The Cold War 1947 - 1991

[JPetroski]

OK - latest changes:

-swapped Leopard I and Chieftan spots.
-Added the MiG-19
-Decided to combine the first generation western jets. They'll have the Meteor art given that the first generation attack has the Corsair. Fair is fair...
-Added a spot for a "depth charge" but haven't sourced a graphic yet (I have a mine for now)
-Decided to keep Yak and Spitfire because so much of the world wasn't playing with jets for much of this scenario. So, East will have Yak and Il-2/10 (I didn't see a graphic for an Il-10 but don't know that it makes much difference as I think both were widely used); West will have Spitfire and Corsair. Could arguably go with the Mustang, but I believe India, Pakistan, Israel were mostly using British equipment early in the scenario, so I went with the Spit instead. I chose a Spit XVI in Greek service for the graphic but if you have one you think is better, let me know.
-I have a unit "Air Transport" that is right before the helicopters - I might rename this "Utility Aircraft" and basically have it act in two fashions:

1. To swiftly deliver infantry and light APC/artillery across the globe;
2. To act as an anti-sub aircraft, dropping depth charges.

 

[Fairline]

OK - latest changes:

-Decided to keep Yak and Spitfire because so much of the world wasn't playing with jets for much of this scenario. So, East will have Yak and Il-2/10 (I didn't see a graphic for an Il-10 but don't know that it makes much difference as I think both were widely used).....

I think I posted one if you look in the Soviet compilation WW2 thread

If you don't want to use a US tank for the Euro slot 2, the only other alternative is to use the Mk 3 Centurion. The original Mk 1 and Mk 2 Centurions in 1945 used a 17-pdr gun which was roughly equivalent to the US 90mm used on the M46. The Mk 3 was upgunned to a 20-pdr 84mm which was used in Korea in 1950, and supplied many countries in the 1950s before being replaced in the British army with the 105mm-armed Centurion in 59-60.

Unfortunately there aren't too many visual differences between them (other than the length of gun which is too big to fit in the unit slot). The best I could come up with were the Korean War markings used by the British on the Mk 3. This may not be enough to distinguish between them however.

 

[JPetroski]

I've made very good progress this week. Quarantine is really something, isn't it?

-All art (for the most part) is complete - there will be an odd tweak here or there, I'm sure, but the units, improvements, icons, city, people, and terrain art seem to be "done-ish."

-The tech tree is 80% done - I just need to add trees towards the disintegration of the Soviet Union and perhaps a few "event triggering techs" for China and India (I'm thinking I might use Lua to give both of these smaller nations "free" factories at certain times, such as the Great Leap Forward, perhaps at the cost of happiness improvements).

-Most of the rules file is built. I need to finish the tech tree and do Civilize 2 for the techs (it is on paper, but not in the bunch). The improvements, terrain, and units advanced are completely done. I still need to flesh out the actual unit stats, which is going to be the big challenge for this week.

-I've started compiling some sounds. I haven't put them in yet but do have the units in the sounds section, which is laborious but will help.

The scenario is starting to shape up in my mind. I've found another good use for the minor civs... Their tech trees will prompt certain wonders to go obsolete for the USA, Europe, and USSR. Thus, the small civs will determine when things like the Civil Rights Movement or decolonization really kicks in. It will therefore behoove the player to make these civs as strong as possible so they can get more beakers churning to make this happen.

I'm hoping to finish up the rules file (which means the tech tree, Civilize 2, sounds, and Units) this week so hopefully I can "break ground" in placing cities and units next week. I might need to give civitas a try to see if it helps with setting barbarian cities.

Anyway, I'm quite pleased with how rapidly this is coming together.

 

[old_hand]

Please remember that you can count on me if I can help with lua programming

 

[Patine]

OK - latest changes:

-swapped Leopard I and Chieftan spots.
-Added the MiG-19
-Decided to combine the first generation western jets. They'll have the Meteor art given that the first generation attack has the Corsair. Fair is fair...
-Added a spot for a "depth charge" but haven't sourced a graphic yet (I have a mine for now)
-Decided to keep Yak and Spitfire because so much of the world wasn't playing with jets for much of this scenario. So, East will have Yak and Il-2/10 (I didn't see a graphic for an Il-10 but don't know that it makes much difference as I think both were widely used); West will have Spitfire and Corsair. Could arguably go with the Mustang, but I believe India, Pakistan, Israel were mostly using British equipment early in the scenario, so I went with the Spit instead. I chose a Spit XVI in Greek service for the graphic but if you have one you think is better, let me know.
-I have a unit "Air Transport" that is right before the helicopters - I might rename this "Utility Aircraft" and basically have it act in two fashions:

1. To swiftly deliver infantry and light APC/artillery across the globe;
2. To act as an anti-sub aircraft, dropping depth charges.

View attachment 552242

I don't believe the ISIS Caliphate flag was used by anyone during the Cold War period. I'm pretty sure it was a 21st Century innovation.

 

[JPetroski]

I just have it for "terrorist." Let me know if you find something better

 

[Patine]

I just have it for "terrorist." Let me know if you find something better

Also, not all Cold War terrorists were Islamist in ideology, either. The Provisional-IRA and it's schisms, the RAF and June 2 Movement, the JRA, the ETA, and the more extremist branches of the Kalistan Movement, and arguably, by a lot of their tactics, the Contras, the early ANC, and that CIA-sponsored group of Cuban ex-patriots who used effectively terrorist tactics to destabilize hard-left regimes in Latin America, and even some internal U.S. groups like the Weathermen, the Symbionese Army, and the various far-right groups that ended up producing Timothy McVeigh. The firm and sold view of terrorism as an "Islamist," phenomenon is really a George W. Bush and after stereotype, really. There's that to consider too. So, perhaps making the unit even MORE generic is something that should be considered.

 

[Patine]

I just have it for "terrorist." Let me know if you find something better

Also, not all Cold War terrorists were Islamist in ideology, either. The Provisional-IRA and it's schisms, the RAF and June 2 Movement, the JRA, the ETA, and the more extremist branches of the Kalistan Movement, and arguably, by a lot of their tactics, the Contras, the early ANC, and that CIA-sponsored group of Cuban ex-patriots who used effectively terrorist tactics to destabilize hard-left regimes in Latin America, and even some internal U.S. groups like the Weathermen, the Symbionese Army, and the various far-right groups that ended up producing Timothy McVeigh. The firm and sold view of terrorism as an "Islamist," phenomenon is really a George W. Bush and after stereotype, really. There's that to consider too. So, perhaps making the unit even MORE generic is something that should be considered.

Like perhaps this nasty but quite generic fellow, with no flag, or maybe the skull-on-black flag used for pirates and "death squads," in some scenarios.

 

[JPetroski]

Also, not all Cold War terrorists were Islamist in ideology, either. The Provisional-IRA and it's schisms, the RAF and June 2 Movement, the JRA, the ETA, and the more extremist branches of the Kalistan Movement, and arguably, by a lot of their tactics, the Contras, the early ANC, and that CIA-sponsored group of Cuban ex-patriots who used effectively terrorist tactics to destabilize hard-left regimes in Latin America, and even some internal U.S. groups like the Weathermen, the Symbionese Army, and the various far-right groups that ended up producing Timothy McVeigh. The firm and sold view of terrorism as an "Islamist," phenomenon is really a George W. Bush and after stereotype, really. There's that to consider too. So, perhaps making the unit even MORE generic is something that should be considered.

The way I'm more or less representing the CIA's meddling is with the "Nationalist" troops, and the KGB influence with the "Revolutionaries." Though to be honest, I don't have one for Europe and probably need one for each given the issues in Ireland, Spain, Greece, etc. Maybe your guy could fill in for that?

Anyway, depending on your perspective, any of these groups could be "terrorists." The "terrorist" unit is meant to be different. As a matter of fact, I'm considering if I go without "partisans" in this scenario, move the "Special Forces" to that slot, make the "terrorist" actually be a 0-attack unit with insanely high defense, x2 vs. air, etc. and have the Special Forces be the only units that can reliably clear them out with the partisans 8x bonus vs. units with 0 attack factor.

I don't believe you're American but I can attest that the "The firm and sold view of terrorism as an "Islamist," phenomenon" was around long before W., at least here. People were scratching their heads when McVeigh turned out to be McVeigh. Doesn't reflect very well on us but them's the chips.

 

[BC1871]

[QUOTE="
As a matter of fact, I'm considering if I go without "partisans" in this scenario, move the "Special Forces" to that slot, make the "terrorist" actually be a 0-attack unit with insanely high defense, x2 vs. air, etc. and have the Special Forces be the only units that can reliably clear them out with the partisans 8x bonus vs. units with 0 attack factor. [/QUOTE]

You could potentially also run with "Stay Behind" or Civil Defense Units, mobilizing once a city has been taken by Warsaw Pact forces.

 

[JPetroski]

So I haven't quite finished the text fields because I decided I wanted to take a break and place some cities. All cities are placed, and I've been using Civitas to go through them (I'm about 1/3 of the way through). I'm wondering if there is a fundamental flaw with this scenario however... There are "a lot" of cities to contend with being on a giga map and while I think I can use lua to have a "core city" concept where "most" of them are going to be "set it and forget it" on capitalism, I'm concerned about turn times if this ever is used for a MP game. Remember that the US woudl control not only them but also the dark blue on this map, and the Soviets would also control light pink (note: I used this as the civ to set up the barbarian/non-aligned ones and haven't changed most of them yet - the pro-East civ starts with basically Mongolia, North Korea, and bits of Europe).

Europe currently has 111 cities... That's a ton. In Imperialism 3, the Brits start with 80. Now, they won't be able to build much in their colonies, which should cut the amount of time they spend managing their cities down a bit, but still... I'm going to need to find good ways to use lua to cut back on busy work.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I'm wondering if there is a fundamental flaw with this scenario however... There are "a lot" of cities to contend with being on a giga map and while I think I can use lua to have a "core city" concept where "most" of them are going to be "set it and forget it" on capitalism, I'm concerned about turn times if this ever is used for a MP game. Remember that the US woudl control not only them but also the dark blue on this map, and the Soviets would also control light pink (note: I used this as the civ to set up the barbarian/non-aligned ones and haven't changed most of them yet - the pro-East civ starts with basically Mongolia, North Korea, and bits of Europe).

Europe currently has 111 cities... That's a ton. In Imperialism 3, the Brits start with 80. Now, they won't be able to build much in their colonies, which should cut the amount of time they spend managing their cities down a bit, but still... I'm going to need to find good ways to use lua to cut back on busy work.

This is a tricky problem. In principle, Lua could be used to force cities to work squares determined by an algorithm, so micromanaging would be ineffective, and so the player wouldn't have to bother with it, if combined with severe limitations on what the cities are allowed to build. However, putting that machinery together would take some effort.

A somewhat easier task would be to have Lua warn the player of cities that will grow into disorder, so that the player could take action when necessary, but wouldn't have to micromanage everything every turn. Another option would be for Lua to bestow happiness improvements when necessary, and take them away if the 'plot' demands a riot.

I suppose micromanagement could also be made ineffective by taking away the actual production of each city (shields produced, taxes collected, etc.) and instead giving the city (or owner) some kind of bonus dependant on the general characteristics of the city, but not the specific production or worker allocation.

 

[Patine]

@JPetroski an issue both Eivind with First Strike and Academia with Iron Curtain mentioned in the day - what will you do, with the way Civ2 cities and such work in placement and worked squares and such, about the pesky issue of West Berlin?

 

[JPetroski]

This is a tricky problem. In principle, Lua could be used to force cities to work squares determined by an algorithm, so micromanaging would be ineffective, and so the player wouldn't have to bother with it, if combined with severe limitations on what the cities are allowed to build. However, putting that machinery together would take some effort.

I suppose micromanagement could also be made ineffective by taking away the actual production of each city (shields produced, taxes collected, etc.) and instead giving the city (or owner) some kind of bonus dependant on the general characteristics of the city, but not the specific production or worker allocation.

A goal I'll have is to make these cities never get "that good." I'm using the transporter improvement as a "core city" improvement and plan to tie others to it (so, you can't build factories, etc. in a city unless it has one of these). So, there really won't be much to do about building up these cities, but you want to keep them for a few reasons:

1. It improves your score, and I suppose if one civ gets to a certain number of proxy cities (direct for Europe), they win;
2. Europe gets what I believe should be a decent domestic trade bonus as every city will have "colonial system" (super highways).

A somewhat easier task would be to have Lua warn the player of cities that will grow into disorder, so that the player could take action when necessary, but wouldn't have to micromanage everything every turn. Another option would be for Lua to bestow happiness improvements when necessary, and take them away if the 'plot' demands a riot.

I am leaning towards making the "Pro-Soviet" and "Pro-West" civs operate under fundamentalism. It would avoid the disorder issue for all but Europe, it would reduce the amount of micromanagement for the two civs (USA and USSR) who *should* grow over time, and finally I don't know that they really need to fall into disorder as what happens with disorder? Riots and rebellions, of course, but in this scenario's proxy war system, the other players will be fueling that and they could happen at any time any where, frankly, so it doesn't matter much if there's happiness issues or not.

an issue both Eivind with First Strike and Academia with Iron Curtain mentioned in the day - what will you do, with the way Civ2 cities and such work in placement and worked squares and such, about the pesky issue of West Berlin?

I'm just going to make it Soviet and call it a day.

 

[JPetroski]

All cities are placed with improvements thanks to civitas... This is the first time I've ever used that program and I can see why people found it so important.

As it currently stands, I have populations pretty much in line per city with 1950 as I found a good resource on the internet. With that said, I'm thinking I'll probably go through and reduce these to make this more of an empire builder. I'm not sure I'm happy with the final result (multiple cities at 30+ population at the start is one heck of a way to begin a scenario that lasts 50 years).

Edit - I'm also considering taking away "depth charge" since I think in practicality it will be very difficult to find subs on the other map. I think it might be better to just have destroyers be able to press a key and have a chance of damaging nearby subs on the lower map. Frankly, this concept would save a lot of "ammo" units if a box showed up "which unit should we attempt to attack?" and then there was a chance of damage.

 

[JPetroski]

I continue to make good progress. All units placed with the exception of the Soviets. I'm trying not to have a situation where there will be hundreds of units to move, being cognizant of the fact that each player is probably controlling 2-3 civs if I'm shooting for a 3 person game.

I've also started building out the units section of the rules. All units have their stats (though no prereqs) except for fighters and jabo, which I'll try to do now.

I think the following are more or less on the chopping block:

-Arms dealer seems pretty redundant now that @old_hand has been tweaking the diplomacy model. It seems that he managed to make it so any active unit/on the cursor can be traded so there's no real need for a dedicated unit.
-Depth charge - as cool as an idea as this is there's no way it would be fun to actually implement for the players.
-Conventional Bomb - I'm just going to have the aircraft be direct attack with nuclear weapons as the payload, once the tech is avaiable.

-I'm also wondering if I really need the F-14 or Su-27 but I'm keeping both for now.

Looking at the list above, do any of you see glaring omissions that must be in place? I was thinking of maybe adding in a 2nd cruiser (pre-Aegis). What else would be useful?

 

[Fairline]

If the second chopper represents a 1st generation Euro attack helicopter it should probably be a Lynx, to be swapped out for the Eurocopter Tiger in a later units file

 

[JPetroski]

If the second chopper represents a 1st generation Euro attack helicopter it should probably be a Lynx, to be swapped out for the Eurocopter Tiger in a later units file

Yes, there's only three choppers in the game so I suppose when I do the third art upgrade I can do precisely that.

 

[Tanelorn]

Errr... that is not actually a Eurocopter Tiger but an Italian Augusta A129 Mangusta. It looks so generic though, it may even pass for a Chinese Z-10 (an unlicenced derivative) or a South African Rooivalk...

 

[typhoon353]

Looking at the list above, do any of you see glaring omissions that must be in place? I was thinking of maybe adding in a 2nd cruiser (pre-Aegis). What else would be useful?

Some kind of light/medium bomber- you have quite a well-fleshed out line for both the US and Soviet heavy bombers (B-52 > B-1, Tu-95 > Tu-160), but the most widely-exported and used in conventional conflicts were types like the Canberra or Il-28 Beagle/Tu-16 Badger. Canberra should definitely be the pick for the Western/European bomber (it was used by the Brits during Suez and the Malayan Emergency, the US/Aussies in Vietnam, on both sides of the India-Pakistan conflict, both sides in the Falklands, and the Rhodesians and South Africans in their wars). Its direct Eastern counterpart is the Beagle (ironically powered by Rolls-Royce Nene engines, the predecessor of the Avons on the Canberra) which was used by almost virtually every Soviet client state in Europe/the Middle East/Asia.

Tu-16, which is close in capability to the Vulcan, could be the equivalent strategic bomber for the Chinese. Manufactured under licence there as the H-6, its still in service today with the modern PLA in a similar manner as the B-52 and Tu-95.