The Cold War 1947 - 1991

[JPetroski]

Well, if I add the Canberra I'll likely let India build it in addition to Europe, then add the H-6 for the Chinese. Europe could use a second bomber (maybe the Vulcan is now the third they get) and India and China lack them completely. I'd mostly add these so those two civs (India and China) have another unique unit.

I also think I need to add an SLBM to get the subs working properly... Actually there's a lot of lua to get the subs working properly. I don't want them to have "default" sub characteristics, because I don't want them to carry missiles (like the ICBM). I do want them to be "payload" units that just automatically have one nuke per trip, but I don't want them to be used to "build" nukes, so their ammo needs to be deleted each turn. I also need them to not be able to attack land targets, but that should be simple since Prof. Garfield has created code to prevent certain units from attacking other units. I'll use that here. Their "stealth" will literally come from diving down below the sea, as that is the 2nd map in this scenario.

So that would be:

depth charge replaced with SLBM
arms dealer replaced with Canberra
conventional payload replaced with H-6

 

[Prof. Garfield]

FYI, it is a simple event to re-create "missiles" with Lua, just delete the winning unit if it is a certain type. That way, you don't have to worry about submarines carrying them around.

For that matter, it might make sense to have nukes be entirely event based. Make ICBMs a ground unit, and use a k trigger to attack a city 'in range' from a list. You could even allow firing over the north pole in this way (though it might get complicated to determine 'in range' in that case), and you wouldn't have to worry about limited movement allowances.

 

[JPetroski]

Things continue to shape up. The map now has the appropriate cities placed. The dark blue (pro-west) is a little hard to see but other than that you get the idea. All cities have their improvements placed as well.

I think I'll have the USA and Europeans Allied from the start and have the Pro-East really drive the expansion in European lands (like Africa or SE Asia). I suppose the Pro-West proxy civ could attack European holdings but I don't know that the players would be able to do that without bad blood between the US and European player. There are enough non-aligned (white/barbarian) cities that the US player could direct their initial proxy efforts in to try and turn Central and Southern American and the Middle East into American puppets.

At the start of the scenario there will be plenty of conflict - the Indo-Pakistan war, Chinese Civil War, and First Indochina War being prime events, with some minor events such as the Paraguayan Civil War and Indonesian National Revolution also going on. Basically, every single civ will have "something to do" (besides turtle) from the start of the scenario, either directly or by proxy. I hope this makes for a fun game.

Much of the conflict from thereon out will be up to the players but since I do want to make this SP compatible (probably just with a batch file for a rules swap), I am going to have some of the more important conflicts also trigger via events. Rather than a set date I'll probably provide a range to enhance replayability:

Korean War
Anglo-Egyptian War
Cuban Revolution
Algerian War
Vietnam War

I might just have several areas (SE Asia, Afghanistan, parts of Africa) have a pretty good chance of spawning different units if they aren't in particular hands.

I'm closing in on being prepared to start the events. I just need to stop being lazy and finish the last 10 techs or so (and then link these techs to units and improvements in the tech tree), and place the rest of the Soviet units. After that the game should be "built" aside from events.

 

[Fairline]

Malaya should probably be an event (?)

 

[JPetroski]

Malaya should probably be an event (?)

The five I listed aren't exclusive but just to give a good idea. Malaya would definitely be another one.

I'd like this to be "plug and play" single player so that folks can play it there before maybe linking up for some MP action. While I think this game would be best played with at least 3 people, it's probably possible to play with just 2 (though each person is going to have an awful lot to do).

Player 1:
USA
Pro-West
Europe

Player 2:
USSR
Pro-East
China
(potentially India, or they could be left to an AI though they'll struggle mightily without much equipment. The MP game might just turn India into a "pro" faction by default).

I did a bit of work at lunch on getting units linked up to the tech tree. I think rather than have an aircraft or tank "immediately" become obsolete, I'm going to have a 2 tech head start for tanks (so you'd get the third tank before the 1st is obsolete) and a three step head start for fighters. I'm considering that once the tech that makes the aircraft/tank is researched by the "main" country, perhaps the "pro" countries and even China/India could be given the tech so they can field their own units, but just not modern ones without purchasing them from the superpowers.

Finally, right now there are six subs including 2 special ones for the US, 2 special ones for USSR, and 2 that everyone can have... I'm thinking I might just have 3 tiers of "attack sub" and 3 tiers of "missile sub" available to all. This would create more of a race and allow Europe to theoretically have the best sub fleet - really, whoever wants to invest in it.

 

[techumseh]

I'm sorry to dive in so late, and if the units ship has already sailed, c'est la vie. There appears to be a gap between WW2 era equipment and fairly modern stuff, eg. '60s on. There was some very interesting equipment in the 1950s that you might want to consider. The US deployed several bombers in this period, notably the B-36 Peacemaker, as well as the B-47 Stratojet and later the B-58 Hustler. The Soviet Tu-16 Badger was also a key aircraft from the late 50s on. The British Lightning interceptor was also a huge advance for it's time.

 

[JPetroski]

I'm sorry to dive in so late, and if the units ship has already sailed, c'est la vie. There appears to be a gap between WW2 era equipment and fairly modern stuff, eg. '60s on. There was some very interesting equipment in the 1950s that you might want to consider. The US deployed several bombers in this period, notably the B-36 Peacemaker, as well as the B-47 Stratojet and later the B-58 Hustler. The Soviet Tu-16 Badger was also a key aircraft from the late 50s on. The British Lightning interceptor was also a huge advance for it's time.

You're not too late, but there's just so many units necessary so compromises had to be made... There is simply a "strategic bomber" that represents everything from B-17s up until the B-52. It's tough trying to represent the entire world for 50 years, but I guess I shouldn't complain given I have 127 units to work with compared to the 60-something Eivind and Academia had to work with.

 

[typhoon353]

Finally, right now there are six subs including 2 special ones for the US, 2 special ones for USSR, and 2 that everyone can have... I'm thinking I might just have 3 tiers of "attack sub" and 3 tiers of "missile sub" available to all. This would create more of a race and allow Europe to theoretically have the best sub fleet - really, whoever wants to invest in it.

I'd propose four tiers of attack submarines and two of missile boats as technology for the former advanced more dramatically over the time period, using the following classification :

• Early SSKs (US GUPPYs / UK A and T-classes / USSR Zulu/Foxtrot/Romeo/Whiskey classes) : first post-war generation of diesel-electric submarines, either retrofitted from WW2-era boats or new-built based on captured German Elektroboot technology. Starting subs for the superpowers, and probably what the lesser powers will be stuck with for the rest of the game. You may want to make it impossible for the US/USSR/European player to transfer nuclear submarines to the West/East client states to reflect the historical unwillingness to relinquish their advantage in this field- as late as the early 1990s the US did its best to diplomatically scuttle Canadian plans to acquire nuclear attack submarines.

• Early SSNs (US Nautilus/Skate/Skipjack/Permit / UK Dreadnought/Valiant / USSR November/Echo) : first generation nuclear-powered attack submarines entering service in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Could give them the trireme flag or some kind of LUA script simulating a small probability of damage from reactor accidents or total loss every now and then when submerging to the other map to simulate the high rates of incidents these vessels suffered from inexperience with experimental and untested technologies (ala USS Thresher and Scorpion, K-8 and K-27), which could be negated by the Lighthouse wonder representing improved safety procedures and quality control (e.g. the US Navy's SUBSAFE programme)

• Intermediate SSNs (US Sturgeon / UK Churchill/Swiftsure / USSR Victor/Charlie/Alfa) : Improved attack submarines entering service in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Much safer and more heavily-armed than their predecessors, capable of launching anti-ship and cruise missiles in addition to torpedos.

• Advanced SSNs (US Los Angeles/ UK Trafalgar/ French Rubis / USSR Sierra/Akula) : Most advanced type of attack submarine, introduced early 1980s. Extremely quiet and deadly, advanced sonar arrays.

For the SSBNs:

• Early SSBNs (US "41 for Freedom" / UK Resolution / French Redoubtable / USSR Yankee/Delta) : first-generation ballistic missile submarines entering service in the 1960s, usually converted from existing SSN designs. Relatively noisy and should be easier pickings for the attack boats. The Soviets also fielded a pair of earlier classes (Golf/Hotel) which were much lighter-armed (3 SLBMs vs the 16 carried by US/UK Polaris subs), with the Yankee being closer in capability. They also suffered from many of the problems afflicting the first-generation SSNs, with K-19 being the most famous example.

• Advanced SSBNs (US Ohio / UK Vanguard / USSR Typhoon) : ultimate class of ballistic missile submarine introduced in the 1980s (early 1990s for the Vanguards). Much larger missile load but also stealthier. The US and UK submarines would use the longer-ranged three-stage Trident instead of the two-stage Polaris. The SSN-20 Sturgeons carried by the Typhoon represented a similar improvement over earlier types.

 

[Fairline]

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

Actually, given the timeline presumably ends in 1990, there shouldn't be any other European attack helo than the Lynx. The Tiger was in service in 2003.

 

[typhoon353]

Mangusta (the current graphic) did enter service with Italy in the mid-80s and was at one point even proposed as a 'Eurocopter' for the UK, Netherlands and Spain, before the first two opted for Apaches and the latter the Tiger.

Its more a contemporary of the Apache rather than the Hind or Cobra that the Soviets/Americans have in the file, so Gareth is right that the equivalent should be an earlier helicopter like the Lynx, Bo 105 or Gazelle.

 

[JPetroski]

-I took your advice on the subs @typhoon353
-I have changed the Mangusta to the Lynx.

-I've fleshed out much of the tech tree. India and China's path towards modernization is more or less laid out.

I don't recall if I mentioned this but now might be a good time. America starts with 3 powerful wonders (Baby Boom: Pyramids; The American Dream: Michelangelo's; Arsenal of Democracy: Hoover Dam). These three WoW should help the Americans get off to a fast start and enjoy a prosperous 1950s, as in real life. However, all three become obsolete when the minor powers (including China/India) research certain techs.

The Pro-East civ is probably going to want to race towards "Civil Rights Movement." Once they obtain this, America will awaken that their dream isn't quite attainable for a large section of the population. Cities should struggle to keep order, as they won't have Cathedrals (Equal Protections). American can choose to go down a list of techs starting with Brown v. Board of Ed and culminating on The Civil Rights Act which will allow them to build a WoW of the same name (Bach). They can also grant Equal Protections (Cathedral) on a city by city basis in the meanwhile, though this is a very expensive building to construct. This tech/building path will prevent them from spending shields and other resources on other items.

The Chinese and Indians will want to race towards "Inexpensive Labor" as this will allow them to build "Cheap Labor" (Power Plant). They're the only civs that can build this. The Americans, Soviets and Europe can only build factories and manufacturing plants. The Americans have free power plants via the Arsenal of Democracy WoW, but Inexpensive Labor makes this obsolete. Thus, the American manufacturing advantage will eventually end, with China and India poised to become the manufacturing giants of the world.

Likewise the Baby Boom will become obsolete by a tech along these paths - I haven't quite landed on what one yet.

Europe too will have issues. They will have the British Empire WoW (Women's Suffrage) that will go obsolete when the Pro civs research "Decolonization." Europe also starts with the Suez Canal ("Cure for Cancer") but if they can't retain the canal, this prestige hit will make it more difficult to keep their citizens happy. I'm looking at the Suez Crisis as a key moment in the decline of the Empire but if any of you have a suggestion for a replacement, I'd be willing to listen.

As for the Soviets, well, the Americans are going to directly influence them, but only late game. The Americans can choose to follow down the tech tree from "The Civil Rights Act" and start researching techs leading up to "Glasnost" and "Perestroika" which will remove Red Square and the KGB (Hanging Gardens and the Oracle), making it harder for the Soviets to keep order. This will be a late game development.

I think having the different civs have "target techs" that remove an advantage for their opponents should make for an interesting game.

 

[JPetroski]

I'm scouring @Tanelorn 's Fleet page and cannot find any of the early SSNs. I can't believe that Tanelorn or @Fairline never drew the Nautilus - but I can't locate it, or any of the others on the list below. Am I just missing something? Perhaps it (or the other subs below) is labeled as something else and I just don't recognize it?

Does anyone have any of these? I found all the others I need, but not this early SSN class.

Early SSNs (US Nautilus/Skate/Skipjack/Permit / UK Dreadnought/Valiant / USSR November/Echo)

 

[Fairline]

I don't think I've drawn any modern subs; Tanelorn and Gapetit are the guys to check with

 

[JPetroski]

@gapetit and @Tanelorn , have either of you ever drawn one of these?
Early SSNs (US Nautilus/Skate/Skipjack/Permit / UK Dreadnought/Valiant / USSR November/Echo)

I checked the naval thread and didn't see one but could have missed it.

 

[JPetroski]

It's hard to find good sources on the size of the Royal Navy and Soviet fleet in 1947. I do have good data for the U.S. and can see that there was an immense drawn down between 1945 and 1947. Right now, I have the following relative naval strength for each group. Bearing in mind that Europe includes all the powers.

Granted, each side had well more than each of these type of vessels available to them, but my goal is to not have hundreds of units everyone needs to move around. I'm trying to go for a @CurtSibling feel from American Kingdoms to an extent, where you have limited assets at first and it actually hurts to lose them.

Anyone, if someone strongly objects to the starting balance below, let me know, but I think it is a fair approximation of what I was able to find.

 

[gapetit]

@gapetit and @Tanelorn , have either of you ever drawn one of these?
Early SSNs (US Nautilus/Skate/Skipjack/Permit / UK Dreadnought/Valiant / USSR November/Echo)

I checked the naval thread and didn't see one but could have missed it.

My units are quite rare ... three in particular. I include them in case any can help you.

 

[JPetroski]

Thank you!

 

[JPetroski]

The graphics aren't set in stone yet, but I think @Prof. Garfield had a good idea to have the arms dealing go on the second map so it doesn't take up space... Each major country will have a section of earth that looks like the photo below. I'm envisioning that on the main map, with a unit activated, a player might get a pop up asking where to offer the unit for sale. Depending on what is selected, the unit is teleported to one of these tiles. The $ will command a small price. The $$$ a high price.

Perhaps the buyer presses a button and can see all the hardware out there and what it is for sale for... So the Soviets might offer a MiG-29 for $1,500, but the Americans are offering an F-16 for $1,200 and the player decides to go for the cheaper price.

 

[JPetroski]

I think I may have come up with a fairly easy way to handle funding guerrillas and other rebels, as well as how to "win" that would prevent me from having to spend hours creating tables that I would probably make some mistakes on.

Every city in the game has one of the following improvements:
Asia
Latin America
Africa
Middle East
Pakistan
Israel
Core Region

I think that the easiest way to handle funding rebels is simply for the USSR and USA player to press a button which calls up a menu showing all the cities in the world, probably divided into subsections by these improvements to make things manageable so you don't have to go through tons of menus every time.

So, let's say the Soviet player wants to fund rebels in Africa. The menu might first say:

Which region should we fund rebels in? (Asia, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Pakistan, Israel, Core Region?)

If Africa were selected, a sub menu of all the cities with that improvement would show up, and the player would scroll through until they reach the desired location (for example, Djibouti).

Since Djibouti has the African improvement, the type of rebel that would spawn would be an African Revolutionary (African Nationalist if the US is spawning it). I believe it's possible to randomize the location based on the city selected which would prevent me from having to create an enormous table with every city in the game and corresponding coordinates that I could err on. So the idea would be if Djibouti is selected, 1-2 African Revolutionary units would spawn in random tiles within 2-3 tiles of that city.

Likewise, I think the victory system could work like this:

- Each of the improvements above are given a point value (maybe 1 for most areas, 1.5 for Core Region, 1.25 perhaps for Israel, whatever).
- Pressing a key calculates how many "points" each of the civs have, based on how many cities with said improvements they have.
- The USSR's "points" is the sum of their cities + the Pro-East cities.
- The USA's "points" is the sum of their cities + the Pro-West cities.
- Etc.

Finally, I think that I might dissuade the USA and USSR from directly taking cities rather than outright preventing it. Since I'll know how many cities they each have at the start of the scenario, any city they directly control over that will come with an economic malus that represents the cost of nation building/occupation. So, there will be a definite advantage to turning the city over to your proxy rather than retaining it yourself.

I think these mechanisms should be fairly "behind the scenes" and easy enough for the player to understand and handle.

 

[Fairline]

Dug this up that I was using with a Korean War scenario units file: post-war Essex carriers you might want to replace the WW2 camo one with. I think the angled-flight decks were 1952 onwards, after the British started converting their carriers.