The Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Prof. Garfield]

Ok, so the romans left those units for buy. It's Egypt turn ("Ptolemaic Greeks"), we press Ctrl-B (buy) and we can see the options for buying:

Wait, did you get the game to recognize ctrl+B as a single key? If so, how? Or, did you change a variable after ctrl was pressed, so that pressing B afterward would open the menu?

Edit - as an aside, I agree with @Prof. Garfield that long MP scenarios are almost impossible to keep going. It seems like the 100 turn mark is probably best, but at the same time, I don't see many scenarios making it even to there, so I've decided that each turn will be 4 months, bringing approximately 132 turns, give or take (I'm not sure of the exact starting month with this mechanism so it might be 130 or 131 turns). I think if I can keep overall unit numbers down, this is still fairly reasonable, especially for a 3 player game that is intended to be SP compatible.

Do you really need actions to be taken every quarter? A lot of these conflicts dragged on for years, so 6 month or year turns seem reasonable (or, maybe 8 or 9 months, if a year is a little too long). There isn't too much space for tactics on a world map. Remember, every extra player in an MP scenario increases the chance of stalling the game, and doesn't necessarily add too much to an SP game, when the choices are relatively broad strokes policy and troop deployment, rather than battlefield tactics. Also, consider that a month by month WWII scenario is around 72 turns, for context. Remember, you have lua to enforce restrictions or automate responses if necessary.

I'll look into OTR and see the menu module.

The module is text.lua, and the function text.menu will make you a menu (even multiple pages) from a table indexed by integers, and showing string values as the options.

 

[old_hand]

Wait, did you get the game to recognize ctrl+B as a single key? If so, how? Or, did you change a variable after ctrl was pressed, so that pressing B afterward would open the menu?

I did some tests and ctrl+key is represented by a separate single keystroke (578 is ctrl+b)

The module is text.lua, and the function text.menu will make you a menu (even multiple pages) from a table indexed by integers, and showing string values as the options.

I found it, and used it, it's very useful.

Thanks!

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I did some tests and ctrl+key is represented by a separate single keystroke (578 is ctrl+b)

I wish I had known this for Over the Reich! There is a bit of a key shortage in that scenario.

It looks like shift adds 256 to the keyID, and ctrl adds 512. (I only tested on a and b, but it makes sense, so I'll go with it.)

Now that you point it out, when I print all keyIDs pressed and open the console, the last two numbers were much higher than I 'should' have expected, if the three keys were recorded in succession individually pressed.

 

[old_hand]

I wish I had known this for Over the Reich! There is a bit of a key shortage in that scenario.

It looks like shift adds 256 to the keyID, and ctrl adds 512. (I only tested on a and b, but it makes sense, so I'll go with it.)

Now that you point it out, when I print all keyIDs pressed and open the console, the last two numbers were much higher than I 'should' have expected, if the three keys were recorded in succession individually pressed.

Yes, is like that. What I see in my console is first the keystroke for ctrl, and then the keystroke for ctrl+b. I'll add something to the keyboard library to handle this, if that is ok.

 

[Patine]

Hi all,

I think back in 2011 I started a thread about a proposed Cold War Scenario. I really don't want a repeat of the OTR creation thread where you have to wade through years of work to find something relevant (and I don't foresee this scenario taking 9 years to build), so I've started this one. Hope it's OK to let the old one die in the archives and start afresh here.

Anyway, @old_hand / Yaroslav / Javier (what do you prefer, btw?) has graciously agreed to assist me with some lua events/modules that will be critical to bringing this scenario to life and we agreed that I'd start this development thread to exchange ideas/progress.

So, what is "The Cold War: 1947 - 1991" besides a long title? Well, it's my attempt to create a scenario that can quickly switch between SP and MP (probably a quick batch file to change events and a rules file with minor tweaks) that showcases a few things:

1. The decolonization of the world;
2. The two superpowers fighting over who will influence the former colonies;
3. An opportunity for non-stop conflict somewhere.
4. The decline of American manufacturing, and the rise of China and/or India to take over that space.

There are seven civs:

USSR
Pro-Soviets
China
USA
Pro-West
European Community
India

They are in that order for a reason - so that this game can be played MP by as little as 3 people (the USSR player would also control Pro-Soviets and China, the USA player would also control Pro-West, and the European Community would also control India).

The USSR, USA, and European Community are "The Big 3" powers and each has a wide assortment of units. China and India are rising powers but can't make many units at home (I'm hoping to balance this by giving them some other advantages). They are reliant on purchasing weapons that the Big 3 make, which is where @old_hand comes in.

I'm hoping to have a system via lua where the Big 3 can put forces out to market for China, India, or the Pro-West/Pro-East to purchase. I envision doing this by having them occupy the same tile as an "arms dealer" unit, which lua will search for on a button press by the other players, though we'll see what old_hand comes up with. Anyway, the purchaser would press a key, get a list of equipment available for sale and the price, make a selection and complete the transaction.

I believe this will make for an interesting arms race where the Big 3 try to keep various minor nations well-stocked, the reason for doing this being key event #2:

Proxy-Wars.
-In the old standard of First Strike, there's a very complicated system for "proxy wars" that I hope to reduce via lua. Rather than having to remember and follow a complicated set of house rules, the two superpowers simply have their proxy nation they play with. The Pro-East and Pro-West start the game off at war with most other civs, and can immediately fight. They don't, however, have access to most units, so if one gets some help from a superpower, the other had better get help too or it will fall.

The USA and USSR can directly intervene against the Pro-East/Pro-West powers, but can't actually capture territory - if they capture a city owned by one of these two groups, lua will switch the city back to the minor, give it a small garrison, and teleport the USA/USSR unit that captured it outside the gates.

The European player's advantage is that they can directly capture these cities, as they're simply reestablishing colonial rule of the area. India and China too can directly capture these states (though China can't fight Pro-East).

Other bits
-This will be a two map scenario, one is an undersea map for submarines to lurk, the other is the main world. I've declined to bother with a high-alt map figuring the AI can't handle that easily in SP. I don't really care if the AI wanders its subs across two maps as it'll just make it more fun to try and find them.

Unit Roster
-Thanks to the prolific work of @Tanelorn and @Fairline , I'm pretty sure I have every unit I need with one exception: anyone willing to draw an HF-24 Marut fighter for India? I scoured the Modern Units and World War III threads but couldn't find one. Apologies if I missed it.

Anyway, here are the rest of the units. You'll note that I've elected to keep APC, Mobile Artillery, Artillery, Mobile AA and Special Forces as "generic" to allow a great variety of aircraft and MBT for sale on the international market. Let's face it, the period was pretty much the age where air power reigned supreme.

View attachment 551971

Arms Dealer
Engineers
SSN
SSBN
Sturgeon Class
Ohio Class
Alfa Class
Delta Class
Destroyer
Partisans
Cruiser
Battleship
Aircraft Carrier
NP Aircraft Carrier
Freighter
Strategic Bomber
La-9
MiG-15
MiG-21
MiG-23
MiG-25
MiG-29
Su-27
Il-2
Su-7
Su-25
Tu-95
Tu-160
Spitfire
Meteor
Mystere
Mirage III
Harrier
Mirage 2000
Tempest
Fiat G.91
Jaguar
Victor
APC
Mobile Artillery
SCUD Missile Launcher
Cruise Missile
Conventional Payload
Nuclear Payload
MRBM
ICBM
Camera
Spy
Spy Plane
Freight
P-80
F-86
F-104
F-4*
F-15
F-16
F-4U Corsair
A-1 Skyraider
A-10 Thunderbolt II
F-14 Tomcat
B-52
B-1
HF-24 Marut
J-8
Air Transport
Mil Mi-24
Mangusta
AH-1 Cobra
Soviet Infantry
Guards
Airborne
BMP-3
Katyusha
T-34/85
T-55
T-64
T-72
T-80
Euro Infantry
Foreign Legion
Paras
Warrior
Centurion
Conqueror
Chieftan
Leopard
Challenger
US Infantry
Marines
82nd Airborne
Bradley
M26 Pershing
M48 Patton
M60A1
M60A3
M1 Abrams
Infantry
Gurkha
Paras
Arjun
Infantry
Commandos
Airborne
Type-85
SAVE
Field Artillery
Gun Truck
Stinger
RPG
Terrorist
Nationalists (Latin)
Nationalists (C African)
Nationalists (N Asian)
Nationalists (N Africa)
Nationalist (SE Asian)
Nationalists (Mid East)
Pakistani Army
IDF
Mujahedeen
Revolutionaries (Latin)
Revolutionaries (C African)
Revolutionaries (N Asian)
Revolutionaries (N Africa)
Revolutionaries (SE Asian)
Revolutionaries (Mid East)
Special Forces
Mobile AA

Sorry for the big wall of text but you all know I pretty much develop these openly for one and secondly you're all trapped at home with nothing better to do than read it and add value

Thoughts? I aim to make this SP-capable though I'm hoping to have a fun MP game in the fairly near future. I'm hoping at least 3 of you would like to play it (5 would be the most fun but that might be wishful thinking at this point).

Also, @old_hand there are relatively few tweaks I need to make to a rules file to "break ground" in game with the scenario to get you something functional to play with (Even though it's possible to change native transport via lua I'd prefer to have that locked down prior for the subs) so I'll try to get you something bare bones basic to work with quickly.

Two questions (about the choice of players). What about the Non-Aligned Movement and Neutral Countries, and won't having the USA and EU as separate Civ's, as opposed to a single (NATO Civ) impede their military integration and the very notable concentration of their troops to each other in Europe (and where does Canada fit into your current divide)? The single NATO Civ over separate US and EU Civ is something I talked Eivind into changing in his final version of his First Strike scenario, in the day.

 

[JPetroski]

Two questions (about the choice of players). What about the Non-Aligned Movement and Neutral Countries, and won't having the USA and EU as separate Civ's, as opposed to a single (NATO Civ) impede their military integration and the very notable concentration of their troops to each other in Europe (and where does Canada fit into your current divide)? The single NATO Civ over separate US and EU Civ is something I talked Eivind into changing in his final version of his First Strike scenario, in the day.

I don't think integrating the US and Europe is appropriate for this scenario. It works well for First Strike, but that scenario starts in 1975, long after most of decolonization occurred. Here, Europe still attempts to cling to her colonies, and may in fact prove more successful.

Europe has a full unit roster, and the potential to directly add cities. They'll also be the only civ that can construct superhighway, to represent their colonial holdings/exploitation. This should give them much potential, and if they can retain their lands, they might challenge the USA rather than cooperate.

It's a bit or a sandbox game where it's very much up in the air how things will go down, but the US certainly was at least apathetic to European colonialism, and, in some respects, downright hostile to the idea.

However, the desire is to avoid a situation where the US is invading Europe, as those cities won't give any victory points.

As to Canada, it will probably be pro-west, as would Australia.

@Prof. Garfield I might consider 6 months per turn.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I'll add something to the keyboard library to handle this, if that is ok.

Fine by me. The keyboard 'library' is really just a table with names for the different key id values at the moment. It hasn't been used anywhere, so if you think of a more elegant system for it, go for it. I suppose simple would just be a couple entries keyboard.shiftMod = 256, keyboard.ctrlMod = 512, and the designer just adds them to the key when referenced.

 

[old_hand]

I do not think there is a better approach. Yes, shift and ctrl will be added like that, but I was thinking also of doing

withCtrl(x) return x + key.ctrl_offset
withShift(x) return x + key.shift_offset

So someone can write

if(key == withCtrl(keyboard.x))

That may be a more intuitive.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Maybe you should put your 'arms dealers' on the 'submarine' map (since, presumably, the land hasn't been claimed for a scenario purpose yet), and use the teleport abilities to move stuff to be exported. This will probably save clutter on the main map.

Also, let me know when you have the rules.txt done. I can make you an aliases/object file from that pretty quickly using vim (probably ~10 min of work).

 

[old_hand]

Maybe you should put your 'arms dealers' on the 'submarine' map (since, presumably, the land hasn't been claimed for a scenario purpose yet), and use the teleport abilities to move stuff to be exported. This will probably save clutter on the main map.

Also, let me know when you have the rules.txt done. I can make you an aliases/object file from that pretty quickly using vim (probably ~10 min of work).

Vim? Long live emacs!

 

[JPetroski]

So I made some changes.

@typhoon353 what do you think about swapping out the Mystere for the Hawker Hunter? Aren't they more or less contemporaries withe the Hunter having about 10x as many produced? I still might repurpose the Meteor...

Anyway - changes
*Changed Alpha class to Victor Class as suggested;
*changed f104 to f100
*Changed Mystere to Hawker Hunter;
*Added Tornado, dropped Jaguar
*Changed Victor to Vulcan
*Changed BMP-3 to BMP-1
*Changed the skyraider to the A-7 Corsair
*Added Marut graphic and updated the Meteor graphic (many thanks, @Fairline)
*Changed Challenger to Leopard II
*Kept the Arjun because I can't source the other graphic for the Vijayanta, but, on the other hand, I have the Type 85 for China when I believe the Type 69(?) was actually their first domestic-produced tank, so I don't know that having a much later model MBT for India is really a bad thing. They and China are both basically buying other equipment but will have a research path towards domestic production/native design.

Anyway, this leaves 2 spots (3 if I get rid of the Meteor). I'm a little concerned that I don't have enough surface warships given all the oceans in the world, though perhaps I have covered it well enough with Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship, and 2x Aircraft carriers.

Is there anything that any of you can think of that I'm missing that you'd argue absolutely should be here that isn't? Do note that I will be using the payload mechanism for the SSBN's so they will "carry" a nuke or two so long as they have a home city. I am considering if I need a special "supply ship" to resupply them at sea (mostly for gameplay purposes - not sure how realistic it would be to resupply nukes at sea), but I think I could probably do just fine using the freighter for that instead. I just wanted to point out that these units are in fact fundamentally different than the attack boats (that would have cruise missles, but also an attack value - the SSBN I would argue should probably have 0 attack--or maybe much weaker at least--and be portable missile silos).

 

[typhoon353]

Looks good The Super Mystere might make more sense following the Hunter as the European supersonic fighter equivalent to the F-100. The only other real suggestions I'd have at this point is for a trans/supersonic fighter (either the MiG-17 or 19) for the Soviets and Chinese between the MiG-15 and 21 as a counterpart to the F-100/Hunter, and again to recommend dropping the Conqueror to free up a unit slot given that super-heavy tanks had become somewhat passé during the Cold War, having been superseded by the MBT. If you need an intermediate European tank before the Leopard 1/Chieftain maybe a more advanced Centurion or the M47- which was used extensively by NATO countries, in particular France and West Germany- could fit the bill.

Other observations are mainly cosmetic:

- I've attached a much nicer version of gareth's ZSU-57 which you're using for the Mobile AA:

- The Leopard 2 you're using is a post-Cold War variant with spaced frontal armour. A period-appropriate version would be the 2A4 or earlier, also attached

- The Tornado which you're using is the ADV interceptor which was quite different from the bomber role you've envisaged for the in-game unit. Tanelorn has done some recolours for the various IDS/ECR strike aircraft in use by different nations:

Is there anything that any of you can think of that I'm missing that you'd argue absolutely should be here that isn't? Do note that I will be using the payload mechanism for the SSBN's so they will "carry" a nuke or two so long as they have a home city. I am considering if I need a special "supply ship" to resupply them at sea (mostly for gameplay purposes - not sure how realistic it would be to resupply nukes at sea), but I think I could probably do just fine using the freighter for that instead. I just wanted to point out that these units are in fact fundamentally different than the attack boats (that would have cruise missles, but also an attack value - the SSBN I would argue should probably have 0 attack--or maybe much weaker at least--and be portable missile silos).

For the SSBNs I wouldn't bother with a resupply mechanic at all- none of the countries which operated them made any meaningful plans for reloading the missiles, given that one of the first targets would invariably have been the submarine bases themselves, making such plans difficult under the best of circumstances. In any case both the US and Soviets had more than enough SSBNs and missiles on hand to withhold as a strategic reserve in the event of an extended nuclear exchange.

Resupply ships for the shorter-legged nuclear and diesel attack submarines might be interesting, and put more emphasis on naval battles and anti-submarine warfare which would have been a central part of any hypothetical Third World War at sea. You could have for example something like Cruel Sea where you'd have an aggressive Soviet player staging submarine attacks out of Cuba or the GIUK gap while the US player, with more resources at their disposal, has the correspondingly more difficult task of swatting down any attacks on Reforger convoys while trying to penetrate Soviet SSBN bastions in the Barents/Okhotsk Sea. In this case, absolutely more naval units would be welcome, chiefly some kind of droppable naval mine/depth charge by destroyers/frigates or a dedicated ASW unit (either a helicopter which could be generated by surface ships or long-range maritime patrol aircraft).

 

[JPetroski]

The Super Mystere might make more sense following the Hunter as the European supersonic fighter equivalent to the F-100. The only other real suggestions I'd have at this point is for a trans/supersonic fighter (either the MiG-17 or 19) for the Soviets and Chinese between the MiG-15 and 21 as a counterpart to the F-100/Hunter

So then would you consider the Super Mystere better to use than the Mirage III? Basically, the way these units are going to show up is probably something along the lines of techs that say:

"Jet Fighter I" - Meteor, P-80
"Jet Fighter II" - MiG15, F86, Hunter
"Jet Fighter III" -MiG21, Mirage III, F100

They might not be totally comparable, with some overlap, but I'm open to other opinions.

Edit - I replaced the Conqueror with the M47

 

[JPetroski]

Another question - Which MiG would you drop for the 17/19? Which one is the odd man out here? I'm not super familiar with jet aircraft. I am mostly interested in WW2 so this is a learning experience for me and I chose these mainly based on introduction year.

MiG-15
MiG-21
MiG-23
MiG-25
MiG-29

 

[typhoon353]

I'd organise them according to general flight characteristics, armament and date of entry into service:

I - Meteor, P-80 - straight-wing, subsonic, guns - introduced late-1940s
II - MiG-15/17, F-86, Mystere III/IV, Hunter - swept-wing, transsonic, guns - introduced early to mid-1950s
III - MiG-19, Super Mystere, F-100 - supersonic, guns and early radar-guided/heat-seeking missiles - introduced mid- to late-1950s
IV - MiG-21, MiG-23, Mirage III, F-104, F-4 - Mach 2 capable, semi-active radar and early IR-guided missiles - introduced late-1950s/early-1960s to 1970s
V - MiG-25, MiG-29, Su-27, F-14, F-15, F-16 - Mach 2+ capable, fly-by-wire, active radar and IR-guided missiles - introduced mid-1970s to 1980s

Ideally my preference wouldn't be to drop any at all, but if you had to make do without one generation, either I or III could be axed, but its your call. From the list of MiGs if I had to drop one it would be either the MiG-25 or MiG-29 but I understand if you'd prefer to keep them to balance the US teen series fighters, in which case you could do without the MiG-19- the early versions were essentially supersonic-capable MiG-15s without radar and missiles.

 

[JPetroski]

Well, my goal is basically to have the USA, USSR, and Europe each have a "tiered" fighter and tank that corresponds to each other. The thing about these aircraft is it seems most of them were operational for an extended time, with various upgrades I'm sure, so its "reasonable" in my mind if one kind of takes the place of a few to keep things more or less even.

Now, with that said, there were almost 2000 hunters produced compared to a few hundred Mystere, so that makes sense to swap. Likewise the Tornado change.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to getting rid of the Yak, considering the Mig15 the "first tier" Soviet fighter, and putting then 19 in instead of the yak. As I recall, the MiG15 was a *nasty* shock when encountered in Korea, and given the considerable advantages the US player has early game, before the Civil Rights movement kicks in, it probably would be "fair" for the Soviets to have an early jet advantage...

 

[Fairline]

Here's a more recent tweak of the Tornado I've made:

 

[Fairline]

Looking at your tank progression, if the units are placed in order of upgrade that is, the Euro tanks are a little out of whack. The Chieftain was an order of magnitude better than any other western tank when it was introduced in the late 60's and remained so until the introduction of the Leopard 2, Challenger 1 and later 120mm armed Abrams. The Leopard 1 should definitely be in the mix as it was used by most of the Nato armies other than the US, UK and France, but it was probably on a par with later marks of the Centurion (armed with the same L-7 105mm gun but with inferior armour) and no match for a Chieftain or a T-64. Its a difficult circle to square, as the rest of Nato lagged behind the best Soviet tanks and the Chieftain throughout the 60s and 70s, with the M-60 objectively inferior to its better Soviet opponents.

I would lose the Conqueror btw as the super heavies of the 50s were a blind alley with MBTs such as the up gunned 105mm Centurions better all round tanks

 

[JPetroski]

So basically swap Leopard I and Chieftan? Easy enough to do.

Centurion
M47 (unless I can find a "better" Centurion... I'd rather it be a European tank)
Leopard I
Chieftan
Leopard II

 

[Fairline]

Yeah that makes sense. The better Centurion armed with the L7 105mm around 1960 was the forerunner of the leopard 1 and m60, but doesn't make sense in the 2nd tank slot (ie it would be in the 3rd slot where I think you are justified in having the Leo 1