 Vichy French) colonies is something I haven't really dealt with either.

 

[Patine]

Another thing I'm a bit uncertain about is a couple slots. I definitely want the Japanese, Americans, British Empire, Dutch (East Indies), and Chinese to each be their own player. That leaves two slots for three potential belligerents - Thailand, Japan's regional and mostly independent (but somewhat unreliable and conflicted) ally; the French Indochinese and Pacific colonies and protectorates, who role was very complex, and which Indochina largely became a collaborative or puppet region of Japan (or at least mostly under Tokyo's control) after Fall Gelb, whereas the Pacific colonies (New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, and French Polynesia) quickly sided with or were claimed by Free French Forces; and the Soviet Union, a big, looming potential threat in Siberia and the Soviet Far East (albeit mostly preoccuped with the 'Great Patriotic War' to the West), who only took part in that theatre directly in an opportunistic and vulture-like agreement with the U.S. in the last month of the war.

 

[JPetroski]

Why not represent the Soviets with some text on the map with city names (with TOTpp) and a few units that spawn later in the game if conditions are right? The US player could "own" these units.

Unless you're planning on letting the Soviets get involved sooner, I don't see much reason to have a full-blown civ for a belligerent who doesn't do anything for 90% of the scenario.

 

[JPetroski]

Hi,

Not sure if you ever knew about this (I did not), but if you add the 'submarine advantages/disadvantages' and the 'can attack aircraft' flags to the same aircraft, what you get is a unit that can attack other aircraft but only if they are over the sea. I'm using it in Over the Reich for the wildcats and later hellcats that protect the convoys and thought the idea might be useful in a Pacific War scenario.

 

[Patine]

That would definitely be a very useful idea, as F4 and F6 series naval aircraft are definitely planned to be present in significant numbers in this scenario. By the way, I'm curious if the 'carrier' and 'submarine' flags can co-exist on a single unit. Japan had (or at least had been developing, or had limited deployment of) those submarines that could serve as waystops for aircraft.

 

[Patine]

Why not represent the Soviets with some text on the map with city names (with TOTpp) and a few units that spawn later in the game if conditions are right? The US player could "own" these units.

Unless you're planning on letting the Soviets get involved sooner, I don't see much reason to have a full-blown civ for a belligerent who doesn't do anything for 90% of the scenario.

So, I had thought leaving the Soviets as a near-end game mechanism rather than a full player might be prudent, but then my research came across these two battle/incidents (very relevant, as I'm pushing back to 1937:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
These could have easily escalated and blown up (especially in the alternate timeline way Civ2 scenarios can ideally unfold) into making the Soviets relevant through much of the scenario. The issue would be how much in the way of resources the Soviets could of put up for such a warfront, if it had still been relevant at that time, between June 1941 and May 1945, for obvious reasons.