The Cold War: Playtest Thread

[Wiw]

I have no idea what I did, but now I get this error when launching the scenario.

 

[JPetroski]

I have no idea what I did, but now I get this error when launching the scenario.
View attachment 614061

Pirates haven't been in the scenario for a long time - you must be using an older version. For your convenience here are the latest files. This reminds me I really need to just get it uploaded for good. I think that'll be a good weekend project.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Pirates haven't been in the scenario for a long time - you must be using an older version. For your convenience here are the latest files. This reminds me I really need to just get it uploaded for good. I think that'll be a good weekend project.

With TOTPP v0.17, we really should take advantage of the ability to choose the tile defender, and make it so that fighters attack air units first. I can do this for you if you'd like.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

This code can be put at the end of (or anywhere, really) events.lua.

local function chooseDefender(defaultFunction,tile,attacker,isCombat)
    local function hasAirGroundStack(tile)
        local groundOrSea = false
        local air = false
       
        if tile.city or gen.hasAirbase(tile) then
            return false
        end
   
        for unit in tile.units do
            if gen.isCarryAir(unit.type) then
                return false
            end
            if unit.type.domain ==1 and unit.type.range >= 2 then
                air = true
            else
                groundOrSea = true
            end
        end
        return air and groundOrSea
    end
    local function adjustedAttack(unit)
        local attack = unit.type.attack
        if unit.veteran then
            attack = attack*1.5
        end
        return attack
    end
   
    -- note: this doesn't factor in much,
    -- since air units don't gain terrain
    -- bonus, and don't have a vs air bonus
    local function adjustedDefense(airUnit)
        local defense = airUnit.type.defense
        if airUnit.veteran then
            defense = defense*1.5
        end
        return defense
    end
    local function defenseRating(airUnit)
        return adjustedDefense(airUnit)*(airUnit.hitpoints)//(airUnit.type.hitpoints)
    end
    local function selectAirDefender(tile)
        local unitChosen = nil
        local defensiveValue = 0
        for airUnit in tile.units do
            if airUnit.type.domain ==1 and airUnit.type.range >= 2 then
                local ad = defenseRating(airUnit)
                if ad > defensiveValue then
                    defensiveValue = ad
                    unitChosen = airUnit
                end
            end
        end
        return unitChosen
    end
    if gen.isAttackAir(attacker.type) and hasAirGroundStack(tile) then
        return selectAirDefender(tile)
    else
        return defaultFunction(tile,attacker)
    end
end
civ.scen.onChooseDefender(chooseDefender)

You can then comment out all references to the airSuperiority module in events.lua. I found one require line, and one keypress line. (If you like, I can change the sp and mp files for you and provide the results.)

 

[Wiw]

Now what's the matter!?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Now what's the matter!?

Try upgrading TOTPP to version 16 or 17. I know it says 15.1 is good enough, but changes were made so it is not the case. @JPetroski should update that message. With the choose defender update I mentioned a couple posts ago, it will be version 0.17 that will be necessary.

 

[Wiw]

Ah, I wasn't aware TOTPP was updated.

 

[amadeus]

Inspired by Dr. Strangelove and WarGames: the Big Board.

Spoiler He'll see everything! He'll see the Big Board! :

The map is a vector image, but I'm not sure if my export as .svg works so well. Also, it's only meant to include countries that are actually in the game so Togo, Guatemala, Switzerland... you're out! I may re-do and simplify it, not sure yet.

 

[amadeus]

The cargo plane seems to be broken, at least as far as I can see. Running the console I see the "9 pushed" message and "type is loadable" but then it stops there. (Sorry, not verbatim.)

I looked around at the files and poked at them but I have no idea what I'm doing.

I found it. In EventsSP.lua, it shows:

local supplyTruckType = civ.getUnitType(26)

The cargo plane is type 64 (correct in MP events)
So changing it to:

local supplyTruckType = civ.getUnitType(64)

made it work just fine.

 

[JPetroski]

Thank you for catching that - I'm not sure why it would be different in the two event files but I guess I've managed to jumble it up

 

[amadeus]

No problem! I've enjoyed it immensely. I've also taken the "WarGames"-inspired map and altered it to be a title screen for your use if you like. Either way, it was a fun project all-around.

Should be noted that the map doesn't reflect the world in 1947 nor the scenario, just rather design considerations taking precedence.

 

[JPetroski]

Thank you! Alas, unless it has changed in a recent ToTPP version, I don't think title screens work with Lua scenarios for some reason

 

[JPetroski]

Hi all,

With Hinge of Fate (hopefully) wrapping up with a final few events and then several playtests to do, I think updating The Cold War to the lua template as well as v.018 (with the additional 62 units) is going to be my next project. I've become incredibly more proficient and comfortable with lua since I built Cold War and a lot of things @Prof. Garfield has implemented in his general library would 1) speed up the design process and 2) enhance the game.

Anyway, I'm not going to get started just yet as I need to finish HoF, but I know a few of you have recently played a playtest @amadeus and if anyone has thoughts or things they didn't like or didn't think worked well, please let me know.

I'm going back and forth with whether or not the Soviets and US should directly control their "Pro" civ or if I should utilize lua to make that civ more independent/hectic. I do think I could substantially alter the diplomacy model with lua and frankly allow for some interesting situations, but then I don't know if the pro civs are what made it "fun" (assuming it was) in your eyes and you'd hate to lose them?

Also, if you felt that certain vital units were missing, by all means let me know. With 62 more slots, the Non-Aligned and Chinese would likely get expanded unit rosters though I do think there's value in their stuff not being quite as good as what they can acquire on the market.

My goal is to make it much better as a single player game as that seems to be the way of the world these days.

Any thoughts are appreciated and will be considered as I mull this over in my head. Thanks!

 

[JPetroski]

Other thoughts are that with the considerably greater number of techs (now 253 vs 100) I can more or less give each civ its own tech line which opens up a ton of possibilities in terms of potential decisions/etc. It was a tumultuous time in America, a time of reinventing itself for Europe, and a time of expansion onto the world stage for the Soviets, as well as the birth and infancy of two burgeoning superpowers in China and India so there's plenty of ways to go with that. I think each Civ can have its own proper "decisions" tech tree, which could be neat.

 

[amadeus]

These are just in the order in which they pop into my head rather than importance.

First thing that just came to me is that I find myself a bit frustrated with the cargo plane when I lose track of what is on it, if anything. I was looking at some of the lua scripting and wondered if it would be possible to add the contents of the plane, at least the city of origin and what type of unit, to the status function [tab] key. It would also be neat if there was some indicator if the plane was full or empty, at least in multiplayer games it may give more of an incentive to shoot them down by enemy fighters—how, or even if that could be implemented is beyond me.

Indirect control of the allied civs, to me this is kind of a question of mechanics rather than preference. I suppose it could all be done with scripting, but I don’t know how tedious this would be. Say for example the arms purchases: an ally in control of a port could buy a unit every x turns, and even depending on the development of the country how much stuff and what it could buy. Take Iran vs. say, Zaire, where the Shah had bought a lot of top-of-the-line equipment from the U.S. But this also has its own pitfalls in making the game unbalanced, where some cities become infinitely more valuable than others and, at least as far as I know, the AI effectively values them all the same which would give another undue benefit to an SP player.

With new unit slots, I agree the NAM/Chinese shouldn’t have too much equipment competitive with the superpowers. I also don’t feel that anything in particular is lacking, so maybe some of these slots could be used as unique units for some cities? The Chinese nationalists could have their own unit; as it stands right now, the AI China civ sometimes accidentally conquers Japan before the end of the Chinese civil war by bombing Tokyo and getting defecting Ch. nationalists on their side.

On the above, and I’m just throwing ideas out there, you could have a PLO terrorist unit that, if attacked by Israel, incurs a small $ penalty for the outrage it causes (note: please nobody get the idea to start discussing that political minefield seriously!)

That’s about all I’ve got at the moment.

 

[JPetroski]

First thing that just came to me is that I find myself a bit frustrated with the cargo plane when I lose track of what is on it, if anything. I was looking at some of the lua scripting and wondered if it would be possible to add the contents of the plane, at least the city of origin and what type of unit, to the status function [tab] key. It would also be neat if there was some indicator if the plane was full or empty, at least in multiplayer games it may give more of an incentive to shoot them down by enemy fighters—how, or even if that could be implemented is beyond me.

Yes - this is improved now. In HoF when you select the transport it tells you what is on it (by unit type), so that's an easy fix. Not sure that I can have an "filled" indicator on the plane but then I suppose you wouldn't really know if Yamamoto or spare ammo was on any given plane, right?

Indirect control of the allied civs, to me this is kind of a question of mechanics rather than preference. I suppose it could all be done with scripting, but I don’t know how tedious this would be. Say for example the arms purchases: an ally in control of a port could buy a unit every x turns, and even depending on the development of the country how much stuff and what it could buy. Take Iran vs. say, Zaire, where the Shah had bought a lot of top-of-the-line equipment from the U.S. But this also has its own pitfalls in making the game unbalanced, where some cities become infinitely more valuable than others and, at least as far as I know, the AI effectively values them all the same which would give another undue benefit to an SP player.

I mean I was kind of thinking of really fleshing this out to a point where it isn't (hopefully) that tedious for the player but does require certain decisions to be made. I haven't really fleshed it out but there's a number of ways that one could decide which small nations "call out for help," so to speak. It's possible to keep track of enemy units in certain territories, for example. it's also possible to have a dice roll each turn to assign prices "Allies" are willing to buy equipment from you on any given turn. Or, this could even be modified by how strong the minor nation is at the moment. So, maybe if Turkey only holds Istanbul they can't afford to spend as much as if they had all of Anatolia.

I think the goal would be to have a system that makes sense, is intuitive (so probably based on % of the nation under such and such control) and doesn't require one to review the readme. Perhaps each turn a "Diplomatic Report" box pops up that can be recalled after it is exited during the turn if you want to attend other things first. It might have reports of enemies in certain areas, of requests for supplies, etc.

Perhaps, with the expanded tech tree, certain nations could only be helped with certain advances, etc. Lots of possibilities - frankly it would make it a whole new game.

Also, it's quite possible to make it so, say, the United States can't just unilaterally attack any and every Pro-East unit in the world without Congressional approval, or to at least replicate the Emergency War Powers Act and maybe allow attacks for a few turns but not indefinitely. In the MP game I played it seemed a little nuts that the US could just intervene openly literally everywhere, for example. I think having a congressional mechanism would really enhance things.

With new unit slots, I agree the NAM/Chinese shouldn’t have too much equipment competitive with the superpowers. I also don’t feel that anything in particular is lacking, so maybe some of these slots could be used as unique units for some cities? The Chinese nationalists could have their own unit; as it stands right now, the AI China civ sometimes accidentally conquers Japan before the end of the Chinese civil war by bombing Tokyo and getting defecting Ch. nationalists on their side.

I could certainly use slots to flesh out some of the bigger minor nations out there, especially if they happen to have their own equipment (such as Israel).

On the above, and I’m just throwing ideas out there, you could have a PLO terrorist unit that, if attacked by Israel, incurs a small $ penalty for the outrage it causes (note: please nobody get the idea to start discussing that political minefield seriously!)

Yes, that one was in there more or less at some stages of the last game but had to be removed. Terrorism in general would be revamped in the scenario now that there is more unit space.

Thanks for your thoughts and I'm pleased to note that ToTPP now accepts title screens, so I'm quite pleased to use the one you generously made and offered

 

[JPetroski]

Thinking this one through more, I do think a complete rebuild on a 4-map system is warranted. Not so much because "this" scenario "needs" 3 maps, but because I'd like to have a world map of my own for my own use to incorporate in other scenarios such as one that picks up where Cold War left off. I didn't have enough foresight to do that when I built this one, but that's OK.

To that end...

Map 1: the world
Map 2: underwater
Map 3: outer space including the moon
Map 4: utility map for some game mechanisms such as transport etc.

I also intend to refine the units slightly making sure the big 3 are evenly matched, expanding the naval and naval aviation component, and introducing a true space race.

I intend to introduce a concept of mana-like "prestige" that utilizes the counter system, and gives a good reason to explore space besides, "because it is there."

More to come as it is developed and it's own thread will be established.

 

[JPetroski]

I'll probably need to start a new thread soon but for now, here's where I'm leaning with the units. I haven't really added much in terms of the minors as I thought that the more unique equipment (naturally available for export) that I could fit in, the better. "a" is just a place holder so I can keep track of how many slots I've used in excel. I still have 1 more slot besides this. Does anyone have an opinion ( @typhoon353 I'm looking at you ) about what other units I should add to the Soviets to "make up" for not having as much naval air? Also, I'm not sure what to give China/India but I want to at least give them one extra unit in this go around.

Other considerations:
-I could probably clean up 2x unit slots by again having one "special forces" unit instead of distinct ones.
-The Ticonderoga Class is near and dear to my heart but I already have missile cruisers as a distinct unit.
-I'm not sure what you'd all think of the Exocet missile being Europe's cool/unique unit.
-In the Pro-East/West column, it just means that there will be two destroyer units - a Soviet styled one, and a Western one etc.
-I could probably be convinced to have one generic anti-sub aircraft, just as there is a generic AWACS
-I'm considering adding an air-refueling plane (generic).

Note that I'm trying to add in distinct naval air this go around, but the Soviets are going to be pretty limited in that respect so I'm hoping to get an idea of units that could compensate for it.

Edit - I see we have a great S-300 SA-10 and that could be quite an advantage for the Soviets - there aren't airbases (civ2 versions anyway) in this scenario, but these units can be payload units for ICBMs that can be driven around the country side. Perhaps they're invisible until attack so others really have to search them out. That would be a useful unit, I'd think, to help go up against the West's nuclear triad.

All thoughts are welcome!

 

[typhoon353]

Hope you have a lot of spare time and patience

Fighters

- First instinct would be to move the Mirage 2000 into Jet Fighter VI to replace the Gripen and fill its spot with the Tornado ADV; this would better align both contemporaneously and in respective roles with their Soviet and US counterparts: the Mirage 2K as a late-70s/early 80s light multi-role like the F-16 and MiG-29, and the Tornado ADV as a long-range interceptor like the F-14 and MiG-25. Gripen, like the Rafale, first flew in the late 1980s and could conceivably have entered service during the scenario's time frame, but is a bit of a stretch. If you want to keep some Swedish flavour, Draken in Jet Fighter III to replace the Mirage III or Viggen in IV to replace the Mirage F1 could work as substitutes.

- On that note, while I am extremely loathe to part with the Tomcat, having the F-14 might be redundant now that you are making a distinction between fleet defence and land-based interceptors. Although it ended up being the much more capable and versatile aircraft, the F-15 was initially intended to be the US' response and counterpart to the MiG-25 in the latter role, taking over from the likes of the F-106. Its place in Jet Fighter VII could be filled by the YF-22 if you want to be unsporting and give the Yanks an even more superlative advantage.

(Fair warning - US aircraft being far superior in most respects to Soviet and European ones in the equivalent tier, as well as historically being introduced much earlier in almost every case, is going to be a recurring theme in this list of suggestions)

- As a propeller-driven aircraft, the A-1 Skyraider properly belongs in Jabo I with the Il-10 and Tempest rather than the early jets of Jabo II, though I'm more than happy with the A-26 taking its place as well - Skyraider should be with Corsair and Firefly in Early Naval Jabo any way

Jabos

- For Jabo II, since you have a light bomber (Il-28) for the Soviets, I think Canberra for the Europeans and B-57s for the Americans might be a better fit as well. All three were exported and used quite extensively by client states too.

- Jabo III - supersonic late-60s land-based Jaguar would be more of a contemporary for the Thud and Su-17 than the late-70s transsonic carrier-based Super Etendard of which only 80 or so were made

- Jabo IV - it also seems a bit strange to go from the Mach 1+ Thunderchief and Su-17 to the heavily-armoured turbofan A-10 and Su-25. If you have the space, suggest shuffling off the Warthog, Grach and Harrier to their own late-game Close Air Support category with special properties like anti-tank capability and ruggedness, while filling Jabo IV with the F-111, Su-24 and Tornado IDS for SEAD/deep penetration strike.

- You may wish to give the aircraft that historically played or were designated for the "Wild Weasel" mission like the F-105, F-111, Su-24, and Tornado a boost when targeting SAMs

Bombers

- This is a tricky one. Strategic Bomber I seems to be prop-driven, and historically the last one used by the RAF was the Lincoln. But while it saw quite extensive service in colonial conflicts, it could hardly be said to be in the same category as the B-29, yet alone the B-36 or Tu-95, and while it might theoretically have been possible, never carried a nuclear weapon. Valiant and the other V-bombers were also much closer in range, payload, and overall performance to the Tu-16 than any of the US heavies.

My own inelegant solution around this would be to make a generic strategic bomber unit using the B-29 graphic for the Soviets/Europeans (representing the Tu-4 Bull/ leased B-29/50s), while the Yanks get the much better B-36 as a special unit and reward for having developed a plane to bomb Germany from North America before the war ended, then rework Strategic Bomber I-III like thus:

- B-47 Stratojet - Tu-16 Badger - Valiant
- B-52 Stratofortress - Tu-95 Bear/M-4 Molot - Vulcan
- B-1 Lancer (B-58 Hustler would also work) - Tu-22 Blinder/Tu-22M Backfire - Mirage IV

This way the Soviets and Europeans get the chance to catch up in later tiers.

- If the generic Stealth Bomber isn't already one, Americans should get the F-117 Nighthawk as a late-game special unit to bomb Saddam with

Tanks

- No objections except possibly the T-64 - the T-62 was produced and exported in much larger numbers, while the former, while far ahead of its time, was really too expensive and complex for the Soviets to build in any great numbers (relatively speaking - they still built over 13,000 of the things). Perhaps make it a much costlier special unit the Soviets can unlock at Tank III alongside the T-62, to give the player the choice of churning out as many as possible and invading the West there and then while the USSR still has the advantage of superior tanks, or possibly going bankrupt even faster than historically. Once the US/Europeans hit Tank IV and V, this dynamic should reverse as superior Western electronics and armour start to tell.

Helicopters

- If you have the space, I'd move AH-64 and Mangusta to Choppers III and give the Soviets the Ka-50 or Mi-28 as well. If chopper units are meant to represent attack helicopters exclusively rather than serve as an abstract for heliborne infantry in general, AH-1 Cobra and Gazelle may be more suitable than the Huey and Lynx in Choppers II alongside the Mi-24 Hind. Depending on when Choppers I is meant to be unlocked by the player, this could be filled by the H-19/H-34, Mi-4 and Alouette III (early 50s-60s) or UH-1, Mi-8 and Puma (early to late 60s.)

Other US, USSR or European units

- If you don't go through with your idea of replacing the three Special Forces units with a generic one, I'd recommend using the Army Special Forces (Green Berets) instead of the SEALs - the former were established earlier and more closely fit the original Cold War mission of Special Forces in counter-revolutionary warfare (which include training and advisory of local forces) or "active measures" as the Soviets called it, than the contemporary Navy SEALs who are much more prominent in the kinetic role that we associate with Special Forces since the War on Terror. If the Special Forces units are meant to work with the new terrorism mechanics and represent the governmental response to the surge in activity in the 1970s and 80s, you can more specifically use Delta Force for the US and Group Alpha for the USSR, which were the dedicated CT units stood up by both nations. For the Europeans, Andy McNab's mob works for either purpose

- I'd definitely hate to be the poor b*stard who has to go up in a Sea Harrier or the even more hopeless Forger against an F/A-18 But since both were actually pressed into the fleet defense role this is absolutely accurate - its hardly the USN' fault they're the only ones with supercarriers. The unit stats should reflect this mogging.

If you want to level the playing field, you can give the Europeans the Rafale instead and put the Eurofighter in Fighters VII, while the Soviets can get the Su-33. If you want to squeeze the F-14 back in here, you can create a new category of Naval Jabos and put the F/A-18 here with the Forger and Sea Harrier.

- Definitely Trafalgar rather than Rubis - its the much better submarine and the latter wasn't able to match it or the American 688s until they were modernised in the 1990s.

- For the Soviet special units, S-300 or some other sophisticated air defence system would definitely be an ideal counter to American air superiority. Another option would be the Kirov-class large nuclear powered missile cruisers which were scary enough to make Reagan bring the Iowa-class BBs back into service. Maybe also a cheap missile boat to stop all that battleship spam that the playtesters were complaining about

- Exocet is a good choice and definitely has a lot of brand recognition, though I'd say that's largely due to Falklands being overly-represented in the popular consciousness - there were plenty of equivalently deadly anti-shipping missiles around like the American Harpoon, Chinese Silkworm, and Israeli Gabriel. Given the diversity of nations that the European civ is supposed to represent, one option could be to use the spare slots for flavour units (e.g. a cheap Bundeswehr/Euro conscript army unit you get as a bonus for the decision to rearm West Germany or forming NATO, a mountain/arctic infantry for aligning Norway, or maybe even continued access to colonial troops if you manage to hang on to your possessions)

Neutrals

- Might want to rename Stinger to something generic like AA Missile or MANPAD to cover earlier or equivalent missiles like the Strela, Blowpipe, Redeye etc

- RPGs (the bane of my playthroughs) seem to be much more powerful and decisive than their real-life record would suggest, being able to clear out entire cities, kill aircraft and ships in port - maybe to reflect this, they could be replaced by mortars, another insurgent favorite?

India and China

- Some suggestions for units to flesh their tech trees out - the suggestion that they be weaker than the equivalent Western/Eastern units at comparable levels is a good one:

- Type 69 - Chinese Tank III. Type 85 can be in Tank V. If there is space, you could squeeze the Type 79 or 80 in Tank IV.
- Q-5 Fantan - Chinese Jabo III.
- JH-7 - Chinese Jabo IV.
- J-10 - Chinese Jet Fighter VI or VII. J-8 should be in IV.
- WZ-9 - Chinese Chopper II or III
- Vijayanta - Indian Tank III. Arjun should be Tank V; if there is space, Vijayanta Mk1B/C in IV
- Ajeet - Indian Jet Fighter III. HF-24 Marut can be Jabo III
- Tejas - Indian Jet Fighter VI

Feel free to ignore any of the above as per personal preference or if not practicable

 

[JPetroski]

Thank you! I've read it and will respond to it (probably in a new thread I start) after work when I have time. Lots to consider and ponder and it's got me thinking, but just to give you an idea... With 253(?) tech slots now available, it's totally possible to have each civ simply have their own tree (we'll just set "future tech" as "delays" and have it available from the start to avoid bugs). This means that I don't necessarily "have" to have each civ have a weapon for each tier if and when it doesn't really make sense, because it's not like I need to force a civ to research something they have no benefit from to get to another, so there is the possibility of diversification somewhat (such as what you suggested for the Europeans) in place of simply having "each of the big three must have an equivalent for each of these things."

More to come later along those lines...