The Cold War Deluxe; 1950-1991

[El Justo]

techs can't make units obsolete but that upgrade trick described above does it for us. Klyden turned me onto that one btw for AoI. that is the exact method we used for the ships in AoI...

 

[I_batman]

Victory conditions for major Free World Powers:
US: have a total of 1000% of their original population (total pop count in all cities), but make their key military units cost population points to build them(something like that)
UK: amass a total of 100,000,000 gold in the bank
EU: Build four wonders, all of which can only be built after a later stage Tech, which can only be built in the following cities: Copenhagen, Oslo, Munich, Ankara, Rome, Paris, or Jerusalem

Well guys, glad to see we have started conversation again.
Anthropoid, wow man.
Lot's of thought on that last concept.
I am not sure if that is too complex to grasp. I have read it a couple times and still am a little lost. I would prefer fairly simple individual tribe goals, but I am just one man, and if the overall view of everyone is to accept what you have in mind, cool.

Also, I forgot about VingRJoe's helo/carrier fix.

And although I put down both increasing carrier unit capacity and increasing air unit bombard abilities, I think that is an either/or situation. If we do one, I doubt we will do the other.

Like El Justo, I am swamped right now with real life, but I think we won't start making decisions until the weekend, which gives more people time to think and comment on this.

There is no way I will have the huge map PBEM biq ready in September, but tweaks to the small map PBEM biq incorporating at least some of the the more simple concepts could be ready relatively quickly.

As I have said before, I really think the majority of these concepts only work in human only games.

 

[Adler17]

The PzH notion has been floating around for a number of years, but has yet to be put into actual service. 80km is doable without scramjet shells for a 155mm gun, if the results from some South African tests are correct, through RAP and base bleed, among other methods. There have been big, long range guns before, and there still are now, although the NK Koksan is over advertised. Look into Project Gunfighter for some interesting tidbits.
The Russkie follow on to their large ships was supposed to carry a dual 152mm gun, which would have been countered with a 155mm gun or an 8" Mk71, given that the development in question occurs in a Cold War framework.
There is an interesting article on proposed increased gun armament from the late 1980s/early 90s over at Tony William's website, which has pertinence to the world of this scenario.

The idea of ship guns being used for ASuW as well as nominal NGFS and strike warfare is also one that has been bubbling about, and it certainly provides a cheap, all weather method of delivering firepower without the recourse to bombers or UAVs (which have their own concommitant risks).

Ah, the world of the TCW Deluxe, where all that is good can be again!

Well, the German navy just got a class of 4 (at least) type 125 class frigates authorized armed with a 6,1" tank howitzer gun. So we should add such an upgrade for the ships still existing (partly at least) and the new ships. So a type 122 class frigate can be upgraded, while an old Fletcher class DD can't.

Adler

P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONARC

 

[Simon Darkshade]

They certainly have been authorized, but are not yet in active service; indeed, I do not believe they have been laid down.
A basic modular upgrade of gun is a possibility, if the system does not require through-deck installation - the notion of the 155mm, the 3"50 twin mount, the quad Borfors all work because they do not require radical alteration of the platform. Of course, the heavier the mount or turret, the greater the impact on the ship in terms of weight, balance and design. A little bit of armour is also in order as a gun sheild. You could probably do a Fletcher, but the result would be very strange.

 

[El Justo]

I emailed El Justo a naval sandbox (oxymoron??) that I am having some problems with, but progress is being made.

i hope to get to that sanbox once AoI is up and running. so hold onto it for now bud...

1. Naval units' HP tied by some mathematical formula to their tonnage. Linear or otherwise to be determined. (lot's of work with all the naval units in the game)

absolutely - there's going to be a wholesale revision i think. however, it won't be as cut & dried as the AoI naval stuff was.

2. WP and Indo-China get a lot more pre-placed low end infantry and very low end artillery to start.

yes and for the MP version also.

3. WP, Indo-China, Arab League are allied together.

this part i'm a bit skeptical on...i mean, i envision an MP version where there's no alliance set-up at all. i'll get into this more in a bit.

4. Conversely, there are no alliances at all (keep in mind this is an all-human game), but some kind of penalties come into play if there are historically inaccurate alliances created.

precisely

5. Rail lines removed from game, and road movement increased.

this is something i want to investigate - and for 2 primary reasons:
1. to remove the 'insta-move' aspect of the rails
2. and to chop time off the turns (what else is new?!)

6. All civ's (including communist states) can only gold-rush units, and overall gold maintenance costs/unit go up.

this would have to be combed over pretty good i think. however, a gold rush for the commies is definitely something i had in mind dating back some time now...

7. Navy units not upgradeable to newer classes.

yes - but we don't want the obsolete ones appearing in the build que any longer so we'll have to do that work-around i wrote about a few posts back.

8. Most naval carriers have increased air unit capacity.

i like this idea - but again - we'll have to give it a real hard look and do some comparisons, etc.

9. Most air units have increased bombard capacity. (Not an easy change due to the large number of air units in the game.)

yeah --sigh--this'll be a part of the revamp too i reckon.

10. My personal favourite, making cruise missile surface ships and cruise missile subs actually carry cruise missiles. (once again not an easy change due to all the naval classes affected by this)

yup - i assume it'll be part of the naval audit.

11. Each of the 8 civ's has its own set of victory conditions. example:

a.Indo-China must capture South Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan.
b.Arab-League must capture Israel and Iran.
c.SEATO must capture North Korea, North Vietnam a couple cities in China.
d.WP must capture West Germany, France.
e.EU must capture East Germany, Baltic nations, Poland, other Eastern Bloc countries.
f. South America must capture Cuba, several African cities, Falklands.
g. U.S. must capture Cuba, all of Middle East, (Israel, Iran excepted).
h. UK I have no clue.

yessiree. i like them and especially in conjunction w/ 'Poid's victory/wild card scenario.

and Cheezy's suggestion about the ASW arrangement for some of the air units seems like another topic we can revisit. iirc, that was one thing that got axed when we did v1.6. never say never though

1. Full scale audit of all military units. (just too much work right now, and left for TCW 2.0)

yes - to a certain degree - i mean, i think the ground units are all ok. but what i envision is for us to construct the TCW v2.0 SP file and then 'import' all of the rules, etc over into a new MP file.

2. Editing cities and their placement. Status quo.

hmm - if it is determined that some should be adjusted then by all means. but this is more of a topical issue right now.

PS-i would really like to see if we can utilize the huge map for the MP file b/c quite frankly, the possibilities on that hog are endless in an all human game.

i've got a few more ideas also which i'll share as time permits. nice comments though

 

[El Justo]

You guys already know my thoughts on this one. I'd just like to be able to sink some ships with a couple lucky hits from time to time!

yes, yes you may very well get your wish. it'll depend on a variety of factors though and it won't be as black & white as i had originally predicted (ie total tonnage strictly = HP values).

I think this would be a good idea. Along these same lines, what about the "pre-placed invisible units" scheme (forget who posted about the idea, but it was back in like page 50 or 70 of this thread) to provoke the Korean and Vietnam Wars? Might not be so applicable to an MP version.

it's funny that you mention this b/c i gave some real hard thoughts to including some HN air units when i first released this beast. i was thinking along the lines of the Vietnam War as well. however, the AI use of this is terribly unpredicatbale i'm afraid and this is the reason why i left it on the cutting room floor.

Hmmm. Maybe for an SP version but for MP I don't like the idea of locked alliances, except maybe for UK and US.

i am in agreement w/ this. i will even go as far to say that i don't like any of the tribes to be alligned. i'll get into that at the end...

...make a simple house rule: war against traditional allies will result in 25% reduction in points gained per year, for a total of 3 years after declaring war on any traditional Free World Power ally (US, UK, SEATO, EU). This would make war AMONG the traditional Western allies, extremely rare, but it would allow each nation to act more autonomously, which I think would be very good for the MP

i'd go even a step further and suggest that there be some sort of UN Security Council which would condemn any offending tribe. of course, the game play dynamics of it all would have to be sorted out. but i'm thinking along the lines of an embargo or sanctions.

...the need for WP to have locked allies will certainly be ameliorated dramatically.

i don't like this b/c both the Middle East and China had some issues w/ the Soviets in RL. plus, what about the ME knack for playing the Reds off against the Blues? that would be smooshed from the game if we locked them up.

Meaning occupy all the cities for one contested turn? or hold it till the end of the scenario, else for a specified period of time (e.g., one game year)?

i think he means as an 'end game' goal.

If the former, what you'll get are players rapidly building up their militaries and neglecting their economies, and then a whole bunch of wars all over the globe fairly early in the game. If the latter (which I think tends to be more realistic), you will get players using a combination of strategies.

i agree - but coming up w/ specifics will be a challlenge.

Since it is an MP game you can say whatever you want with house rules!
so how about the following as a slight alternative to the conquest objectives you list below.

Lets say there are 500 cities on the map. Each one is worth 1 basic point if it is occupied for one solid year (or maybe two). However if it is a city in a "target nation" (basically the conquest objectives you list below for each civ) then it is worth 3 points if occupied for one year.

Thus, you could just say that, each tribe can win by conquest by holding _X_ additional percentage of their original city points for one solid year (or maybe two?). The simplest way to determine the percentage for each tribe is to start from how many cities they control at start, and then use something like the list of possible "target" and "wild card" cities I list below.

Players would be responsible for keeping track of their own status with respect to their points from conquested cities, and would not have to keep everyone else in the game updated until they had actually achieved a victory condition at which point they would simply have to document that: I've held this list of cities since X date, thus giving me Y city points, I win! This would add an element of the unknown, which in concert with "wild card cities" for each tribe would make the game more unpredictable.

I'll explain how the wild cards could work in more detail below.

Target Nations
Arab-League: cities in Israel and Iran are worth 3 pts if controlled for one solid year
SEATO: cities in North Korea and North Vietnam are worth 3 pts
Indo-China: cities in Iran and Pakistan are worth 3 pts
WP: cities in W Germ and France are worth 4 pts
S. Am: cities in Cuba, and Falklands are worth 3 pts
EU: no target nations, each conquested city is worth only 1 point
US: no target nations, each conquested city is worth only 1 point
UK no target nations each conquested city is worth only 1 point

Wild cards: at the beginning of each game, someone who is not playing randomly picks a number of the wild card nations in the list of possibles for each tribe that has them, sends each player and email to let him/her know what their wild card nations are for that game. These could be determined at random. These do not change during the course of the game, and the player must save a copy of the email to document what their wild card cities are. They do not have to reveal what their wild card targets are until they declare victory (further augmenting the intriguing and the unknown which make MP games so much fun).

Wild Cards are also worth 3 points for each year they are held
Arab-League: Turkey, Greece or India (2 of 3 possible in any given game)
SEATO: Siberia, Manchukuo, Indonesia (2 of 3 possible )
WP: Scandinavia, Turkey, Alaska, Japan, Manchukuo (3 of 5 possible )
Indo-China: Iran, Kazak/Afghanistan area, SEATO, Hawaii (3 of 4 possible)
S. Am.: Texas, Australia, Pacific territories of SEATO (not sure what is on the map), South Africa (3 of 4 possible)
EU: no wild card nations
US: no wild card nations
UK no wild card nations

i like this idea. however, it would take a good dose of creativity to devise such a 'wild card' list. this is a good start though

I would strongly recommend that EU, UK and US be somewhat discouraged from conquering using the skewed conquer values I describe above.. Instead, in the basic lay out you've provided, they should have to achieve a certain level of gold and/or pop, and/or build a certain wonder to win. This, in combination with a locked alliance between US-UK, and a strong discouragement to go to war between anyone in the traditional SEATO-EU-US-UK alliance (by imposing a hefty 25% penalty on all city points controlled for three years following declaration of war on any traditional Free World Power), would create a dynamic more like real world history, in which the FWPs would share an interest in containing the aggression of others, but would also have an interest in NOT necessarily helping each other economically.

Victory conditions for major Free World Powers:
US: have a total of 1000% of their original population (total pop count in all cities), but make their key military units cost population points to build them(something like that)
UK: amass a total of 100,000,000 gold in the bank
EU: Build four wonders, all of which can only be built after a later stage Tech, which can only be built in the following cities: Copenhagen, Oslo, Munich, Ankara, Rome, Paris, or Jerusalem

yes, i like it. seems reasonable enough.

one last remark - and it is in connection w/ my desire for 'no alliances'. i propose, at least for the MP game, to introduce a format similar to the one i implemented into AoI and that is the 'raw material' units (ie the 'flag units'). by all this i mean that i would at least like to investigate the viability of introducing a system which awards points for returning certain unbuilable and spawned units back to one's capital. now, the TCW format for this would most likely be predicated around natural resources like uranium, oil, aluminum, plutonium maybe, uranium, steel, titanium, etc, etc. the kicker would be that these 'flag units' would need to be shipped back to one's capital (think of the stock c3c scenario The Middle Ages) in order to receive either gold or VPs for safely returning the little buggers. this system has been a tremendous success imo for the new AoI. so what i'm thinking is to try and translate this into TCW (at least the MP file) and see if it's able to be done or not.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Hi guys!

Looks like a lot of thought and work has gone into the next version! Good job boys I can't wait.

I thought I'd share with you some of my thoughts on the victory conditions discussed above. These are just my thoughts and opinions so do with them what you will.

Speaking from experience it sounds like these holding of cities and assigning points to them make it quite obvious to those involved that there is going to be nothing but non stop rockem sockem war. If this is the flavor/atmosphere that is intended with this scenario so be it. Just make sure that in the scenario desciption it is made clear to those considering joining a MP game.

These conditions of couse are fine for SP as most people love beating up on the AI but consider warning those who are looking for a friendly build 'em up MP game that this might not be what they want.

 

[El Justo]

Hi guys!

Looks like a lot of thought and work has gone into the next version! Good job boys I can't wait.

I thought I'd share with you some of my thoughts on the victory conditions discussed above. These are just my thoughts and opinions so do with them what you will.

Speaking from experience it sounds like these holding of cities and assigning points to them make it quite obvious to those involved that there is going to be nothing but non stop rockem sockem war. If this is the flavor/atmosphere that is intended with this scenario so be it. Just make sure that in the scenario desciption it is made clear to those considering joining a MP game.

These conditions of couse are fine for SP as most people love beating up on the AI but consider warning those who are looking for a friendly build 'em up MP game that this might not be what they want.

heh - sounds like post traumatic stress syndrome has begun to sink in

kidder - seriously though - you raise a valid point about the warmongering nature of the beast. and honestly, i want to try and avoid that aspect if i can at all help it. and the great news is that w/ lots and lots of open slots available for additional city imp's and wonders, we can build upon the 'empire building' aspect of the mod much like we did w/ AoI which imo is a perfect balance between empire management and warmongering. so what i hope to do is to re-investigate the city imps and wonders (ie add to them) for the express purpose of adding additional layers to the 'empire' aspect.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Sounds good El Justo!

Now I'm for all out war as much as the next guy but this beautiful scenario deserves so much more than just war.

In the current version that I'm playing in SP (1.51 I believe) I find the experience to be that perfect balance you mention. Not as balanced as AoI but pretty close.

I've played as China and Israel so far, each radically different countries. With China there is just enough war to keep you happy and with Israel war is the only option to expand your empire. The variety is definately pleasing and is quite an accomplishement for a scenario this size.

Take SOE. That scenario is meant to be nothing but war yet they still managed to have some building aspect to it. TCW gives players a better choice if depending on what they want. As a side note anyone know when the next version of SOE is due out. It seems the website is down, at least for me, so I haven't heard a peep out of reconn et al.

 

[El Justo]

SOE is in an alpha phase right now i think. there's lots of stuff that needs to be hashed over before it's ready. but progress on it is being made

and thanks for the nice words bud. i'm hoping that the next TCW version will be 'wicked hahd core' but i especially appreciate constructive commentary from the long time guys like yourself

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

'wicked hahd core'

Thanks bud you have my support especially since you speak my language!

 

[man o' war]

I'm not sure if anyone has any ideas about how this would be possable, but I wish that forteresses were far more useful in civ games. From my concise but comprehensive historical knowledge, military fortifications have played a major role in conflict untill very recently. I haven't used the civ3 engine extensively in a while, but is it possable to improve stats of certain improvments? Giving airbases AA ability, or improving fort's statistics would be cool, as long as it was kept reasonable.

 

[Anthropoid]

. . . i propose, at least for the MP game, to introduce a format similar to the one i implemented into AoI and that is the 'raw material' units (ie the 'flag units'). by all this i mean that i would at least like to investigate the viability of introducing a system which awards points for returning certain unbuilable and spawned units back to one's capital. now, the TCW format for this would most likely be predicated around natural resources like uranium, oil, aluminum, plutonium maybe, uranium, steel, titanium, etc, etc. the kicker would be that these 'flag units' would need to be shipped back to one's capital (think of the stock c3c scenario The Middle Ages) in order to receive either gold or VPs for safely returning the little buggers. this system has been a tremendous success imo for the new AoI. so what i'm thinking is to try and translate this into TCW (at least the MP file) and see if it's able to be done or not.

I think this is a terrific idea and strongly encourage it. Just to clarify: this would require that various tribes own a scarce number of cities at various remote spots (specifically overseas) which auto-produce flag units. One potential constraint here is: are there enough cities, and where do you put them? Suppose US gets 2 of these overseas trade cities, where do you put them to appropriately simulate overseas US trade? If US gets 2 does that mean UK gets 3 or 4? What about China, do they get ANY?

The other thing is, much like the actual number of victory points, amount of Pop increase, gp held, etc., necessary for the various victory conditions, there would necessarily be quite a bit of playtest work to pin down how many of these each tribe should have, where to put them, how frequently they should generate and what gp value they should render. The key principle being: they should not necessarily just be "gravy" that provides excess gp, but perhaps even be "necessary" to allow economies to flourish?

In any event, whether they are simply bonus economy or critical, they give a reason for navies besides protecting troop transports.

 

[I_batman]

The other thing is, much like the actual number of victory points, amount of Pop increase, gp held, etc., necessary for the various victory conditions, there would necessarily be quite a bit of playtest work to pin down how many of these each tribe should have, where to put them, how frequently they should generate and what gp value they should render. The key principle being: they should not necessarily just be "gravy" that provides excess gp, but perhaps even be "necessary" to allow economies to flourish?

In any event, whether they are simply bonus economy or critical, they give a reason for navies besides protecting troop transports.

OK, I started a loing email below about how much I love this idea for a MP game, but once I got deep into it, I just could not see how it was workable.
I gave up halfway through item #4, because I don't think it is workable, unless one of three things happens:
i. There are territories of the map that are not under any civ's flag, and house rules state civ's can only build improvements or cities to mine the treasure.
ii. The editor allows one civ to build an improvement on another civ's territory to mine the treasure, wich I don't think it does
iii. We create a 9th civ, and AI civ, that owns the majority of the treasure points, and the other 8 civ's fight for control of this territory.

Original thoughts:

I too like the idea of putting in the treasure concept as per the original CFC scenario and AoI.
I would like to see it added to the MP, and I think it should be "necessary" rather than "gravy".
Because as Man'o'War, El Justo, and Moff have quite accurately stated, this game should be about more than war. (Much as I love it). Managing a successful economy should be a vicory condition as well, as Anthropoid suggested.
Plus, if everyone is trying to run an a tighter economy, war becomes much more expensive proposition, and less likely to happen.

Now, how to make that happen??

1. First thing I believe would be to increase gold maintenance costs of units, some of the major city modifications, and some of the wonders. (one of my original 11 concepts floated for discussion)
Maintaining the infrastructure of a successful civilization and standing army has always been expensive.
And I think there is too much money floating around in the huge biq game. I am playing WP in 1980, and am cranking out 7700 GP surplus/turn, while having an military of over 400 units, and just about every city modification possible. If we increase maintenance costs, suddenly that surplus disappears.

2. All civ's go to gold-rush only to rush a unit, so all on level playing field when it comes to running their economy.

3. As per 1.6 SP, trade is allowed by land and sea, and late in the game, by air (one wonder). We might want to increase the benefits of trade on the population so trade is more valued.

4. The really tricky part: allocating treasure spots around the world to the stimulate movement of these treasure points.
I am not sure what is the best way to handle this. Questions/problems:

a. We can't have any one civ with an overabundance of spots within its borders, otherwise they can have a huge economic advantage.
b. UK, SEATO are at a disadvantage since they are so spread out, and require more sea based travel than Indo-China, WP, EU.
c. Quantity and type of resources that will allow for treasure to be produced. El Justo touched on it, and I think we keep it really simple. Just one resource: OIL, baby. It will be easier to manage that way.
But now we have problems how that resource is distributed on the map.

(and this is where I gave up, because I see a huge whack of problems within Civ III. And most of these problems can be worked around in Civ IV, arrgghhh)

 

[El Justo]

I'm not sure if anyone has any ideas about how this would be possable, but I wish that forteresses were far more useful in civ games. From my concise but comprehensive historical knowledge, military fortifications have played a major role in conflict untill very recently. I haven't used the civ3 engine extensively in a while, but is it possable to improve stats of certain improvments? Giving airbases AA ability, or improving fort's statistics would be cool, as long as it was kept reasonable.

hi man o' war

yes, you're right on all accounts. unfortunately, the airbases can not be granted an AA bonus. to be honest, the AI doesn't even really use them properly as it is (simply to use as a base for air ops, etc). however, the fortifications can be altered and iirc, i bumped up these defensive bonuses a smidge for TCW. again though, the AI doesn't use these well either (nor will the AI ever build them - ever).

 

[I_batman]

OK Guys: had some time today (just a lull before the storm work-wise).

I pulled some numbers on tonnage from various ships a few weeks ago, and shared with Klyden and El Justo.
I figured I would put this out there, and you guys could start battling on the concepts.

First off, I am defintely one who agrees with some kind of strict mathematical relationship between tonnage and HP.
Sorry Anthropoid, unless you are taking on a small ship, no lucky shot will sink one ship. Now, two good attacks by decent planes could sink an awful lot of ships still.

Now I think the "survivability" of a ship can be altered then using its offence value, defence value, AA value, sonar, radar, and missile carrying capacity.
By tweaking those values you can make a 10,000 ton Tico capable of pasting a 44,000 ton Kiev, but I don't think would be accurate.
But I think we need a common baseline for HP for ALL ships to follow.
I really think my modified logarithmic scale works.

Here it is again, posted a few weeks ago:

Tonnage/HP
2,000 = 2
4,000 = 4
8,000 = 6
16,000 = 8
32,000 = 10
64,000 = 12
128,000 = 14

So here is what I see for a good chunk of the US and WP ships. I am not fussy on whether they are for regular or veteran ships, but I just think a common standard should be applied.

U.S. :

Perry, 4100 tons, 4 HP
Knox, 4200, 4HP
Arleigh Burke, 8300-9200, 6HP
Adams, 4500, 4HP
Spruance, 9100, 6HP
Ticonderoga, 9957, 7HP
Iowa, 57,000, 12 HP
Skipjack, 3513, 4HP
Sturgeon, 4780-4960, 4HP
Los Angeles, 6927, 5HP
Nautilus, 4092, 4HP
Gato, 2400, 2HP
GW, 6800, 5HP
Ohio, 18,750, 8HP
Essex, 41,200, 11HP
Midway, 62,000, 12HP
Forrestal, 76,000-79,000, 12HP
Nimitz 97,000, 13 HP
Tarawa, 39,925, 10 HP

WP (which incidentally, built bigger ships, usually)

Moskva, 14,600-19,2000, 8HP
Kara, 8800-9700, 6HP
Sverdlov, 16,300-18,000, 8HP
Kotlin, 3500, 4HP
Kiev, 43000-45,000, 11HP (I think this might be the tougest WP ship, with its AA, anti-shipcruise missile, and VSTOL jets, and ASW helo capability)
Kydna 5500, 5HP
Kresta II, 7500-7600, 6HP
Kirov, 25,000, 9HP
Slava, 11,200-12,500, 7HP
Akula 7900-9500, 6HP
Oscar, 15,500-22,500, 8HP
Whisky, 1350, 2HP
Victor, 6000, 5 HP
Kashin, 4950, 4HP
Typhoon, 38,000, 10 HP (big sucker, eh?)
Charlie II, 5000-5400, 4HP
Udaloy, 8400, 6HP
Kilden, 3450, 4 HP

 

[El Justo]

I think this is a terrific idea and strongly encourage it. Just to clarify: this would require that various tribes own a scarce number of cities at various remote spots (specifically overseas) which auto-produce flag units. One potential constraint here is: are there enough cities, and where do you put them? Suppose US gets 2 of these overseas trade cities, where do you put them to appropriately simulate overseas US trade? If US gets 2 does that mean UK gets 3 or 4? What about China, do they get ANY?

The other thing is, much like the actual number of victory points, amount of Pop increase, gp held, etc., necessary for the various victory conditions, there would necessarily be quite a bit of playtest work to pin down how many of these each tribe should have, where to put them, how frequently they should generate and what gp value they should render. The key principle being: they should not necessarily just be "gravy" that provides excess gp, but perhaps even be "necessary" to allow economies to flourish?

In any event, whether they are simply bonus economy or critical, they give a reason for navies besides protecting troop transports.

yes 'Poid. that is the general gist of it all. ideally, one would have to ship these goods back home in order to receive the bonuses. the units are indeed autoproduced. however, for TCW, there are some quandries that we may run into if we are to implement a system which is even remotely close to the one we used for AoI.

let me clarify exactly what we've done for the new Age of Imperialism (AoI) mod:

there is one class only of the flag units and it is autoproduced by a pre-placed city improvement called a "Colonial Govt Building". now, this city imp is only available to the civs which historically operated a genuine colonial empire (ie Great Britian, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, the US, Italy, the Dutch, and the Belgians) and are only able to be built abroad (the 'no sea/air trade enables an 'isolation' of a resource's destination). so imagine these buildings pre-placed all throughout Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, Indonesia, the P.I., spots in the Caribbean, etc, etc. so they spawn these flag units which are called "raw materials from the colonies" every 13 turns. what happens next is that these units are loaded onto a TR and shipped back to one's capital (where the lone VP spot is for all civs). the 'raw materials' then need to be 'secured' by another ground unit and then they're sent back to the aforementioend VP and cashed in for 25 gold and 2 VPs/unit. 1 VP is awarded for the occupation of the VP tile/turn.

there's a set limit to the victory conditions also. iirc, it is somewhere int he neighborhood of 4000 VPs needed for victory. it's alot. i know. but the scenario (more like a mod really) is set to run for roughly 500 turns.

anyhow - the AI's response to all of this hokey-pokey stuff is off the charts. not only does the AI 'secure' and load these little guys (cool gfx for them too) and ship them back to their respective capital but you should see the stunning array of ships on the high seas. it is absolutely astounding the first couple of times you see it. each civ has dozens upon dozens of ships on the water and all kinds of different classes of them. anyhow - the bottom line is that the AI puts a heavy emphasis on guarding its convoys thus making for a very interesting and exciting naval aspect. and this almost has to be attributed to the fact that the safe passage of these 'raw materials' is a high priority.

note though that there is one pretty big caveat involved w/ this...and it is the prohibition of locked alliances. by this i mean that the whole format will not work (trust me - i tested in out the wazoo) if any 2 or more civs who are in this little 'rat race' (spawning the flag units and shipping them back home) are alligned w/ one another. for example, i originally had the Lowlands civ alligned w/ Great Britain during really early phases of AoI testing and the Dutch and Belgian overseas units were doing a nice job of 'securing' the goods and even shipping them back towards Europe. however, for some crazy reason, the Lowlands TRs would drop off their flag units in England and just leave them there. so - i removed all of the allainces and voila! it worked like a charm and it inserted a whole new strategy into the game: the 'watch your ass-neck' strategy.

i write about all of this simply to shed light on my points of reference wrt possible TCW dynamics and the process of implementing these flag units for VPs. and it's clear that this theory would work only really for the MP game and not the SP one. i mean, sure, it could work in the SP mode but there's the chance of the non-historical confrontations. i guess it's up to the tastes of the player but this is not something that is all that appealing to me in SP mode. an all human endeavor is much, much more enticing though.

as for you additional suggestions re population pts, gold, etc. definitely - there's a few things that can be awarded like wodners being built, culture values, city counts and some others. this would of course require a great deal of testing. but that is nothing that would stop me from at least trying it. hell, it took just about a full year to come up w/ v1.6 of TCW.

as for possible flag spawing locations for TCW - i don't know off the top of my head. there's some easy ones like the oil in the ME, uranium in Africa, oil in TX and Canada. but it is not as cut and dried like AoI (ie only the colonial locales). this would have to be investigated some i guess and depend mainly on which resources would enable which flag spawning city imps/wonders. iow, TCW would have multiple flag units whereas AoI has just the one ('raw materials fromt he colonies'). this can be done though...w/ a little creativity i reckon

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

I think your numbers are valid I_batman

How do we translate tonnage into shield costs?

 

[I_batman]

I write about all of this simply to shed light on my points of reference wrt possible TCW dynamics and the process of implementing these flag units for VPs. and it's clear that this theory would work only really for the MP game and not the SP one. i mean, sure, it could work in the SP mode but there's the chance of the non-historical confrontations. i guess it's up to the tastes of the player but this is not something that is all that appealing to me in SP mode. an all human endeavor is much, much more enticing though.

Well, El Justo, you and I agree on 95% of all concepts, but not this one.
As per my previous post, I don't think the dynamics of TCW will allow this in MP, unless there is a 9th AI nation that holds most of the treasure which the other 8 humans pick apart.

It is just too complicated for the Civ III engine and rules to allow.

Consider the Middle East and oil. The Brits, French, USSR, and U.S. have been exploiting the region for the past 60 years.
Pretty much each nation has changed alliances more than once. At various points in time, Iran, Iraq, and Syria were essentially vassal states of the UK, US, USSR, or had a democratically elected government. The CIV III engine does not allow for the kind of partisan flexibility that the real world requires over a 30 year period.

You know the Civ III engine ten times better than I do, but I simply cannot see how there can be an balance in the 8 civ MP biq using treasure points for gold, much as I would love it.

 

[Klyden]

Numbers are a good start point I Batman, but I would treat subs differently. They may weigh that much, but subs have little reserve buoancy compared to surface ships, so I think that is a major difference between the two. I would consider at least a -1 if not a -2 penalty if you are a sub.

The other fly in the ointment is you have two ships with the same identical hull and same engineering plant with different values (Ticonderoga and Spruance). The reason the Tico weighs in more is it has a lot more equipment on board than a Spruance does in terms of weapons systems, but the hull is the same.