Moff Jerjerrod
Deity
I would never turn my back on such a fine assembly of minds and players. IMHO we've all become a sort of family. Count me in for anything. I'm all for it.
The Cold War "Nuclear Winter" PBEM
- Thread starter nivekclough
- Start date
man o' war
AKA Kristophski
I would be interested, it is hard to find such a good selection of PBEM players. As a warning, however, I may not be able to play turns as punctually from October, as I'm going to university and will have to use the library to connect to the internet, but it shouldn't be a major problem (I will have my own laptop).
von_Clausewitz
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 334
I'm up for another, if this one has ended. Sorry with the late response, I don't check the forums that frequently (usually just to post that the turn was sent, if then).
I think we (IB, MoW, Ant, me) took measures to seize victory from the beginning. I had a spy in WP, China and ME fairly early on. I wasn't successful at getting one into LA and stopped trying at some point. It was probably after the first 12 turns or so when I started sending updates to my allies about the total troop strength of the nations I had a spy with. Just based on the numbers we were able to effectively plan what we needed and with city investigations we could apply the right amount of force in the right location. In about 15 turns I had enough units in place to capture Murmansk. Murmansk was a key target as that was the only legitimate port for the Soviet atlantic fleet. Waiting for allies to be ready - mostly IB going at Cuba, allowed enough time to build up enough to attempt Berlin and the amphibious attack at Archanglesk. Berlin was a target because that was the one place that WP could launch a nuke and hit the UK. It also has historical significance during the cold war and gave some credibility to the attack - reunification of Germany (though that would have never happened in 1950's).
I didn't expect Berlin to be successful. The initial attack, yes. But for it to be held, no. I couldn't get defenders into the city the same turn as the attack and expected a wave of soviet armor to descend on it like a pack of wolves. I guess the diversion in central Asia served its purpose as I expect that took the brunt of the WP offensive capability. The second turn of the war I had enough defenders in Berlin to withstand every conventional unit the WP could send.
I lost alot of tanks outside Tallinn after capturing that city (intel showed it to be the lightest defended city that I could reach, no other reason. I couldn't get to Dresden with all the US and EU units around it.). I knew it was a risk, but again I couldn't get defenders there. If that type of attack was made by WP against Berlin the first turn of the war things may have ended up different. As it was, I had just finished getting my tanks from Murmansk to Europe plus fresh tanks from UK and Canada (BTW about 75% of my tanks were built in Canada and shipped over). I was able to catch a good majority of the WP armor outside Tallinn, though it took everything I could spare including wounded tanks inside Tallinn (recovering from capturing the city the previous turn). One of those wounded tanks spawned a Corps. If a single centurion was defeating most WP units, three of them in a Corps would be even better.
I have little doubt that had that war continued, I could have gone to Moscow in just a few turns. WP had very little armor remaining and most of it was exposed. A significant percentage of the stronger defenders were isolated and holding out in Dresden. My economy and production was able to not only replace losses, but grow. I had more tanks at the end of the war then I did to start. Another factor was that with Cuba taken care of the US was able to send the bulk of his forces to Europe enabling a two pronged approach. SEATO was also prepared to invade at Vladivostok at this point.
From that point on we could have ended the game. If the CW (not to mention the other allies) is able to out build the WP in tanks by 2 or 3 to 1, the concept of quality vs quantity is out the window. WP won't get a tank as good as the Centurion until the T-62.
We mostly just waited and watched, built up forces and moved them around. Seamus announced he was close to being able to build tanks. Then the planning started again. The ME was considered the largest threat, but China was the most convenient for everyone (except the US). There was a lot more coordination for the war with China then there was against WP.
Initially the objective in Yugoslavia was for the CW to take Split (and a port in the Med, connected to oil from Archanglesk), EU to take Sarajevo, and the US to take Budapest (oil). That open the opportunity for the US to later take a Black Sea port from WP (the sub outside WP territorial waters in the Pacific would be used to show WP breaking terms of the treaty). The US could then use its Black Sea port and the CW could use Split to better reach the ME. North Africa was at first considered an option, but abandoned as it would be ineffective in helping take pressure off Israel. I had also planned on using much of the forces that went to India to make a forced landing in the Arabian Peninsula.
Diplomatically we went to great effort to isolate WP before we went to war with them. After the success there we didn't bother with such effort against China. We knew it was leading to wars with WP and ME sooner or later anyway.
Latin America was always a wild card. We didn't have intel on them. We knew they had a navy that used well could potentially hold its own against any of us one on one (especially if we were spread to all parts of the map). As long as we could pass through Panama, there was never any 'security concerns' with LA. We also considered that with the threat of the US sitting on top of them they were not likely to offend us. There was some concern that a well planned attack by LA could see the southern US fall.
ME was bold and knows the scenario well
. The occupation of Israeli territory was an irritant for EU the whole game, particularly since little could be done about it. I was a little surprised to see the BTR-60 show up for the ME before WP (it was actually several turns later that WP got a BTR-60). Experience suggests that against the BTR-60 an aggressor needs more then a Centurion or M-48, or else about 4 tanks to one BTR-60. The bright spot in all invasion plans was the Corps of Centurions (along with US B-52s that had just started to come along); I'd take on a BTR-60 or two with that. The humanitarian mission to repair damage in the border areas was just that, there was no hidden intentions there (I could get better intel through the spy).
China was played well (Pyongyang was likely the most heavily defended city in the world when we attacked - which is why we avoided it, Hanoi was no cupcake either. Yugoslavia was better defended then the WP border.) but just had to many disadvantages to overcome (no strong armor or apcs - just T-34s and BTR-152s - in the first era, poor production and economy, lots of potential enemies that need to be defended against). We blindsided him as well. Never saw it coming, never even a hint and then WHAM the full force and furry of four strong opponents come down in succession. I know I brought everything I could spare. Again good intel gave me a good idea of what WP could do and that determined what I could leave in Germany.
An alternative to quitting - switch seats with the greater antagonist. CW<->WP US<->LA EU<->ME SEATO<->China or some other arrangement Then again we could just start a new game with improvements based on lessons learned.
I think we (IB, MoW, Ant, me) took measures to seize victory from the beginning. I had a spy in WP, China and ME fairly early on. I wasn't successful at getting one into LA and stopped trying at some point. It was probably after the first 12 turns or so when I started sending updates to my allies about the total troop strength of the nations I had a spy with. Just based on the numbers we were able to effectively plan what we needed and with city investigations we could apply the right amount of force in the right location. In about 15 turns I had enough units in place to capture Murmansk. Murmansk was a key target as that was the only legitimate port for the Soviet atlantic fleet. Waiting for allies to be ready - mostly IB going at Cuba, allowed enough time to build up enough to attempt Berlin and the amphibious attack at Archanglesk. Berlin was a target because that was the one place that WP could launch a nuke and hit the UK. It also has historical significance during the cold war and gave some credibility to the attack - reunification of Germany (though that would have never happened in 1950's).
I didn't expect Berlin to be successful. The initial attack, yes. But for it to be held, no. I couldn't get defenders into the city the same turn as the attack and expected a wave of soviet armor to descend on it like a pack of wolves. I guess the diversion in central Asia served its purpose as I expect that took the brunt of the WP offensive capability. The second turn of the war I had enough defenders in Berlin to withstand every conventional unit the WP could send.
I lost alot of tanks outside Tallinn after capturing that city (intel showed it to be the lightest defended city that I could reach, no other reason. I couldn't get to Dresden with all the US and EU units around it.). I knew it was a risk, but again I couldn't get defenders there. If that type of attack was made by WP against Berlin the first turn of the war things may have ended up different. As it was, I had just finished getting my tanks from Murmansk to Europe plus fresh tanks from UK and Canada (BTW about 75% of my tanks were built in Canada and shipped over). I was able to catch a good majority of the WP armor outside Tallinn, though it took everything I could spare including wounded tanks inside Tallinn (recovering from capturing the city the previous turn). One of those wounded tanks spawned a Corps. If a single centurion was defeating most WP units, three of them in a Corps would be even better.
I have little doubt that had that war continued, I could have gone to Moscow in just a few turns. WP had very little armor remaining and most of it was exposed. A significant percentage of the stronger defenders were isolated and holding out in Dresden. My economy and production was able to not only replace losses, but grow. I had more tanks at the end of the war then I did to start. Another factor was that with Cuba taken care of the US was able to send the bulk of his forces to Europe enabling a two pronged approach. SEATO was also prepared to invade at Vladivostok at this point.
From that point on we could have ended the game. If the CW (not to mention the other allies) is able to out build the WP in tanks by 2 or 3 to 1, the concept of quality vs quantity is out the window. WP won't get a tank as good as the Centurion until the T-62.
We mostly just waited and watched, built up forces and moved them around. Seamus announced he was close to being able to build tanks. Then the planning started again. The ME was considered the largest threat, but China was the most convenient for everyone (except the US). There was a lot more coordination for the war with China then there was against WP.
Initially the objective in Yugoslavia was for the CW to take Split (and a port in the Med, connected to oil from Archanglesk), EU to take Sarajevo, and the US to take Budapest (oil). That open the opportunity for the US to later take a Black Sea port from WP (the sub outside WP territorial waters in the Pacific would be used to show WP breaking terms of the treaty). The US could then use its Black Sea port and the CW could use Split to better reach the ME. North Africa was at first considered an option, but abandoned as it would be ineffective in helping take pressure off Israel. I had also planned on using much of the forces that went to India to make a forced landing in the Arabian Peninsula.
Diplomatically we went to great effort to isolate WP before we went to war with them. After the success there we didn't bother with such effort against China. We knew it was leading to wars with WP and ME sooner or later anyway.
Latin America was always a wild card. We didn't have intel on them. We knew they had a navy that used well could potentially hold its own against any of us one on one (especially if we were spread to all parts of the map). As long as we could pass through Panama, there was never any 'security concerns' with LA. We also considered that with the threat of the US sitting on top of them they were not likely to offend us. There was some concern that a well planned attack by LA could see the southern US fall.
ME was bold and knows the scenario well
. The occupation of Israeli territory was an irritant for EU the whole game, particularly since little could be done about it. I was a little surprised to see the BTR-60 show up for the ME before WP (it was actually several turns later that WP got a BTR-60). Experience suggests that against the BTR-60 an aggressor needs more then a Centurion or M-48, or else about 4 tanks to one BTR-60. The bright spot in all invasion plans was the Corps of Centurions (along with US B-52s that had just started to come along); I'd take on a BTR-60 or two with that. The humanitarian mission to repair damage in the border areas was just that, there was no hidden intentions there (I could get better intel through the spy).China was played well (Pyongyang was likely the most heavily defended city in the world when we attacked - which is why we avoided it, Hanoi was no cupcake either. Yugoslavia was better defended then the WP border.) but just had to many disadvantages to overcome (no strong armor or apcs - just T-34s and BTR-152s - in the first era, poor production and economy, lots of potential enemies that need to be defended against). We blindsided him as well. Never saw it coming, never even a hint and then WHAM the full force and furry of four strong opponents come down in succession. I know I brought everything I could spare. Again good intel gave me a good idea of what WP could do and that determined what I could leave in Germany.
An alternative to quitting - switch seats with the greater antagonist. CW<->WP US<->LA EU<->ME SEATO<->China or some other arrangement Then again we could just start a new game with improvements based on lessons learned.
Locus Coeruleus
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 305
Thank you for the kind words Von. Since we are likely to end this game, i will leave some comments as well. You are right. Yugoslavia was jus too isolated to keep it us. To be honest, to a certain extent, I DID see it coming, but by then it was far too late to do anything about it. My first clue was when y'all closed off the shipping lanes in the Pacific. then, right on the turn before the attack, Europe moved a whole huge stack of units near the Yugo border to cover up some workers. I knew he didn't need that much to protect the workers, and then it hit me.
From the get go I had discussions with Comrade Moff about strategizing. We both knew that, because of the locked alliance, neither of us could do it alone. It was because of a kind hearted ROP between Russia and China, that I was even able to keep Yugoslavia so well defended, because I could easily shuttle my backwards armored units across Siberia and into Yugoslavia. I thought for sure the allies would try and call us out on the ROP. Never happened though. I guess it didn't matter much in the long run. I wanted nothing more than to assist WP in their war against the evil aggressors, but there was nothing I could do at the time. I knew I would be next. We tried to enlist the help of the ME and the Latin America, but Latin America was too isolated, and their President Council too unresponsive. Middle East, boy oh boy, let me tell you, because I could not use my gold for much more than unit upgrades, let us just say that Middle East had their hands deep in China's pockets, and we did not mind.
There were discussions of a broader Sino/Russian/Arabic alliance, but again, because of technology and other deficits, there was little we could do to act on it.
In the end a well played, coordinated alliance won out.
Kudos fellas.
From the get go I had discussions with Comrade Moff about strategizing. We both knew that, because of the locked alliance, neither of us could do it alone. It was because of a kind hearted ROP between Russia and China, that I was even able to keep Yugoslavia so well defended, because I could easily shuttle my backwards armored units across Siberia and into Yugoslavia. I thought for sure the allies would try and call us out on the ROP. Never happened though. I guess it didn't matter much in the long run. I wanted nothing more than to assist WP in their war against the evil aggressors, but there was nothing I could do at the time. I knew I would be next. We tried to enlist the help of the ME and the Latin America, but Latin America was too isolated, and their President Council too unresponsive. Middle East, boy oh boy, let me tell you, because I could not use my gold for much more than unit upgrades, let us just say that Middle East had their hands deep in China's pockets, and we did not mind.
There were discussions of a broader Sino/Russian/Arabic alliance, but again, because of technology and other deficits, there was little we could do to act on it.
In the end a well played, coordinated alliance won out.
Kudos fellas.
I_batman
Emperor
VC, a very good synopsis of our strategy and tactics.
A few comments:
The U.S. I have found are definitely slowed down by having to move armour by sea. But with the WP Atlantic fleet wiped out, I really had no worries moving units. If there was still a significant WP Atlantic sub presence, I would have been very circumspect moving said units.
I ended up using a lot of land forces as shock troops to wear down cities for my allies. I had no problem with that, since this was to be an allied win, not one of individual gain.
I would suggest that under current game conditions and stats the U.S. position is not as much a threat to WP and China as they would likely be in the real world 50's. Don't get me wrong, the U.S. is still a powerhouse, and I am not suggesting any changes to alter that though, other than the generic doubling of capacity for all carriers for all civ's. Under current game stats, I don't think the U.S. projection of power via their carriers is represented.
I love the idea of reversing the positions and carrying on the game. Anthropoid's idea of limiting the existing positions, also has merit, but giving everyone a taste of the opposite civ's sound like a lot of fun.
That being said, I would also like to get a second game going with the modified biq.
If we have enough people we can get another game going by this weekend.
So am I right in thinking we have the following people interested in a new game (VC's idea also is on the table and we could do both):
I_B
Locus
Man'o'War (may be limited in the fall)
Moff
Klyden
VC
Anthropoid (maybe)
El Justo and I talked at length a couple days ago, and he knows we are starting up a new game with a tweaked biq, and it has his blessing, but we never really got around to talking about his involvement in playing. If he is too much overwhelmed with TCW 2.0 and other stuff, I think we should ask VingrJoe.
A few comments:
The U.S. I have found are definitely slowed down by having to move armour by sea. But with the WP Atlantic fleet wiped out, I really had no worries moving units. If there was still a significant WP Atlantic sub presence, I would have been very circumspect moving said units.
I ended up using a lot of land forces as shock troops to wear down cities for my allies. I had no problem with that, since this was to be an allied win, not one of individual gain.
I would suggest that under current game conditions and stats the U.S. position is not as much a threat to WP and China as they would likely be in the real world 50's. Don't get me wrong, the U.S. is still a powerhouse, and I am not suggesting any changes to alter that though, other than the generic doubling of capacity for all carriers for all civ's. Under current game stats, I don't think the U.S. projection of power via their carriers is represented.
I love the idea of reversing the positions and carrying on the game. Anthropoid's idea of limiting the existing positions, also has merit, but giving everyone a taste of the opposite civ's sound like a lot of fun.
That being said, I would also like to get a second game going with the modified biq.
If we have enough people we can get another game going by this weekend.
So am I right in thinking we have the following people interested in a new game (VC's idea also is on the table and we could do both):
I_B
Locus
Man'o'War (may be limited in the fall)
Moff
Klyden
VC
Anthropoid (maybe)
El Justo and I talked at length a couple days ago, and he knows we are starting up a new game with a tweaked biq, and it has his blessing, but we never really got around to talking about his involvement in playing. If he is too much overwhelmed with TCW 2.0 and other stuff, I think we should ask VingrJoe.
Anthropoid
Grognard fantome
Sorry, I thought I was subscribed to this and it would send me a note but it only just today sent me a notice to my email. I guess it only notifies when a new page of responses gets opened to a thread.
I'd be game, but only if there are ways to win besides military conquest. I'd like to see a PBEM setup where Latin America, Middle East, etc., are all "in the game" right from the beginning, but without them having unrealistic military power.
ADDIT: Okay, read both whole pages since my last post.
I agree the switching positions gambit has merit, as does 'testing' of nuclear armaggedon. I've never been in a Civ PBEM where nukes were used. I've done TOAWIII PBEMs where Cold War era tactical nukes were used, but that game engine is _very_ different. I'm up for whatever anyone else is up for.
All the changes and tweaks that I've heard proposed for the new biq sound good. And I'm also up for a new PBEM with pretty much the same group, using the revised .biq. However, I will be traveling quite a bit in July, and then again in mid to late August, so I will not be able to do turns at all for several weeks this summer.
The other thing that I _REALLY_ would like to get ideas going on are alternative victory conditions. Maybe I'm the only one, and if so I'll shut up about it.
I just think that for it to be a realistic (and fun) alternate history sim of the Cold War, there needs to be ways to win that do not involve taking away ANY cities, nor for that matter necessarily ever attacking anyone. It should be viable (for most players except WP) to win in some way without ever having fired a shot at all. If we can figure out a scheme to incorporate that into a new PBEM then I think we'd have struck pay dirt and would have another great match ahead of us!
ADDIT2: with respect to the synopsis of our strategy, I agree it was well summarized by Batman and VC.
The only other thing I'd comment on is this: no locked alliances. Wars between the Free World Powers should either be not allowed, or EXTREMELY costly in some way, but they should also be free to be passive-aggressive, deceptive, and uncooperative with one another. No two civs should be automatically "locked" together in a totally transparent, mutual win situation. That is ultimately the factor that was the most unbalancing of all. Take that away, and even without ANY other changes I think you got a very different game.
Add in the gold rush for all, the bigger CVs, the higher support for heavy troops, etc., and I think right there you got a very promising revised version.
Come up with some way for the weak powers to be scheming to win by the mid to late 1970s via some cunning non-militaristic ploy and there you have an even BETTER revision.
Give potential allies benefits from trading with one another and there again, you change things dramatically. For this part, I think there is too much happiness in the current version. It is too easy to keep your people stark raving mad happy. I had "Love the King Day" virtually every turn of the game after the first year or so of turns. If it would not be a problem to take away some of the happiness from certain buildings that might be worth thinking about. Making trading things a better way to get happy peeps would also be worth considering. More war weariness? Maybe that would help? However, I recognize that here, we are starting to get into some pretty substantial changes to the scenario, so maybe that is too much.
I'd be game, but only if there are ways to win besides military conquest. I'd like to see a PBEM setup where Latin America, Middle East, etc., are all "in the game" right from the beginning, but without them having unrealistic military power.
ADDIT: Okay, read both whole pages since my last post.
I agree the switching positions gambit has merit, as does 'testing' of nuclear armaggedon. I've never been in a Civ PBEM where nukes were used. I've done TOAWIII PBEMs where Cold War era tactical nukes were used, but that game engine is _very_ different. I'm up for whatever anyone else is up for.
All the changes and tweaks that I've heard proposed for the new biq sound good. And I'm also up for a new PBEM with pretty much the same group, using the revised .biq. However, I will be traveling quite a bit in July, and then again in mid to late August, so I will not be able to do turns at all for several weeks this summer.
The other thing that I _REALLY_ would like to get ideas going on are alternative victory conditions. Maybe I'm the only one, and if so I'll shut up about it.
I just think that for it to be a realistic (and fun) alternate history sim of the Cold War, there needs to be ways to win that do not involve taking away ANY cities, nor for that matter necessarily ever attacking anyone. It should be viable (for most players except WP) to win in some way without ever having fired a shot at all. If we can figure out a scheme to incorporate that into a new PBEM then I think we'd have struck pay dirt and would have another great match ahead of us!
ADDIT2: with respect to the synopsis of our strategy, I agree it was well summarized by Batman and VC.
The only other thing I'd comment on is this: no locked alliances. Wars between the Free World Powers should either be not allowed, or EXTREMELY costly in some way, but they should also be free to be passive-aggressive, deceptive, and uncooperative with one another. No two civs should be automatically "locked" together in a totally transparent, mutual win situation. That is ultimately the factor that was the most unbalancing of all. Take that away, and even without ANY other changes I think you got a very different game.
Add in the gold rush for all, the bigger CVs, the higher support for heavy troops, etc., and I think right there you got a very promising revised version.
Come up with some way for the weak powers to be scheming to win by the mid to late 1970s via some cunning non-militaristic ploy and there you have an even BETTER revision.
Give potential allies benefits from trading with one another and there again, you change things dramatically. For this part, I think there is too much happiness in the current version. It is too easy to keep your people stark raving mad happy. I had "Love the King Day" virtually every turn of the game after the first year or so of turns. If it would not be a problem to take away some of the happiness from certain buildings that might be worth thinking about. Making trading things a better way to get happy peeps would also be worth considering. More war weariness? Maybe that would help? However, I recognize that here, we are starting to get into some pretty substantial changes to the scenario, so maybe that is too much.
Locus Coeruleus
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 305
So did the Communists!
Anthropoid
Grognard fantome
Yeah, I mean: is this right? The whole point of the Cold War was it was an ideological struggle. A war for hearts and minds.
Ok guys, where are we on this? Its been a week. Lets get cracking and get the new biq out to folks and we can see about who gets what and get a new game going. I batman, you want to take the lead on this since it is your version of the Biq we are going to try?
I_batman
Emperor
Klyden, would love to, but do we have 8 players? I have done zip since my last post waiting to see of we got the 8.
As well, were we not going to switch up positions with the current game?
Anthropoid
Grognard fantome
I'll be in and out of email usage until Aug 5, so if you guys wanted to get going now, I'm not really a viable candidate as a player. I'm off to Yosemite for 10 days starting Wed, then a day or two after I get back, I'm off to Dominica until Aug 4. Shame too, cause I really would love to play Warsaw Pact.
If you really are desperate for an 8th player, what you could do is allocate me one of the positions in one of the 'blocs' (either WP-China Block; or Free World Block I suppose, but FWP is probably better), then have one of the other guys play 'Anthropoid's' position until I get back in early Aug. For example, give me UK or SEATO, and have the American player play that position for a few weeks. That might not be viable, but otherwise you'll just need to get someone in my stead.
If you really are desperate for an 8th player, what you could do is allocate me one of the positions in one of the 'blocs' (either WP-China Block; or Free World Block I suppose, but FWP is probably better), then have one of the other guys play 'Anthropoid's' position until I get back in early Aug. For example, give me UK or SEATO, and have the American player play that position for a few weeks. That might not be viable, but otherwise you'll just need to get someone in my stead.
man o' war
AKA Kristophski
If I cast my mind back a couple of years, I thinks that exactly what happened to me when we started the last game.
Locus Coeruleus
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 305
I never heard from Justo with the last sav from the game. Looks like I WONT be able to nuke SEATO afterall. But more importantly, will Justo be participating in the next game?
I will say that playing China has been fun, but I'd like to toss my hat in with another nation, either the Middle East or the Commonwealth.
I will say that playing China has been fun, but I'd like to toss my hat in with another nation, either the Middle East or the Commonwealth.
I_batman
Emperor
One of my posts last week asked the same question about El Justo. Also, at Klyden's request (kick in the butt) I have been back into the biq again today.
I looked over the changes I had made, and started making some more changes that I want to experiment with in a game. So there is a list of wide-ranging questions/comments I would like responses on. Some of these have been asked ad nauseam.
1. Last I commented on this, we had 6 or 7 players. We need at least one more, maybe 3. Can we confirm again who is in.
2. What are we going to do for individual victory conditions, military or non-military. We have to nail this down now that I have trashed all alliances in this biq. Anthropoid has given us some good ideas, but we have to hammer this out.
3. I have been making some other changes to the infrastructure costs. I am upping building costs of factories, manufacturing plants, power plants, refineries, etc. The maintenance costs of these units I am also upping. However, I am also increasing the production values and in some cases the increases to gold production. The logic of this would be that a highly industrialized nation's infrastructure costs should be much higher to attain and maintain, but the production benefits of such infrastructure should be as impressive. Hopefully, I don't screw up the balance in the game that much, plus it will give the player tougher, more interesting choices when it comes to build decisions.
I am in for another game. I would say if we can accomodate Anthro, we do so. He is a known player that we know will do turns on a timely basis once his schedule allows and I would rather have that than to get someone that plays 3 turns and drops.
von_Clausewitz
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 334
I'm in for another game.
I don't know if we need to quantify victory conditions. If we designate specific territory to be captured it can limit a players perspective on what they aim to achieve; it also provides incentive to defend those regions more heavily then the player might otherwise feel compelled (you stick a bullseye on someones back they are going to watch it that much more carefully). You also may run into the problem where a specified objective for one player is captured by another, does that lead to war with the third party? I think we need some kind of 'house victory conditions'. What is the incentive other then an acknowledgment of "a well played game"? For Latin America, a "well played game" means they weren't invaded.
Which leads to another question. Is it just me or is Latin America nearly forced into being a silent ally of the US? In the locked alliance set up, what action could Latin America take that would not lead to direct war with the US? Even without the locked alliance it would be difficult to take action without needing approval from the US. What other position is put into such a situation? It almost reduces the conflict from a 4 vs 4 set up nearly to 5 vs 3 or at least 4 vs 3 with a single bystander.
I would like to know what Klyden thinks of the position and its prospects for success, what can be done to make it better. I have some ideas as well.
1. add Cuba and Yugoslavia (possible also Indonesia?) to Latin America (with all respective units builds). It puts them into the battlefield, but it also increases the risk without increasing the reward.
2. make it a 4 vs 3 match by eliminating the LA position altogether; divide the territory between WP, China and ME - (Columbia to WP, Brazil to China, Argentina and Mexico to ME. Mexico/Central America is the tricky part as that more then the others is most likely to be overrun by the US; a possible solution would be to give Mexico to a 'friendly' such as SEATO).
3. make it 5 vs 3 (or the 4 vs 3 with a single bystander) by dividing South America the same as #2 (Columbia to WP, Brazil to China, Argentina to ME). Form fifth "ally" (or first 'neutral') from Israel, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, and India (or Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan).
I think #1 would be more of burden then it would help Latin America. I doubt we would want to go with only 7 players but if we can't fill all 8 positions #2 would be a viable option. #3 may appear unbalanced (particularly just reading the suggestion) but I wouldn't consider it any more unbalanced then the present situation regarding Latin America. The positive for all these options that it opens up the map to more potential 'hot spots' where limited regional conflicts can occur.
I don't know if we need to quantify victory conditions. If we designate specific territory to be captured it can limit a players perspective on what they aim to achieve; it also provides incentive to defend those regions more heavily then the player might otherwise feel compelled (you stick a bullseye on someones back they are going to watch it that much more carefully). You also may run into the problem where a specified objective for one player is captured by another, does that lead to war with the third party? I think we need some kind of 'house victory conditions'. What is the incentive other then an acknowledgment of "a well played game"? For Latin America, a "well played game" means they weren't invaded.
Which leads to another question. Is it just me or is Latin America nearly forced into being a silent ally of the US? In the locked alliance set up, what action could Latin America take that would not lead to direct war with the US? Even without the locked alliance it would be difficult to take action without needing approval from the US. What other position is put into such a situation? It almost reduces the conflict from a 4 vs 4 set up nearly to 5 vs 3 or at least 4 vs 3 with a single bystander.
I would like to know what Klyden thinks of the position and its prospects for success, what can be done to make it better. I have some ideas as well.
1. add Cuba and Yugoslavia (possible also Indonesia?) to Latin America (with all respective units builds). It puts them into the battlefield, but it also increases the risk without increasing the reward.
2. make it a 4 vs 3 match by eliminating the LA position altogether; divide the territory between WP, China and ME - (Columbia to WP, Brazil to China, Argentina and Mexico to ME. Mexico/Central America is the tricky part as that more then the others is most likely to be overrun by the US; a possible solution would be to give Mexico to a 'friendly' such as SEATO).
3. make it 5 vs 3 (or the 4 vs 3 with a single bystander) by dividing South America the same as #2 (Columbia to WP, Brazil to China, Argentina to ME). Form fifth "ally" (or first 'neutral') from Israel, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, and India (or Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan).
I think #1 would be more of burden then it would help Latin America. I doubt we would want to go with only 7 players but if we can't fill all 8 positions #2 would be a viable option. #3 may appear unbalanced (particularly just reading the suggestion) but I wouldn't consider it any more unbalanced then the present situation regarding Latin America. The positive for all these options that it opens up the map to more potential 'hot spots' where limited regional conflicts can occur.
In one of the newer versions (we are doing a big overhaul of TCW, but it is a long time from being ready), I split the SA position into two positions in order to give some fighting down there. I think I made each position its own, so they are certainly downgraded from the other powers involved in the game.
The issue for SA is their infantry just sucks (best defender is a 14 defensive with 5 pips) and it is simply no match against the US armor, even if they don't bother to use their air or artillery. The best artillery I had was 12 bombard, which is not going to do much against potential attackers. I start with almost no air and although I had several Sabers built, I don't think they can shoot down a full strength B52 in this scenario unless they are extremely lucky. AA is expensive to build, but I did build some. My counter attacking force was Shermans, which are hopelessly outmatched by the US armor and I don't think it will beat US infantry. I had the SA position on the verge of getting some teeth through research and I had a tidy sum saved up (nearly 70k) and infrastructure improvements were in fair shape.
In any early war with the US, the US has a huge tech lead and can easily overrun Mexico (my plan was scorched earth) with little issue. With Cuba in the WP camp, it makes it harder for him to strike the SA coast, but with Cuba in the US hands, it makes it very easy. He could have landed troops and there was nothing I could really do about it except cause him a few losses. Had he spotted where my navy was, it would have been flatten by big air and the navy was the one thing I might hurt him with only if he was foolish enough to get close enough with his surface ships, which I give I_batman more credit than that.
The question might be asked what the heck I was going to do, but the general plan was to wait about 20 turns (vastly improved tanks like the M48 and ships and air would have been available at that point and I would have been ready to crank a pile out in a big hurry) and then look at a strike against the Falkands (obviously, they are an outpost to strike against SA and must be defended against) and then gone over to visit South America with the same idea in mind. If it brought I_Batman in against me, then I would have done my best, but I was tired of the "defensive" propaganda used to attack other positions and knew the game was done long ago. With my improved air, I think his bombers would have been in for a unpleasant suprise depending on where he decided to bomb at. Certainly, M48 vs M48 or US Infantry would be a much better match up than the pathetic Shermans I had before. I would have talked to John about coordinating the attack on South Africa as I am sure he would have welcome the elimination of the threat to his back door.
In short, the SA position is a longer term position that has to be patient if they want to survive. If the US decides to hammer them, there is really nothing they can do except hope the WP makes them pay when the WP figures out that since the US is so tied up, now is as good of a time as any to get agressive in Europe. Same for China against Seato.
The issue for SA is their infantry just sucks (best defender is a 14 defensive with 5 pips) and it is simply no match against the US armor, even if they don't bother to use their air or artillery. The best artillery I had was 12 bombard, which is not going to do much against potential attackers. I start with almost no air and although I had several Sabers built, I don't think they can shoot down a full strength B52 in this scenario unless they are extremely lucky. AA is expensive to build, but I did build some. My counter attacking force was Shermans, which are hopelessly outmatched by the US armor and I don't think it will beat US infantry. I had the SA position on the verge of getting some teeth through research and I had a tidy sum saved up (nearly 70k) and infrastructure improvements were in fair shape.
In any early war with the US, the US has a huge tech lead and can easily overrun Mexico (my plan was scorched earth) with little issue. With Cuba in the WP camp, it makes it harder for him to strike the SA coast, but with Cuba in the US hands, it makes it very easy. He could have landed troops and there was nothing I could really do about it except cause him a few losses. Had he spotted where my navy was, it would have been flatten by big air and the navy was the one thing I might hurt him with only if he was foolish enough to get close enough with his surface ships, which I give I_batman more credit than that.
The question might be asked what the heck I was going to do, but the general plan was to wait about 20 turns (vastly improved tanks like the M48 and ships and air would have been available at that point and I would have been ready to crank a pile out in a big hurry) and then look at a strike against the Falkands (obviously, they are an outpost to strike against SA and must be defended against) and then gone over to visit South America with the same idea in mind. If it brought I_Batman in against me, then I would have done my best, but I was tired of the "defensive" propaganda used to attack other positions and knew the game was done long ago. With my improved air, I think his bombers would have been in for a unpleasant suprise depending on where he decided to bomb at. Certainly, M48 vs M48 or US Infantry would be a much better match up than the pathetic Shermans I had before. I would have talked to John about coordinating the attack on South Africa as I am sure he would have welcome the elimination of the threat to his back door.
In short, the SA position is a longer term position that has to be patient if they want to survive. If the US decides to hammer them, there is really nothing they can do except hope the WP makes them pay when the WP figures out that since the US is so tied up, now is as good of a time as any to get agressive in Europe. Same for China against Seato.
I_batman
Emperor
Sorry guys, this post is going to be all over the map. Please bear with me.
Well VC and Klyden, I dunno what we should do with the Latin America position, and the game overall. (Incidentally, I started testing last night with the changes I made, and they have not had as much impact as I had hoped. There is just too much money in the game.)
I don't want to make massive changes to the geography and positions by wiping out SA/CA and giving it to the other 7 positions, and it sounds like VC is not thrilled with that idea anyway.
Although Von Clausewitz sounds like he does not like the idea of individual military victory conditions, the more I think about this the more I am accepting that is the quick and dirty way to make the game interesting for all 8 positions.
Just suppose Latin America had victory conditions of either combination below:
a. Capture Cuba, hold for 10 turns.
b, Capture 5 African cities, (can be a combination of South Africa and Africa/ME or just Africa/ME), plus Falklands air base.
At the same time, no U.S. victory conditions would involve the starting Latin America cities, hence likely staving off any conflict between Latin America and U.S., unless the U.S. has an individual victory condition to capture Cuba, at which point there could be conflict.
Neither one has any historical relevance, but at least give South America some interesting goals in the game.
VC, can you expand on your concept of "house victory conditions". I know we have all been round and round on this, but we have to reach some kind of consensus. Are you talking about non-military conditions like Anthropoid has been talking about for months?
Von Clausewitz, where you and I don't agree on territory victory conditions is I think the concept of painting the bullseye is exactly what we want. Do we not want to create hotspots like Korea, Vietnam, East/West Germany, Israel/ME? If a Civ like China needs to capture all of Korea, Vietnam, and maybe Taiwan to gain an individual victory, then would we not fully expect SEATO to beef up those positions, and expect help from the U.S., maybe NATO, to protect them. Just like what happened historically.
And yes, I can see conflict arising if two civ's have victory conditions that involve conquering the same territory of a third civ. I think that would make it more interesting. The U.S. and WP have been doing that for decades in the Middle East through proxy nations. Throughout the Cold War, many of the WWIII scenarios revolved around the two superpowers actually facing off against each other in the Middle East. Did not Clancy base Red Storm Rising on that?
Well VC and Klyden, I dunno what we should do with the Latin America position, and the game overall. (Incidentally, I started testing last night with the changes I made, and they have not had as much impact as I had hoped. There is just too much money in the game.)
I don't want to make massive changes to the geography and positions by wiping out SA/CA and giving it to the other 7 positions, and it sounds like VC is not thrilled with that idea anyway.
Although Von Clausewitz sounds like he does not like the idea of individual military victory conditions, the more I think about this the more I am accepting that is the quick and dirty way to make the game interesting for all 8 positions.
Just suppose Latin America had victory conditions of either combination below:
a. Capture Cuba, hold for 10 turns.
b, Capture 5 African cities, (can be a combination of South Africa and Africa/ME or just Africa/ME), plus Falklands air base.
At the same time, no U.S. victory conditions would involve the starting Latin America cities, hence likely staving off any conflict between Latin America and U.S., unless the U.S. has an individual victory condition to capture Cuba, at which point there could be conflict.
Neither one has any historical relevance, but at least give South America some interesting goals in the game.
VC, can you expand on your concept of "house victory conditions". I know we have all been round and round on this, but we have to reach some kind of consensus. Are you talking about non-military conditions like Anthropoid has been talking about for months?
Von Clausewitz, where you and I don't agree on territory victory conditions is I think the concept of painting the bullseye is exactly what we want. Do we not want to create hotspots like Korea, Vietnam, East/West Germany, Israel/ME? If a Civ like China needs to capture all of Korea, Vietnam, and maybe Taiwan to gain an individual victory, then would we not fully expect SEATO to beef up those positions, and expect help from the U.S., maybe NATO, to protect them. Just like what happened historically.
And yes, I can see conflict arising if two civ's have victory conditions that involve conquering the same territory of a third civ. I think that would make it more interesting. The U.S. and WP have been doing that for decades in the Middle East through proxy nations. Throughout the Cold War, many of the WWIII scenarios revolved around the two superpowers actually facing off against each other in the Middle East. Did not Clancy base Red Storm Rising on that?
El Justo
Deity
interesting remarks all thanks for sharing and sorry for having been incommunicado there for a bit. once i saw the game end, i didn't check the thread 
i have the sav somewhere L_C - sorry for not having sent that. i'll dig through the email folders and find it 
as for my role in the longstanding MP game - which btw is the 'most viewed' civ3 conquests pbem ever - the Afr/ME position was never really in any position to pull of a 'first strike' and then be able to withstand any counter attacks. never once did i feel threatened by the ChiComs or the WP. as a matter of fact, i was lucky enough to be on the end of some generous gold donations by both; ised it primarily to boost productivity and do some 2,3,4 turn pop builds w/ units. i had hordes and hordes of infantry - dozens and dozens. eventually, i was able to build up a decent armored corps. however, i had far more apc units than tanks or anything remotely associated w/ being able to conduct sustained offensives/defensives against multiple foes.
that was pretty much the only reason i never jumped into the fray during the two main wars against WP and the ChiComs. i mean, i had enough to hold down my fort but not much else to offer outside of pressing upon Israel and threatening Turkey. but the thought of dragging EUs allies into the mix prevented any offensive attempts. i had a decent garrison in north africa and in central africa. but again, any type of combined action among 2 or more of the blue allies would've caused me soem real pains (and losses).
i never fealt threatened from south africa either. but i had a decent garrison of armor, arty, and AAA in case the bullets started flying.
my best turn i think was when i rolled out nearly my entire asian military contigent upon the borders of Israel. i had probably in the neighborhood of 50-60 units w/ arty support poised to pounce but cooler heads prevailed and my troops kept the VP tile near the Persian Gulf 
i should also probably admit that i stole several techs a while back. now, shortly after, i read someone post that this was prohibited (which i was unaware of
). nonetheless, Anthropoid's scientists were very helpful I_b and von too! 
i tried a few times on Kly and was rejected every time 
i gave some serious thoughts about trying to overrun SEATO after he and von snuck L_C
i had the manpower to run him out of Vinh but lacked the rail net into Indochina. i wanted for a 1 turn assault w/ a RoP from L_C. this never materialized b/c i'd never be able to fight a multi-front war. i'd have to concentrate my forces.
i also severely micromanaged the cities and the specialists. the SG guys taught me how to max out on all of the pop heads and it paid some handsome dividends - especially the civil eng's which allowed me to ramp up production some and build piles of infantry.
i'd have been pretty susceptible to an air attack as i had only 3 or 4 total aircraft. i spent those shields on inf and armor and AAA pieces of which i had in the area of 12-15 concentrated mostly in the Egypt/ME corridor. lots of arty and the good russian 122mm guns
i did have a modest force of submarines operating in the Red Sea and a lone Atlantic patrol. all were Whiskeys and i was set to launch a blockade of sorts on any EU atttempts to reinforce the Levant and Asia Minor.
as for the next game - i'm going to have to beg off - however, i could fill in for Anthro until he returns in August if need be. and what about vingrjoe? i know for a fact that he's love to join. Simon would probably join up, too. and there are others i might have in mind from the SG boards (best civers ever over there!)
anyhow - i sort of agree that we need to firm up some alternate victory conditions. i love some of the ideas some of you have put out there. so much so that alot of it is or will be incorporated into the new version(s) of TCW (more on that later).
I_b is fine tuning the existing MP file in order to get the next round going. so none of the large scale revisions will be incorporated into this new pbem. and I_b won't have to make large scale adjustments. however, deciding on some firm alternate victory conditions (ie. outside of the game engine) is a must. one feature that i think would be interesting would be to have a quasi United Nations where each position is like a 'permament seat' on the Council. actions and war are voted upon in the 'UN'. sactions can doled out and offending civs (as per 'Council' votes) could be forced to dole out gold/turn or some sort of combo. it'd be the 'diplomatic forum' so to speak. just a thought - i mean, it'd give everyone a voice and an alternate way to levy fines etc and possibly incorporate some sort of 'diplo rating'...
as for the long term revision - lots actually
for now, the new files span 1950-1960 only (more on why later)
first off, the new map is massive: 320-something by 320-something it is Alderick's (sp?) world map and it's the one Rocoteh used for WW2 Global. the main reason i picked this map is b/c of the sheer size of it. i mean, the oceans are huge and there's just a whole other world of possibilities on the map b/c of its size. so w/ MP, turn times shouldn't be bad at all. as a matter of fact, i'll release the file in SP mode also.
the unit lines are receiving the biggest facelift. in now are multiple variants of air units (eg. F-100A, F-100C etc etc) and boosted naval activities, especially w/ the subs. unit stats will also be adjusted some. these newly revised unit lines are the primary reason that the scenario will be limited to just the fifties. i mean, hell, getting in the other decades' worth of units
we are also incorporating the 'raw material' feature that we used for the Age of Imperialism scenario. for those not familiar w/ it, these' raw materials' are spawnded by a city imp every so many turns and you have to get a friendly unit to 'capture' the raw material unit and then head to a VP tile to 'cash in' the raw material. VPs are awarded for every safe return. this method has worked very well in AoI and it puts a really large emphasis on merchant marine shipping and protecting it.
for those that might be interested, check out the forum that i had all of you sign up at last year - it has alot of info in the new material
http://z10.invisionfree.com/SOE_forum/index.php?act=idx
a more long term goal is to port all of the new rules, civs, techs, etc into the sleek 180x180 AoI map.
thanks for sharing and sorry for having been incommunicado there for a bit. once i saw the game end, i didn't check the thread i have the sav somewhere L_C - sorry for not having sent that. i'll dig through the email folders and find it as for my role in the longstanding MP game - which btw is the 'most viewed' civ3 conquests pbem ever - the Afr/ME position was never really in any position to pull of a 'first strike' and then be able to withstand any counter attacks. never once did i feel threatened by the ChiComs or the WP. as a matter of fact, i was lucky enough to be on the end of some generous gold donations by both; ised it primarily to boost productivity and do some 2,3,4 turn pop builds w/ units. i had hordes and hordes of infantry - dozens and dozens. eventually, i was able to build up a decent armored corps. however, i had far more apc units than tanks or anything remotely associated w/ being able to conduct sustained offensives/defensives against multiple foes.
that was pretty much the only reason i never jumped into the fray during the two main wars against WP and the ChiComs. i mean, i had enough to hold down my fort but not much else to offer outside of pressing upon Israel and threatening Turkey. but the thought of dragging EUs allies into the mix prevented any offensive attempts. i had a decent garrison in north africa and in central africa. but again, any type of combined action among 2 or more of the blue allies would've caused me soem real pains (and losses).
i never fealt threatened from south africa either. but i had a decent garrison of armor, arty, and AAA in case the bullets started flying.
my best turn i think was when i rolled out nearly my entire asian military contigent upon the borders of Israel. i had probably in the neighborhood of 50-60 units w/ arty support poised to pounce
but cooler heads prevailed and my troops kept the VP tile near the Persian Gulf i should also probably admit that i stole several techs a while back. now, shortly after, i read someone post that this was prohibited (which i was unaware of
). nonetheless, Anthropoid's scientists were very helpful I_b and von too! i tried a few times on Kly and was rejected every time i gave some serious thoughts about trying to overrun SEATO after he and von snuck L_C
i had the manpower to run him out of Vinh but lacked the rail net into Indochina. i wanted for a 1 turn assault w/ a RoP from L_C. this never materialized b/c i'd never be able to fight a multi-front war. i'd have to concentrate my forces.i also severely micromanaged the cities and the specialists. the SG guys taught me how to max out on all of the pop heads and it paid some handsome dividends - especially the civil eng's which allowed me to ramp up production some and build piles of infantry.
i'd have been pretty susceptible to an air attack as i had only 3 or 4 total aircraft. i spent those shields on inf and armor and AAA pieces of which i had in the area of 12-15 concentrated mostly in the Egypt/ME corridor. lots of arty and the good russian 122mm guns
i did have a modest force of submarines operating in the Red Sea and a lone Atlantic patrol. all were Whiskeys and i was set to launch a blockade of sorts on any EU atttempts to reinforce the Levant and Asia Minor.
as for the next game - i'm going to have to beg off - however, i could fill in for Anthro until he returns in August if need be. and what about vingrjoe? i know for a fact that he's love to join. Simon would probably join up, too. and there are others i might have in mind from the SG boards (best civers ever over there!)
anyhow - i sort of agree that we need to firm up some alternate victory conditions. i love some of the ideas some of you have put out there. so much so that alot of it is or will be incorporated into the new version(s) of TCW (more on that later).
I_b is fine tuning the existing MP file in order to get the next round going. so none of the large scale revisions will be incorporated into this new pbem. and I_b won't have to make large scale adjustments. however, deciding on some firm alternate victory conditions (ie. outside of the game engine) is a must. one feature that i think would be interesting would be to have a quasi United Nations where each position is like a 'permament seat' on the Council. actions and war are voted upon in the 'UN'. sactions can doled out and offending civs (as per 'Council' votes) could be forced to dole out gold/turn or some sort of combo. it'd be the 'diplomatic forum' so to speak. just a thought - i mean, it'd give everyone a voice and an alternate way to levy fines etc and possibly incorporate some sort of 'diplo rating'...
as for the long term revision - lots actually
for now, the new files span 1950-1960 only (more on why later)
first off, the new map is massive: 320-something by 320-something
it is Alderick's (sp?) world map and it's the one Rocoteh used for WW2 Global. the main reason i picked this map is b/c of the sheer size of it. i mean, the oceans are huge and there's just a whole other world of possibilities on the map b/c of its size. so w/ MP, turn times shouldn't be bad at all. as a matter of fact, i'll release the file in SP mode also. the unit lines are receiving the biggest facelift. in now are multiple variants of air units (eg. F-100A, F-100C etc etc) and boosted naval activities, especially w/ the subs. unit stats will also be adjusted some. these newly revised unit lines are the primary reason that the scenario will be limited to just the fifties. i mean, hell, getting in the other decades' worth of units
we are also incorporating the 'raw material' feature that we used for the Age of Imperialism scenario. for those not familiar w/ it, these' raw materials' are spawnded by a city imp every so many turns and you have to get a friendly unit to 'capture' the raw material unit and then head to a VP tile to 'cash in' the raw material. VPs are awarded for every safe return. this method has worked very well in AoI and it puts a really large emphasis on merchant marine shipping and protecting it.
for those that might be interested, check out the forum that i had all of you sign up at last year - it has alot of info in the new material
http://z10.invisionfree.com/SOE_forum/index.php?act=idx
a more long term goal is to port all of the new rules, civs, techs, etc into the sleek 180x180 AoI map.
Similar threads
