1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Cold War 1947 - 1991

Discussion in 'Civ2 - Scenario League' started by JPetroski, Apr 13, 2020.

  1. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Ontario
    The first thing that strikes me about a penalty for holding too many cities in Europe is that if it is effective, NATO need not bother defending Europe very much. At the very least, the Americans wouldn't be very likely to station troops in Europe, or threaten nuclear retaliation on behalf of Europe. If the penalty is an effective deterrent to expansion beyond West Germany, then things like nukes and armies are unnecessary to deter that possible aggression.

    It is hard to imagine that it would be worthwhile to hold a city that costs 2000 gold per turn or more, so in that sense, I think the penalty would be effective. I'd generally be reluctant to 'use up' my 'cheap' city occupation in case it turned out to be important at some point.

    If you can unilaterally give away cities, then I could see a situation where you conquer a bunch of core cities, and then 'surrender' them to the third power block. E.g. Soviets conquer Europe, surrender the cities to Pro West, and America gets the penalty. Basically, everyone would be giving away the extra cities every turn.

    Perhaps the solution is to have some probability of an accidental/unauthorized nuclear attack via event, and things like invading "nuclear allied" places increase the probability. Perhaps each player can have a 'nuclear policy', where lowering the chance of an "accident" also makes one more susceptible to not responding to a first strike. This sort of thing might make for an interesting game where no one feels totally in control of the situation. Not wanting to risk triggering a nuclear war would re-direct efforts to places that don't run that risk.
     
  2. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    That's a good point I hadn't really thought through. I guess I'll let Europe be ripe for conquering after all. I do think I would keep the malus towards the main countries owning cities, however, so they'd have to transfer them to their proxy.

    I would not allow the Pro-West to do anything favorable with Soviets, China, Pro-East and vice versa. Nor could Pro-East receive any benefit from the United States, Europe, or the Pro-West. So I don't think this would be an issue.
     
  3. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    This is interesting but I'd have to think it through and how it might work in single player mode as the game absolutely must be 95% playable in SP (with the knowledge that the AI isn't going to bother too much with some of the features). I want to avoid a situation where people are asked to try it for the first time vs. a human as we've seen how difficult that can be to get people to want to do.
     
  4. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Ontario
    I absolutely agree that it must be single player compatible.
     
  5. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    It's looking like 120 VPs for the Big 3 or 60 VPs for China and India are reasonable figures for victory.

    There are 353 total VP available, 276 controlled by a regular civ, and the remaining 77 up for grabs from the neutrals/barbarians. 120 would mean you need to control a little over 1/3 of the map between yourself and your proxy to win.

    At the start of the game:

    Europe: 105 VP
    USA: 95 VP (36 USA+ 59 Pro-West)
    USSR: 59 VP (52 USSR + 7 Pro-East)
    India: 13 VP
    China: 4 VP

    If 120 victory points is all it takes then Europe and the USA are both within striking distance, and the Soviet player will need to move fast. Luckily, they'll get help as China should eat into the US victory point total quickly (as the US controls Nationalist China as a "Pro-West" nation).

    The Soviets should get a boost due to events and will probably have a slight advantage in terms of how much it costs to fund rebellions.

    Anyway, this is the theory :)
     
  6. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    The events are shaping up to be a doozy. I have 2300 lines and haven't gotten past China yet. Well, I have also implemented changing leader names for all the civs, and am currently working on some current events that will pop if civs have the right techs. For now, it's just a text field, but I'm considering things like taking away money when the stock market crashes in 1987 and perhaps somehow representing inflation in the 1970s as well.

    I've also put in events for when all parties get the hydrogen bomb, and a catch up mechanic to give China, India, and the proxies some rather antiquated equipment once their benefactor civs reach a two-tech advantage.

    I'm doing my best to keep them separate between SP and MP. For example, in SP, the US and Europe will respond to Chinese aggression if China captures a city in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, or Australia. I don't want this in MP (there, you'll just get a pop up box with ambiguous wording as who knows how the players will react).

    For China, I've completed events for:
    -Chinese civil war
    -Indonesia invasion
    -Hong Kong
    -Taiwan
    -Japan
    -Tibet
    -Phillippines
    -Okinawa

    I still have to do:
    -Wars with India
    -Malaysia
    -Australia (I'm thinking this prompts a joint response from the US and Europe)
    -Korean intervention (I want to basically enforce that China establishes Korean proxy rather than keeping it, so if they capture Pyongyang, Seoul, or Pusan, these revert to the Pro-East control)
    -Vietnam Intervention
    -Invasion of USA path (will spawn large resistance from Americans)... For this one, I'd really like to learn how to do a string so I can have the same event for three civs attacking with one text that makes sense.

    After that, I'll move on to India and once the smaller "test civs" are done, I'll concentrate on the main players.

    I also need to hold up and hand the rains to @old_hand soon so he can assist with some of the more complex stuff, but he's graciously let me play and tinker over a long weekend and as you can see, much is being accomplished.

    It's getting there!!!
     
  7. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    @typhoon353 do you have a recommendation for which US bases, in your mind, need to be present in this scenario? I think it is awkward to either have the US (teal) units just sitting there (where they can be forced to diplomatically withdraw in the SP game), or for the US to control an entire city. I think what I'd lean towards is having size 1 cities that are military bases available to players. Just curious which 1-2 in Europe you would think would be best? Rhein-Main?

    Right now I am using city walls as "city center" for all civs, and they're present in every city at the start, and are never disbanded nor can be sold. I could allow new cities to be built that look like military bases and not allow them to build any other improvements (by tying improvement building to require city walls in the first place).

    I'm thinking this would be an interesting way to establish power projection in the actual game and get around the awkward situation I have here for starters.


    upload_2020-7-30_7-14-51.png
     
  8. typhoon353

    typhoon353 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    62
    Given Civ 2's scale, the two squares you've got them in would be a good enough place to represent the general concentration of US forces in Germany. IMO I might move Frankfurt a square to the east or a square northwest to where you have the teal units (putting Bonn in the vacant square, as well as adjusting the course of the Rhine and Elbe accordingly) and put the pop 1 city-base where you have the airfield right now as either Kaiserslautern (Ramstein AB) or Stuttgart (US European Command HQ).

    The other two places I'd recommend is east of Milan (Aviano/Vicenza) and Mildenhall/Lakenheath in the UK. It nominally should be on the deer, but I think you'll have to put it on the cow due to the adjacency to London.

    (If you'd have my additional unsolicited comments on the rest of the map, I'd also move Paris and Brussels a square or two to the southwest, drop Amsterdam in somewhere, and add Gdansk on the empty square north of the two cows, though I think you'd mentioned that the numbers of cities was becoming a concern)
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
  9. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    Thanks!

    It's not really an issue with the number of cities so much as their proximity to each other. To the extent possible (which isn't very in Europe) I'm trying to leave space between them for armies to maneuver.
     
  10. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,180
    The lease and building of a base in Diego Garcia in the '70's seems pretty important. ;)
     
  11. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    Yes, but, the scenario starts in 1947. Was it the British that owned that prior? Perhaps this could be a European military base with an event to turn it over in exchange for funds later on. Or, it might just be an empty island someone can "colonize" at their leisure.

    I intend to use an improvement for these bases and have it cost an exorbitant amount and be non-disbandable, which should prevent bases from popping up everywhere.
     
  12. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,180
    The British didn't have a BASE, there, previously. They leased the island, and the U.S. built the base. But there was a British "presence," so it wasn't Terra Nullius, either.
     
  13. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Ontario
    It would probably make sense to use the airport, so that transferring small numbers of troops is relatively easy. I'm 99% sure that you can use the Lua Console to have adjacent cities, either by teleporting existing cities, or by creating new cities (you'd have to have an event to construct new military bases adjacent to existing cities once the game gets started, however).
     
  14. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    That makes sense, especially since I can tie aircraft production to factories, and disallow factory production in cities with an airbase (so I dont have vet aircraft production).

    The only issue is I'd need a few "home" military bases to act as origin bases, but that shouldn't be too hard to add.
     
  15. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Ontario
    You can have different canBuild conditions for specific cities if you want, so you could allow aircraft building in, say, San Francisco, even if that city has an airport, while disallowing aircraft construction in 'generic' cities with an airport. Also, eliminating vet status from a newly produced unit is just a matter of deleting the produced unit and creating the same unit at that particular location, if you need.

    Having dedicated bases in the USA might not be a problem, but Europe is already a bit crowded, especially if you want to leave room in the countryside, and need to give the Americans a couple bases.
     
  16. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    I might need to make it so that cities with a "core region" can teleport units to cities with the "military base" improvement and vice versa. That way I don't need home bases cluttering up the map. I just don't want to put these military base improvements in regular cities because I want them expensive enough that no one really wants to build more than they need. I might need an event that allows one to delete the city/base in the event they want to remove the cost too.
     
  17. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    A question for you folks... What are the thoughts on human players getting large reinforcements if particular areas are invaded? For example, if China invades Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, or the United States, I was originally thinking of spawning a tougher enemy in the SP game only. I'm curious what you all would think of also doing this in MP? Would that imbalance things or might it make massive sneak attacks across an entire civ less likely/more difficult because there are certain areas that are guaranteed to be difficult to kill?
     
  18. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    That takes away the responsibility of the player to plan for various eventualities and threats. It really makes him/her a partly AI controlled civ. If the human controlled civ has an AI ally, that's different. The ally might have a triggered events mobilization.
     
  19. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. Though I do think there need to be some areas that spawn significant partisan activity, and I'm using the partisan slot for special forces. So maybe that can be the compromise. Just bouncing some ideas off as I write stuff up. I'll continue labeling everything "SP" so I can swap out the events quickly.
     
  20. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,864
    So I've noticed that this isn't working correctly.

    Code:
    if city == object.cSydney or city == object.cMelbourne or city == object.cAdelaide or city == object.cHobart or city == object.cBrisbane or city == object.cPerth or city == object.cDarwin and conqueror == object.tChina and defender == object.tProWest and object.cLondon.owner == object.tEurope and civ.hasTech(object.tEurope, civ.getTech(3)) and not civ.hasTech(object.tEurope, civ.getTech(4,6,8,10)) then
    Specifically, what is not occurring is the game is not checking to see if conqueror == object.tChina or not. I've also tried renaming conqueror "attacker" in case I've made a mistake.

    For that matter, on further testing, defender == object.tProWest doesn't seem to matter either.

    The event fires, but it fires regardless of which civ takes the city and which civ defends the city, which I don't want. What am I missing here?
     

Share This Page