The Cold War Deluxe; 1950-1991

well - it's come to my attention that it appears an expansion or 4th release of civ3 is in the works. i find this astonishing actually - and it appears that they're including user/fan-made stuff in it. this is all i know at this point - and i found it here on these forums...
 
El Justo said:
well - it's come to my attention that it appears an expansion or 4th release of civ3 is in the works. i find this astonishing actually - and it appears that they're including user/fan-made stuff in it. this is all i know at this point - and i found it here on these forums...
Click to expand...

El Justo,

Sounds to good to be true.
Are you sure?

Rocoteh
 
El Justo and Rocoteh, my both favourite scenario-makers :)

It can be found here:

Pinktilapia, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, page 146, post 2920.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=111682&page=146

and Drift: Master of Myrror Fantasy Mod 2.0, page 77, post 1539:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=79607&page=77

These vague reports in my eyes don´t state that it really comes, but they state, that it is at least considered by Take Two. And we should do all to encourage them, that it comes.

And please take into account, that there are still interesting features in the hacked civ3-editor (charm-attack and teleport), that we haven´t seen yet in the still existing releases. ;)
 
I hope this is true, however, if this expansion comes out, I hope it is more than some additional units and scenarios. The Civ3 C&C community has proven itself just as, if not more capable than the artists for Civ3 and it's current expansions. So we don't necessarily need more units and canned scenarios, what we need is a more powerful editor !

Just in case one, or even some of the people who may be involved with the possible furture Civ3 expansion are reading these forums, I want to post some features I feel the current Civ3 edito needs.

-Blitz limit: This would be a user adjusted number on how many times a unit with the blitz flag may attack per turn.

-Sea and Land Bombardment options: Right now we have lethal sea and lethal land bombardment. What we need in addition are flags that allow a unit to be able to bombard sea or land or both. A good example for this use is non missile carrying submarines. This would limit their bombardment (which can represent a torpedo attack) to sea units only.

-Unit Type Cap: This would set an all time cap on how many of a certain type of unit may be produced over the period of the game. This is not where you are allowed four of X type units, where you lose one, and you can build another one to bring your total back to four. No, this would be where you can only build x amount of a type of unit total. A good example is right in TCW with the Iowa class battleships. Only four where built, but to keep it historically accurate at four, and to allow them to be upgraded, they have to not only be preplaced, but also be flagged as king units and be unbuildable.

-Possible unit versus unit capabilites: This would be somewhat like Civ4 unit bonuses, but not exactly. I'm thinking where you would want destroyers to be able to attack subs, but heavy cruisers and battleships couldn't. This could possibly be a flag option, or better yet, similar to the stealth attack list. You would choose from a list of what units, the current unit could or couldn't attack.

-Adjustable LOS. This would be handy for recon units.

Sorry to stray off topic here El Justo, but as I said, if any of the people who may develop this new expansion ever come to these forums, I want to voice what I feel the editor needs. TCW has brought out this defficiencies in the Civ3 editor.
 
[/B]excellent comments vingrjoe :thumbsup: and by all means - it is certainly not straying. this is potentialy fantastic news and leaves one to wonder (to say the least!).

in addition to what you've posted:

"shut off razing" flag: oh man - how this would make my job so much easier!

'smart' AI arty usage: imagine if the AI rolled up on 'ya w/ a SOD loaded w/ arty pieces?!

"nuclear differentiation": by this i mean that i would like to see a scaled range of sort wrt to the effects of a nuclear bomb. i mean, the "Fat Man" over Nagasaki was much less powerful (by a huge margian really) than say a "Peacekeeper" ICBM.

a "shut off pollution" flag: again, this'd probably give me a few less headaches.

ability to allocate a specific movement rate for rails: ie - none of the 'insta-move' aspects of the existing rails. sure you could leave it in there (sort of like the 'infinite bombard' flag for air units). but to be able to eliminate that 'insta-move' aspect would be a good start.

additional culture groups: duh!

enhanced 'alliance-war' settings: say, for example, i want to flag one nation as 'never declare war against country x' but not be in a 'locked alliance'. more allowable alliances through the editor would be nice also.

more differentiations in terrain tile bonus-maluses: say i want to flag LM Mountains as impassable but allow for the standard Mountain to be traversable.

there's probably dozens more stuff i could think of - and i know a few of you guys would be able to rattle off a buch as well. all food for thought :D
 
Hey what about doing smth so we can use Amphiby units the right way as well.

Love to beable to use a Tarawa the right way. Or amphi tanks as well.

OH and a diff for planes as in bombing. Like dive, bomber, torpedo.

But all of these are wishes we'll never see.
 
Back to naval warfare briefly; Surely the idea of missiles for subs would only work for the USA and the Soviets? Does any other country have the industrial infrastructure to build up a complete fleet, armed properly while still building all other units and upgrades?

De Begerac

ps: Congrats on the news. :)
 
De Begerac,

I have been thinking about ideas that are related to the issue you bring up. I think third world countries should get frigates or coastal ships like they do in real life. Alot of those ships carry Soviet designed ASMs. The ships and boats could have either a high bombard power, with low ROF-to represent the small amount of missiles carried. Or, the ships and boats could carry seperate ASM as I_batman has suggested. Also, coastal missile batteries come to mind, but they could be used for land attack as well since there is no specific land/sea bombard option.

If one were to employ I_batman's ides, I feel one missile should represent two to four missiles, ie: a bombard ROF of two to four.
 
I have surfed the Take-Two website, and 5 minutes ago emailed what I think is the most appropriate address.

I asked if there was any truth to these rumours.
I don't expect a response either way, but we shall see.
 
vingrjoe said:
De Begerac,

I have been thinking about ideas that are related to the issue you bring up. I think third world countries should get frigates or coastal ships like they do in real life. Alot of those ships carry Soviet designed ASMs. The ships and boats could have either a high bombard power, with low ROF-to represent the small amount of missiles carried. Or, the ships and boats could carry seperate ASM as I_batman has suggested. Also, coastal missile batteries come to mind, but they could be used for land attack as well since there is no specific land/sea bombard option.

If one were to employ I_batman's ides, I feel one missile should represent two to four missiles, ie: a bombard ROF of two to four.
Click to expand...

I will post what I have done by the end of the weekend.
I am going to focus first on the Soviet and US fleets.
However, the UK fleet clearly has modern missile capabilities, as do I am sure most any navy after 1970.

So my work is two-fold:

1. Continue rebuilding the huge map I started many months ago.
When I say rebuild, I mean replace huge chunks of cities and civ's that disappeared when I took previous work Kylden and El Just had done, and altered the order of the turns of the 8 civ's.

I wanted to set the game order up so WP does not get hammered by successive NATO members without possible intervention from a WP ally.

The order should be Commonwealth, WP, US, Indo-China, EU, ME/Africa, SEATO, Latin America. (or the reverse)

2. Build a small scale ocean map, say 50 x 50, that would have US and Soviet fleets circa 1965/1970 face off, with my concepts implemented.

Then I can send this small scale biq off to people, who can examine it and see what they think about the results.
 
A few ideas and some information:

Possible Wonders:
A.)Additional boosts to Soviet fleet, as mentioned before, with an attempt to simulate the strategic value of the Kola Peninsula area and add to the capabilities of the Northern Fleet; works best on the big map, although multiple wonders could be inserted into Murmansk and Archangel even on the little map. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/map-rus-north1.htm


Polyarny Base/Shipyard Number 10: Autoproduces nuclear subs
Northern Fleet Base, Severomorsk: Autoproduces DDs, CLs and CGs
Severodvinsk: Autoproduces SSNs
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/severodvinsk.htm
Voyska PVO/PVO Strany HQ: Autoproduces interceptors to balance out USAF and RAF bombers. Several nodes positioned, allowing a lead in time before big growth over the 1950s.
Komsomolsk-on-Amur: Autoproduces SSNs for Pacific Fleet.
Sevastopol: Black Sea Fleet. Autoproduces CL/CG and DD/DDG. Odessa and Rostov to complement this.
Nikolayev/61 Communards Shipyard: Builds big ships. BBs, and later CVs and perhaps Kirov CBGNs. A bit inland, but not of importance in terms of placement of a square or so.
Kronstadt Naval Base: Autoproduces DDG, Sverdlovs, etc.
Kaliningrad, Riga, Talinn et al provide extra Baltic production.
Baltic Works, Leningrad: Builds big ships - Stalingrads, modernized Kronstadts or even Sovyetskij Soyuz BBs
Possibility of Soviet bases outside of choke points, with an encouragement to maintain and use them. This can include making use of the Soviet-Arab alliance to simulate a Mediterranean Eskadra, as well as other places (Guinea, Konakry, the Horn of Africa). This is a bit difficult for a 1950 beginning, but they can be little places to begin with, and only later permit building of unit producing wonders.

Here's a little nice reading: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/soviets_giants.html

Mutual Defense Assistance Program: Buildable by some NATO and Western allies, this gives a boost, as well as creating some surplus DDs, SSs and CLs. [A more hearty version could simulate distribution of some old USN Standard BBs to the South American powers... (maniacal laughter echoes through the halls) ]

FRAM: Allows construction/modernization of some old DDs. Not sure if this is workable, but the notion is worth rendering in some fashion. This would give a purpose to the Fletchers, and a point to including Gearings and Allen M. Sumners; all three classes fill 9 pages of 68-89 Janes!

A challenge is to make sure that the USN has more than simply battleships and carriers. We do not face a block obsolescence problem of the 1960s in the game ;)

US Shipyards can autoproduce SSNs, DDGs, CGs, DLGs. Only some can do DLGNs and later CGNs. I advocate the inclusion of DLs, DLGs and DLGNs under their pre 1975 labelling, so that a fleet can have a big mixture of WW2 modernized cruisers, true cruisers, frigates and later guided missile cruisers.

This does rest on the units in question being created prior to any inclusion. I know of CGN-36 USS Californias, CGN-38 USS Virginias and the included DLG-16 Leahys. Albany CG conversions have been mentioned previously.

The 9 strong Bellknap class are similar to the Leahys, with the difference being the 5 inch gun aft, and extra Terrier capacity plus a helo deck. Truxtun is a nuclear half sister, but not possessed of an inordinate cosmetic difference in my experience.
Bainbridge, DLGN-25, could merit a go, and is also similar to the Leahys, but without the need for tall mack.
CGN-9 Long Beach was a one off, but needn't be that way in TCW, and should have a big capability.
The 10 Farragut DLGs (later badged as DDGs) and the 4 Mitscher class DLs they are derived from are an interesting bunch.
DL/CLK-1 Norfolk presents some limited potential as an early ASW platform.

Garcia DEs and Brooke DEGs?

It has been mentioned that there is a Kitty Hawk possibly on the horizon. This is a cause of joy. Are there Enterprise models out there?

The current game allows somewhat of a simulation of the division of the Essex class - Oriskany CVAs, Essex CVSs.

Allow DDG modernization for all Forrest Shermans, not just the lucky four.

Allow conversions of CAs to CAGs, CLs to CLGs, CBs to CBGs, and even have an intermediate 1960s Iowa BBG. (maniacal laughter once more peals)

SLEP for older carriers and NTU for DLG/DLGN/CG/CGN in 1980s.

Some early British SSNs.

Other naval thoughts: Give the French a couple more bases scattered about the world; Djibouti, Martinique, maybe something in the blue Pacific.

'All we are saying is give Japan a chance!' - a potential for more vigorous JMSDF reconstruction to match a newly rampant Soviet Union. It is too much to dream for a reordered Super Yamato, but give them a bit more crunch than some cast off destroyers until the modern age.
'Think of all the hate there is in Red China...' - In @, Mao of course kept all back with his great leaps forward in between virgin bedding. This leaves the ChiComms at a disadvantage. Does the Sino-Soviet split have to happen in TCW in the same way? An option is to give Red China the potential to 'build' (simulate receiving) decent surface vessels and subs prior to their historic move that way in the 1980s and 1990s.

Random: Casablanca!

Active and Reserve USN Fleets as of 25th July 1950 (outbreak of Korea):

fleet carriers (CV/CVB)
active: 8
reserve: 20

light carriers (CVL)
active: 4
reserve: 5

escort carriers (CVE)
active: 4
reserve: 62

battleships (BB)
active: 1 (Missouri)
reserve: 14 (3 Iowas, 4 South Dakotas, 2 North Carolinas, 2 Tennesses, 3 Colorados. All inactivated 1947.
New Mexicos*, Pennsylvanias, Nevadas all scrapped or sunk in 1947/1948.
*USS Mississippi converted to weapons testing vessel - a very interesting unit concept.
5 oldest all scrapped in 1959.
Washington scrapped 1961, mainly because she was stricken on east coast, and tow not affordable.
South Dakota and Indiana stricken and scrapped in 1962

cruisers (CB/CA/CL/CLAA)
active: 15
reserve: 64

destroyers (DD/DDE)
active: 142
reserve: 211
 
Interesting stuff Simon.

I think that the bulk of what you are suggesting would go in TCW 2.0, where there is human-AI competition.

I believe that for a human vs human game, we maintain the status quo on auto-produced units.
We all know a human will produce a much more efficient mix of units than any AI.

As for upgrading the arsenal of the units, I am hoping to post by tonight a small biq that gives some idea of what I would like to see in naval combat.

Just don't hold your breath on that one yet. :)
 
There will always be a difference between those who wish this game to be true to history and those who like to be able to take a starting point and then run history as they see fit. The above issues raised as to what country has what type of units available is a good example.

As a possible solution, and I appreciate the workload I'm suggesting, why not create a series of small wonders which offer a player more possibilities if they choose to build them. Let me elaborate.

Lets say I'm playing as North Africa, an unenviable starting country out of the selection if ever there was one. Historically not known for it's industrial might, adherence to human rights conditions or military quality. However lets say as a ruler I wish to be benevolent and improve human rights conditions. So we have a small wonder entitled 'Equal Rights' as an example. To simulate the effort and time and resources it would take the ruler to bring about such a radical change give it a high build cost however to demonstrate the fresh standards of living and the improvements it would bring give them a suitable ingame bonus, whether increased science, happiness and money outputs or whatever.

Now lets also say that as the ruler of that country you realise what an important aspect it is to build a strong airforce. Again of course, because it is not a country known for it's innovative military products create a small wonder entitled 'Jet Interceptors' or some such. Again to simulate the amount of resources and time it would take for such a radical shift in the aims and goals of the country from the norm give it a high build cost but of course as a bonus when it's finally created North Africa gets a reasonable Air interceptor built every x turns.
Of course if you want your scenario to be true to history you dont have to build them.

This might also be a way of getting around the issue of what countries get access to missiles and special munitions. Take the USA, UK, the Soviets and any country which has an appropriatly advanced navy. Then create a small wonder called 'Missile Plant' or whatever which churns out missiles every x turns. This would mean the countries could go on advancing as normal and you could still expand the naval combat aspect by adding in missile boats and such like without it being at the expense of the rest of the gameplay. It would also add a more strategic level to the game in the form of trying to locate your opponents industrial cities housing such plants and taking them out to turn the tide of the war.

Just a thought.

De Begerac
 
Simon: I like. I had thought about suggesting a USS Kitty Hawk, since we consider the Oriskany to be it's own class in TCW (it really being a long-beam Essex).
I think the notion of auto-produced Red ships on the level you suggest is truly scary, I wouldn't know what to do. I can say, though, that Yavuz Sultan Selim won't be blockading the Bosporus in 2.0! It does that in all my games.

You said "give the Fletchers a purpose: but they do have one. They upgrade to Charles F Addams and then Ticonderogas.

On the note of Ticonderogas, is there a possibility of a Ticonderoga class CV? Even if it's a start-off0only unit, like the Baltimore CAs are.

I would love North Carolina class BB, I think I remembered this while on the road one day, along with the Kitty Hawk (you can see the connection), and naturally forgot, seeing as I was driving and all.

French bases in, say Martinique, Madagascar, and French Polynesia, combined with the possibility of Clemenceau and CVN Charles De Gaulle and Lorraine could make the French very very fun to play as.

Off the top of my head, what about a B-47 Stratojet, or a B-66 Destroyer? Seeing as neither was a real long range bomber (at least not on the level of the B-52 or B-36, the big ones that would be aroud at that time in the game), we ought to be able to build them, and not have them autoproduced. Throughout the 1950s, the only effective bombers you get are the B-36 and B-52, of which you have probably 5. The A-4 is the next thing after that, and they have 12 bombard. You have to wait until the A-6 Intruder in the next era before Air to Surface combat becomes reasonable.
Another possibility would be the PBY Catalina. We'd obviously have to make it carrier-based, and since the first aircraft you get that has a recon mission is the U-2, it would fill in that air intel gap that we have for the first 50 turns or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lionic
[SCENARIO] The Cold War (TCW) Unofficial update by Lionic
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
8K
Lionic
Lionic
Hatul_Gadol
[C3C] Game of Thrones
Replies
19
Views
954
RedMaul
R
Finwickle
How to make sure your save-affecting mods name still shows on saves when the mod is not installed.
Replies
2
Views
230
LilBudyWizer
LilBudyWizer
H
VP 4.21.1 + 34UC v88 Korean Mod & Modpack
Replies
0
Views
633
HANDANI
H
kiwitt
[BTS] The Road to War - FINAL Edition [1.09]
Replies
9
Views
772
kiwitt
kiwitt
Back
Top Bottom