The Cold War Deluxe; 1950-1991

[I_batman]

One other question. I know that the nukes are hard coded to all be setting "1," and this seems to be a slight problem no? I would imagine that, a 1965 tactical nuke had a LOT more destructive capacity than a 1955 version, and even more of a difference for 1975, and 1985?

I can't quote numbers, but my sense is that, by the mid 1960s (?, wasn't Bay of Pigs and Cuba Crisis 1963), those short-range nukes were frighteningly destructive. I have the sense that, part of why the US and USSR never shot at each other in the Cold War, but ony at Proxies and satellites, is that, the scale of the conventional and nuclear destruction which could have occurred would have devastating for both W Europe and W Russia (at the start) and later for both NATO in general and Russia in general. When did a MAD situation really exist for the first time? Maybe the reason I kicked butt so well in my own USA Demi-God game is that I made a pre-emptive strike before the Soviets could enforce MAD, which would mean that, the game IS perfectly realistic, and my criticisms are misplaced, because the ease of my winning is a reflection of a historical intuition to avoid getting into a MAD situation?

I can't quote on the history of the nuclear arms race, (El Justo is the history major), but I can let you know how the AI typically works once the first nuke is unleashed.
Extremely rarely, the AI will strike first. I have had cases where China was down to 3 cities, and still would not use nukes, even when I conqured Bejing.

However, once the nuclear genie is let out of the bottle, all nukes will be used by all AI civs, as fast as they are built.

If US launches against WP, WP should fire back with everything they have, and will continue to do so as long as a state of war exists.
IF WP launches, then France, UK, and US will all attack.

I have yet to see a game where this does not happen, once the first nuke is launched.

Given the geography, it is in WP's best interest NOT to start a nuclear war, since there are 3 times as many ICBM's, and twice as many tactical nukes coming back at it. (AI playing US won't use tactical nukes properly)

I have been thinking about it, and I am wondering if we should not crank up the production rate of the ICBM nukes, to more closely emulate MAD.
I can't comment of France, UK, or China's nuclear capabilities in the Cold War, because I just don't know, but both the US and WP at they peak could have laid waste to the entire planet (around 1980???)

And I am in the midst of a game in 1.5 right now, and I have 6 ICBM's in 1976.
Given the firepower of an ICBM in Civ III, I could lay waste to only 3-4 cities with those. (Not talking tacticals here).

I would think in 1976 reality, WP could do far, far more damage than that if they launched their entire ICBM arsenal.

If US, WP, and possibly the other 3 nuclear powers, had significantly more ICBM's, hence a far more destructive force, would this be closer to historical accuracy?

 

[Sybot]

I played this on Monarch as South Africa, with an aggressive strategy and found it oddly easy once I got going, winning by Domination in the early 70's. I took all of Africa, Arabia, parts of Iran the Soviets conquered, the whole WP, India and North Vietnam. The Americans and Scandanavians! got Cuba The only challenge I found was when the Chinese declared on me in the midst of my attack on Central Russia and I almost got swamped by their tanks.

Next time I'm going to play on a higher difficulty as China, UK or France, and try and keep more peaceful. I like this scenario, keep up the good work.

 

[Anthropoid]

Given the firepower of an ICBM in Civ III, I could lay waste to only 3-4 cities with those. (Not talking tacticals here).

I would think in 1976 reality, WP could do far, far more damage than that if they launched their entire ICBM arsenal.

If US, WP, and possibly the other 3 nuclear powers, had significantly more ICBM's, hence a far more destructive force, would this be closer to historical accuracy?

I'm guessing the nuke production rate might need to go up by a factor of 20 or 30. By late 1960s the world was already afeered of global holocaust as I recall (might be wrong). That means that, there were so many tactical nukes and ICBMs poise ready to take out targets in both east and west, that both sides would have been virtually destroyed, which is why there were NOT big tank division and bomber fleet battles in Europe.

Unfortunately, doing this would mean that the most fun aspects of the game would be eliminated (i.e., the classic "civilized" rolling wall of armaments plowing through an enemies territory, and turning the map your color!), and it would be virtually impossible for either side to win via VPs, because very little territory would change hands except in the proxy wars, and what little might change via culture or covert wars.

The other idea I had recently was that, the commies maybe should not rush by killing off population, it weakens them tremendously as the AI I suspect, and it is not exactly realistic. The Xenophobic, and Population Resettlement settings might be more realistic, and it might be that they suffer different corruption, and have different SW, etc., but the pop rush doesn't seem very realistic.

I played a couple turns of Surtur's version with subs turned visible, alliances broken apart, etc., etc. The main problem with not having Central America allied with U.S. immediately became apparent.

The Korean War triggered faithfully on like turn two thanks to his invisible immobile units in China, and I took this excuse to get rid of some of those troublesome tactical nukes. Cubans retaliated by smashing Miami (ah well). Hit Odessa, Warsaw/Berlin, and a city in China.

EVERYBODY who could do so declared war on me, including Central America, which I conveniently used as an excuse to annex them.

Before the end of 1950, I controlled all of Central Mexico, although granted I did lose about 3 Sherman's in the process.

 

[Surtur]

Yes I forgot that nuclear wars will cause everyone declaring war on you. So I will put the South American states back to the NATO alliance to avoid them declaring war on US.
Disabling pop rush might also a good idea. I realized in my game as well that espacially the soviet cities had very low population because the AI rushed like hell.

 

[I_batman]

I played this on Monarch as South Africa, with an aggressive strategy and found it oddly easy once I got going, winning by Domination in the early 70's. I took all of Africa, Arabia, parts of Iran the Soviets conquered, the whole WP, India and North Vietnam. The Americans and Scandanavians! got Cuba The only challenge I found was when the Chinese declared on me in the midst of my attack on Central Russia and I almost got swamped by their tanks.

Next time I'm going to play on a higher difficulty as China, UK or France, and try and keep more peaceful. I like this scenario, keep up the good work.

Wow, that is incredibly impressive, particularly from such a weak starting position.

 

[El Justo]

El Justo,

Yes its hard to think there should be a better source than Jane's.

On the future for CIV III scenarios after the release of CIV IV:

Should CIV IV be "CIV III-light" with new graphics I also think
some CIV III scenarios can have a future.

Let us also hope that Firaxis will "open the files" so that CIV III
can be changed in the same way its said you can mod CIV IV given
you are a computer-pro,

Rocoteh

yes Rocoteh. i agree. however, i am skeptical that they'll release any source codes for civ3.

 

[El Justo]

Anthropoid wrote: When did a MAD situation really exist for the first time?

this is a tricky question as the american and soviet nuclear arsenals, at least in the beginning of the cold war, were a point of contention for many historians. according to john l. gaddis, the yanks had much more of a numerical advantage of nukes in the beginning. by this i mean that kruschev was essentially blowing hot air during the 50s when he proclaimed the the soviets possessed a huge stockpile of IRBMs. many in the eisenhower adim often wanted to call Uncle Niki's bluff but this never really happened. needless to say, time and the end of the cold war (as well as the opening up of all of the commie archives!) has revealed the real truth: the US had a clear numerical superiority in deliverable nuclear war heads up to about the 1970s.

EDIT: also, the supposed 'Bomber Gap' that historians and text books often have written of is a myth. the Ike Admin undertook (as we all now) an aggressive aerial surveillance against soviet russian during the 50s. gaddis notes that Ike and his peeps were clearly aware, after due time of course, that the supposed 'gap' really didn't exist. again, they kept this info in their proverbial pocket instead of risking 'hot war' should they have tried to call kruschev's bluff on this one, too.

the only real edge that the reds had against the yanks during the 50s nuclear build-up (if i were to even call this an edge) was the dpeeded devlopment of the H-bomb. iirc, they beat the yanks to punch here.

the bottom line: Uncle Niki was a maniacal, deceitful, and hollow liar who continuously bluffed in order to a) spook the West and b) to cement his own authority w/in communist russia.

 

[El Justo]

I played this on Monarch as South Africa, with an aggressive strategy and found it oddly easy once I got going, winning by Domination in the early 70's. I took all of Africa, Arabia, parts of Iran the Soviets conquered, the whole WP, India and North Vietnam. The Americans and Scandanavians! got Cuba The only challenge I found was when the Chinese declared on me in the midst of my attack on Central Russia and I almost got swamped by their tanks.

Next time I'm going to play on a higher difficulty as China, UK or France, and try and keep more peaceful. I like this scenario, keep up the good work.

hi Sybot.

that is quite an impressive run you've made there. if you want a real challenge, try the Chi-Coms on a high level. i guarantee you will face more w/ this position.

the UK is a really fun position to play as they're sort of nestled away on the islands there. their hardware and foot units are some of the best in the game, too.

france ain't bad either. they have a nice selection of aircraft.

 

[El Justo]

Yes I forgot that nuclear wars will cause everyone declaring war on you. So I will put the South American states back to the NATO alliance to avoid them declaring war on US.
Disabling pop rush might also a good idea. I realized in my game as well that espacially the soviet cities had very low population because the AI rushed like hell.

hello again Sybot.

i'd be careful tweaking the nato and commie alliances if you want to maintain any sembelence of historical accuracy. this, however, is completely up to you.

i like the idea of disabling pop rush. i'll look into that. thanks.

 

[Anthropoid]

hello again Sybot.

i like the idea of disabling pop rush. i'll look into that. thanks.

This would have a DRAMATIC effect on the game, and it might make winning on Emperor VERY hard

In my US Demi-God game (which I _AM_ still doing a turn on every now and then) in which I'm edging towards a domination win (Dec 1969 I believe it was last I played), the way I've done so well is that I've paid for probably > 1 million GP worth of rushed units and buildings. If I had not been able to rush AT ALL, it would have been a _VERY_ different game.

Another possibility would be to simply double or triple the shield/gp and shield/pop cost for upgrading?

 

[Anthropoid]

ADDIT: One thing you might consider adding to the standing house rules El Justo: I was reading about U-2 spy planes today. They evidently need a VERY long runway, and even have to have a spotter driver to help them land. So basing on carriers should probably not be allowed.

Also, for new dlers, you might include a comment about bombing tiles? The issue of pre-emptive strike should probably be left open, because it is POSSIBLE that the US or WP would have done it, and the human DOES pay a consequence in the form of reduced AI friendliness (although the lack of any real need for trade or diplomacy makes that a bit irrelevant). But bombing all tiles definitely unbalances the game and players might appreciate being made aware of this.

My first game as US on Demi-God has got pretty tedious. I'm up to Nov 1969. Progress has definitely slowed down. I lost a LOT more M-48s and M-1s trying to take Buenos Aires than I thought I would, even with a HUGE number of bombers in support (though did get the other two northern/western cities with little problem). Worst part is, I've used nukes so often, I'm pretty sure my "allies" are sabotaging my production! I tried to plant a spy in Italy, and they declared war on me! so I abandoned that turn . . . Not sure I'll finish that game but it was an interesting experiment.

It is DEFINITELY possible to "win" by using a preemptive strike strategy, followed by a carpet bombing of tiles.

Okay so, having established that for everyone's edification , thought I'd try another scenario. This time, I'm using Surtur's changed version, with several new African small nations, Arabs not in locked alliance with Pact, etc., etc. I'm going to play with the restraints that:

1) I WILL NOT use preemptive nuke strike
2) I WILL NOT declare war first (since I am the US)
3) I will ONLY bomb tiles that have (i) a unit in them, (ii) a radar, (iii) a resource of some sort, or (iv) are a strategic choke point. Maybe for (iv) the rule should be "no two adjacent tiles may be bombed unless than both have one of these conditions present, else one of them is an important highway."

Given the shortage of workers, the capacity for the human US player to simply reduce the AI to the Stone Ages really unbalances things, so I think this rule is good way to reduce this exploit.

These self-imposed "house rules" will represent the reality of U.S. political restraint in the Cold War. Could be quite interesting cause Surtur reports having made the Special Forces more powerful.

What do you guys think?

I think this might dramatically alter the game flow and be a better test of the way you guys have structured the mod (having played a couple turns and got my arse kicked without first having softened 'em up with four or five nukes).

 

[El Justo]

ADDIT: One thing you might consider adding to the standing house rules El Justo: I was reading about U-2 spy planes today. They evidently need a VERY long runway, and even have to have a spotter driver to help them land. So basing on carriers should probably not be allowed.

Also, for new dlers, you might include a comment about bombing tiles? The issue of pre-emptive strike should probably be left open, because it is POSSIBLE that the US or WP would have done it, and the human DOES pay a consequence in the form of reduced AI friendliness (although the lack of any real need for trade or diplomacy makes that a bit irrelevant). But bombing all tiles definitely unbalances the game and players might appreciate being made aware of this.

My first game as US on Demi-God has got pretty tedious. I'm up to Nov 1969. Progress has definitely slowed down. I lost a LOT more M-48s and M-1s trying to take Buenos Aires than I thought I would, even with a HUGE number of bombers in support (though did get the other two northern/western cities with little problem). Worst part is, I've used nukes so often, I'm pretty sure my "allies" are sabotaging my production! I tried to plant a spy in Italy, and they declared war on me! so I abandoned that turn . . . Not sure I'll finish that game but it was an interesting experiment.

It is DEFINITELY possible to "win" by using a preemptive strike strategy, followed by a carpet bombing of tiles.

Okay so, having established that for everyone's edification , thought I'd try another scenario. This time, I'm using Surtur's changed version, with several new African small nations, Arabs not in locked alliance with Pact, etc., etc. I'm going to play with the restraints that:

1) I WILL NOT use preemptive nuke strike
2) I WILL NOT declare war first (since I am the US)
3) I will ONLY bomb tiles that have (i) a unit in them, (ii) a radar, (iii) a resource of some sort, or (iv) are a strategic choke point. Maybe for (iv) the rule should be "no two adjacent tiles may be bombed unless than both have one of these conditions present, else one of them is an important highway."

Given the shortage of workers, the capacity for the human US player to simply reduce the AI to the Stone Ages really unbalances things, so I think this rule is good way to reduce this exploit.

These self-imposed "house rules" will represent the reality of U.S. political restraint in the Cold War. Could be quite interesting cause Surtur reports having made the Special Forces more powerful.

What do you guys think?

I think this might dramatically alter the game flow and be a better test of the way you guys have structured the mod (having played a couple turns and got my arse kicked without first having softened 'em up with four or five nukes).

Anthropoid,

yes, the U2 should not be based on a carrier as well as the heavy bombers for the US.

bombing enemy tiles has pretty damaging effects on the AI. i agree about your conditional bombing suggestions.

which nations did you add to Africa? i ask only b/c there's essentially only 1 open spot among the exisiting civis to add one (30 in the base game). imho, breaking up C Africa is insignificant.

i guarantee the Arabs will get steam rolled by the Soviets. it happened in just about every play-test we did when we played around w/ keeping them unalligned. i'd be interested to see your results.

i never, ever launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes and always seem to do quite well.

i'm always wrangling w/ those dang sp force units. one suggestion would be to give them the HN flag and maybe an extra HP (-1 total). this would enable them to attack enemy units w/out a declaration of war. i haven't tested it but it's worth discussion i think.

i've also done some testing w/ the 'no support costs' for the improvements/buildings. i adjusted the govt settings for the unit support costs as well so as to not have massive reserves in my cofers. so far, the economic side of it is quite balanced (a few civis played). however, i have not seen any real reduction in turn times as we had originally thought it may give us. i mean, the times are still pretty quick but i do not see any remarkable difference w/ the support costs chopped down. my question would be whether the game engine actually uses time/energy determing support costs even though the setting is at zero. does the game engine simply skip the process or does it actually weigh it still w/ the zero support? my guess, and a guess only, is that it does indeed 'think' of the costs even though it's set at zero.

 

[Anthropoid]

So far the Soviets have not done anything to the Arabs. I'm finding it to be better with these conditions of no preemptive and minimal tile bombing. Its up to like 1954, Korean Wars I and II have come and gone, and now WP is at war with the West. MIGHT take Vladivostok but then again might not. Even when in the red, those APCs can take out a couple M-4s or even M-26s.

I'm tending to agree with you that, not having Arabs aligned with Soviets is moot. I believe Surtur collapsed some other tribe into one (Greece and Britain? Spain and France?) Also we have a Chile which is a non-aligned bad guy nation type. I believe the idea with the more smaller nations in S Am and Africa is to increase the chance of small proxy wars there. The things I'd suggest still:

1. Make nukes generate more rapidly, so that MAD is achieved at some point.
2. Make Special Forces multi-tiered with cumultatively greater and greater levels of power. 1st only air drop and 2 moves (Ranger). With Special Ops maybe allow some slightly different new unit, for example, a "Special Forces" that has slightly better A/D than a Ranger and a bombard ability to simulate their ability to act as saboteurs in times of war. With Sub Tactics you might consider an amphibious flavor Spec Ops (e.g., an "SBS" unit that comes from a SOW that must be coastal, and is comparable to ranger except an amphibious unit with hidden nationality? Then with Helicopters allow a new SOW "Fort Bragg" which generates a "Green Beret" every ~10 turns 15/12/3 airdrop, ZOC, bombard=10. but becomes obsolete after a while. Then you could add Delta Force with either Mech Infantry or Air Cavalry or both, maybe even best to make Delta Force depend on Jet Fighter Bombers? Delta Force hidden nationality, ZOC, airdrop, bombard=15 18/17/2. Advanced Subs could allow building a Great Wonder or SOW that would generate a Navy SEALS every 30 turns or so, 19/17/3 airdrop, amphib, hidden nat, ZOC, bombard=15. The Soviets could have their own versions of these.
3. Give the terrorist nations the ability to build "Terrorist Unit" that has hidden nationality and pillage, maybe something like 14/3/2 ? There could be multiple levels of this, and you coudl even have some sort of Stealth-Cruise Missile like thing that comes from some ME SOW called "The Base" or something. This thing could like fly across the ocean and take out a building or something. Also a unit that looks like worker but is a "suicide bomber" and acts like a cruise missile could be good (Check the out the Rise and Rule and "The Missing Links" mods, they already have these units included).
4. Make N. Vietnam Fascist (but no other nation can be) and give them free military, and allow them to build a bad arse unit around the beginning of second era that would have blitz, and high movement so it would be very hard to kill it.

 

[El Justo]

i'm afraid i'm against removing the arabs from the soviet alliance simply b/c, at some point in the scen, they're mince meat. there's no 2 ways around it...

the rate for the autopro' of nukes will be increased a bit in the next version. iirc, i moved it from 20 to 18 for the tactical nukes (IRBM).

putting in all of those sp force units seems redundant to me. by this i mean that the ones we have in there already are hard to define in game terms. adding to this seems like overkill to me. also, we have to remember that we don't want the map flooded w/ all of these sp force units b/c in RL, they operate on a very small scale compared to the conventional armies. i would like to see how the sp force units test out w/ the HN flag and an extra HP (-1 total iirc).

N Vietnam already has an advantage: cheap units and the NVA Inf and VC units. these 2 seriously outgun their neighbors' firepower. plus, they were communist, not fascist.

EDIT: if memory serves me right, the NV position can begin building what amounts to the equivalant to a 2nd gen infantry unit earlier than any other civi (NVA Inf & VC).

good ideas though...

 

[Anthropoid]

i'm afraid i'm against removing the arabs from the soviet alliance simply b/c, at some point in the scen, they're mince meat. there's no 2 ways around it...

the rate for the autopro' of nukes will be increased a bit in the next version. iirc, i moved it from 20 to 18 for the tactical nukes (IRBM).

putting in all of those sp force units seems redundant to me. by this i mean that the ones we have in there already are hard to define in game terms. adding to this seems like overkill to me. also, we have to remember that we don't want the map flooded w/ all of these sp force units b/c in RL, they operate on a very small scale compared to the conventional armies. i would like to see how the sp force units test out w/ the HN flag and an extra HP (-1 total iirc).

N Vietnam already has an advantage: cheap units and the NVA Inf and VC units. these 2 seriously outgun their neighbors' firepower. plus, they were communist, not fascist.

EDIT: if memory serves me right, the NV position can begin building what amounts to the equivalant to a 2nd gen infantry unit earlier than any other civi (NVA Inf & VC).

good ideas though...

Glad to hear that my thoughts are appreciated. The NV, I really had not checked out or noticed anything about them, so I probably should have kept my mouth shut. Sounds like you've got them dialed already.

The SpecOps, so it's just a bias on my part, but it was worth a try! Mostly just wanted to give you the ideas should they be appealing to you. You're right at the Division level, their role should not be too accentuated.

But what about the terrorists?

The Nukes, glad to hear you'll be proliferating them a bit, and yeah, best to try a moderate adjustment first and see what effect it has.

Re: the Arabs, I'll bet you're right. I'll let you know how long they last in this version of Surtur's I'm playing

BTW, his use of invisible units to set off the Korean War worked quite well. He mentioned something about giving N. Viet an SOW that produces an invisible offensive unit that would spark off the North-South Vietnam conflict. We'll see how that goes.

 

[I_batman]

Glad to hear that my thoughts are appreciated. The NV, I really had not checked out or noticed anything about them, so I probably should have kept my mouth shut. Sounds like you've got them dialed already.

The SpecOps, so it's just a bias on my part, but it was worth a try! Mostly just wanted to give you the ideas should they be appealing to you. You're right at the Division level, their role should not be too accentuated.

But what about the terrorists?

The Nukes, glad to hear you'll be proliferating them a bit, and yeah, best to try a moderate adjustment first and see what effect it has.

Re: the Arabs, I'll bet you're right. I'll let you know how long they last in this version of Surtur's I'm playing

BTW, his use of invisible units to set off the Korean War worked quite well. He mentioned something about giving N. Viet an SOW that produces an invisible offensive unit that would spark off the North-South Vietnam conflict. We'll see how that goes.

OK, Couple things I can comments on:

1.Yeah, Arabs will die if they are un-allied. Guaranteed.
2.I would not mind seeing more ICBM's in the game to establish MAD, but to get there, we would likely need an ICBM every turn to be produced.
According to Klyden, the WP did not even begun to have capabilities of destroying the planet until well into the 70's. That being said, I am in a game in 1980 playing WP and have a grand total of 8 ICBM's, which is probably 1/25 of what would be needed to wipe out humanity on this game map.
3. Terrorists are really difficult to implement. The ONLY thing I would suggest
is to give the SP forces the ability to destroy improvements within a city. I am not sure if that is even possible. Flagging the unit with stealth attack capability only allows it to pick out a unit in a stack, al a subs, but I am not sure there is a way with the editor to flag the SF unit to attack improvements on a specific basis.

 

[Anthropoid]

OK, Couple things I can comments on:

3. Terrorists are really difficult to implement. The ONLY thing I would suggest .

The terrorist, and suicide bomber units in the "The Missing Links" mod actually seem to work pretty well. They're fairly cheap so the AI builds a ton of them and they can be quite a pest on the harder difficulty settings. Still they are not really that great for a human, who cannot afford to use a mass attack technique, so they make a nice addition to the mod overall. The AI uses them to keep the human guessing, forcing the human to be more cautious, and the human uses just a few of them strategically.

It would be neat if a ground unit could have stealth attack. I know they can. There is a Medieval "Flemish" foot unit in a mod I played a long time ago, I THINK it was TML, but not for sure. I even made a map of it, with the Flegms as the protagonist. This unit was sort of like a Celtic swordsman, and it had stealth attack, though only against units, not buildings.

Not sure if you can flag a ground unit with the "stealth bombard attack or not" Will have to check that out!

 

[Koba the Dread]

El Justo, et al:

Thanks, this is a fantastic thread to read in addition to a very difficult scenario to play out from alot of different positions. I can only hope that you and the others that have spent so much time and energy in developing these twists to the game carry on to Civ IV sometime down the road. Once again, Thank you.

 

[El Justo]

Glad to hear that my thoughts are appreciated. The NV, I really had not checked out or noticed anything about them, so I probably should have kept my mouth shut. Sounds like you've got them dialed already.

The SpecOps, so it's just a bias on my part, but it was worth a try! Mostly just wanted to give you the ideas should they be appealing to you. You're right at the Division level, their role should not be too accentuated.

But what about the terrorists?

The Nukes, glad to hear you'll be proliferating them a bit, and yeah, best to try a moderate adjustment first and see what effect it has.

Re: the Arabs, I'll bet you're right. I'll let you know how long they last in this version of Surtur's I'm playing

BTW, his use of invisible units to set off the Korean War worked quite well. He mentioned something about giving N. Viet an SOW that produces an invisible offensive unit that would spark off the North-South Vietnam conflict. We'll see how that goes.

Anthropoid,

your comments are greatly appreciated. very thoughtful and cerebral for sure.

i have also seen terrorist-type units in scenarios. iirc, the Iran-Iraq War by Mr. Black has them and they were flagged as a cruise missle w/ a unit that was a C&P of the standard worker unit. there affect was nominal, at best (as far as game-play was concerned). definitely a neat concept though...but i'm not exactly sure how or what to call it. the Arab Lg position can build the "Intifada" GW in the very late game stages. it autopro's a Palestinian Guerilla unit every so many turns. they are strictly a low-end infantry unit though.

i would certainly like to find a final solution for the sp ops units. for some reason, i'm not satisfied w/ how they are set up right now.

 

[El Justo]

El Justo, et al:

Thanks, this is a fantastic thread to read in addition to a very difficult scenario to play out from alot of different positions. I can only hope that you and the others that have spent so much time and energy in developing these twists to the game carry on to Civ IV sometime down the road. Once again, Thank you.

Koba the Dread,

you're quite welcome mate. we've had quite a blast playing it and putting it all together. no doubt.

i'm afraid that TCW for civ4 will take some time to materialize; mainly b/c of the lack of custom units. also, i'm still resrving judgment on whether civ4 is even worth buying. from what i've seen thus far, i'm not too impressed. however, i shall have a better opinion of it once it's been played by other CFC members, especially by those of whose opinion i regard highly...

welcome to the boards, too!