The Second Korean War (C3C only)

[Simon Darkshade]

1.) They are very different aircraft, just as the F-15 and F-16 were different aircraft that in turn had broad similarities. The naval version is rather different from the ground based one in fundamental requirements, but is designed by necessity to operate in 'the CVW we have to have' because of the peace dividend, 1990s procurement problems and problematic decisions.
A CVW in a fictional Korean War high intensity conflict in 2014, with various threats from NK, Red China and even Russia, may rue the downgrading of air defence in favour of shorter range strike operations.
Your connections with the JSF program are quite interesting in their own right.

2.) I have heard various things along those lines, with a possible maximum of 105000t vs 95000t being mooted from some quarters. As the British admiral said regarding CVF's potential size and room for future growth, 'steel is cheap'.

3.) Expensive and its role as a Bombcat was being superceded by the entry of the Super Hornet. It still leaves a significant capability gap.

That is the real world. Here, there are other options and decisions.

If ye wish further conversation on carrier matters and what have you separate from the flow of conversation of this thread, then feel free to send a PM which my typing monkeys will process.

 

[c.pablo]

you hate communism?

 

[William GBTW]

Yes I sure do!

 

[csa945]

Can we not start this on this thread?

There's the off-topic forum for communism vs. capitalism debates.

 

[vingrjoe]

Simon is right regarding the Iowas. The Iowa and Wisconsin were stricken in March. They are to become museums. However, the navy maintains the right to recall any ship donated as a museum, for a return to active service. The likelihood of this is very slim, but we are dealing with alternate history, with the player in control of national spending. Had the Iowas not been prematurely decommissioned in the early 90's, work would have continued on extended range sub-caliber munitions for the 16 inch guns. Pratt & Whitney also developed 16 inch scramjet shells with velocities as high as Mach 4-5 and ranges up to 300+ miles. May I also suggest contacting El Justo (creator of TCW) for any needed help.

 

[man o' war]

Great scenario, but regarding realism, I have one problem - there is absolutely no way Gordon Brown would enter another war on America's advice after what happened to Blair. Sorry to be pedantic, but British politics is my current thing

The scenario itself looks really great - I've just downloaded, and look forward to playing. Thanks

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Simon is right regarding the Iowas. The Iowa and Wisconsin were stricken in March. They are to become museums. However, the navy maintains the right to recall any ship donated as a museum, for a return to active service. The likelihood of this is very slim, but we are dealing with alternate history, with the player in control of national spending. Had the Iowas not been prematurely decommissioned in the early 90's, work would have continued on extended range sub-caliber munitions for the 16 inch guns. Pratt & Whitney also developed 16inch scramjet shells with velocities as high as Mach 4-5 and ranges up to 300+ miles. May I also suggest contacting El Justo (creator of TCW) for any needed help.

Indeed. If there is a role for them, then the POD would need to be sometime in the late 80s or early 90s, so there is continuity for development work, as well as the phase two of the modernization upgrade. Details of that can be found in some rare published works, but also on the Warships Projects Forum.

I would second the suggestion of El Justo, as his TCW is the most extensive and masterful modern day package I have yet encountered. And he has a good recipe thread.

 

[csa945]

Great scenario, but regarding realism, I have one problem - there is absolutely no way Gordon Brown would enter another war on America's advice after what happened to Blair. Sorry to be pedantic, but British politics is my current thing

The scenario itself looks really great - I've just downloaded, and look forward to playing. Thanks

I also have revised storyline in the works -- one in which the DPRK is clearly the aggressor, so that entry into war against NK wouldn't be so much on US advice, but to defend SK and Japan -- and outside of CFC, I've been told (by people who oppose the war in Iraq) that no European leader is his/her right mind would exclude his/her country from a war in Korea.

That aside, I was also considering possibly putting a Conservative in 10 Downing Street. Would David Cameron still be the Tory leader 8 years from now?

 

[man o' war]

That aside, I was also considering possibly putting a Conservative in 10 Downing Street. Would David Cameron still be the Tory leader 8 years from now?

If you're asking my opinion, almost certainly - in power in certainly possible as well. Not sure how much more "war friendly" they would be - certainly not if it looked like their main basis for involvement was America's continued friendship. I am sure, however, that there is some validity in your argument that most Euro leaders would enter anyway - provided N-Korea was the aggressor.

You say to are thinking of adding another European power, ie, France - where, geographically, were you intending to place them? It could add some depth if, for example, a French Indonesian presence was simulated, or even a coalition of European forces on the other end of Russia: whilst Britain is still sitting on the remnants of the Royal Navy and would, in conflict, make good use of US airbases, I expect that other Europeans would be less willing to work so closely with America: rail links through Russia would, however unlikely, be more attractive (as well as cheaper and just as fast). This could also add a diplomatic angle of the scenario, as Europe desperately tries to gain a right of passage from Russia... just ideas.

Great scenario, BTW - have played sparingly due to workload, but appears to be well constructed and playable. I was going to suggest adding some US sub-based nukes to make nuclear warfare more of a threat (which, inevitably, it would be in a conflict along these lines), but thinking about it I don't think you can load units into transports/subs in the editor - it this correct?

 

[csa945]

You say to are thinking of adding another European power, ie, France - where, geographically, were you intending to place them? It could add some depth if, for example, a French Indonesian presence was simulated, or even a coalition of European forces on the other end of Russia: whilst Britain is still sitting on the remnants of the Royal Navy and would, in conflict, make good use of US airbases, I expect that other Europeans would be less willing to work so closely with America: rail links through Russia would, however unlikely, be more attractive (as well as cheaper and just as fast). This could also add a diplomatic angle of the scenario, as Europe desperately tries to gain a right of passage from Russia... just ideas.

I was just planning on putting a French base alongside the US, UK, and Australian ones, and probably simulating the French presence in the South Pacific by placing plenty of their naval units there. Russia also starts the scenario as a neutral (is that realistic?), so I don't intend to have them working very closely with the Western powers.

I was going to suggest adding some US sub-based nukes to make nuclear warfare more of a threat (which, inevitably, it would be in a conflict along these lines), but thinking about it I don't think you can load units into transports/subs in the editor - it this correct?

Yeah. I wish I could put tactical nukes on subs and marines in transports, but the editor only lets you put air units on the carriers when they're at sea -- no land units.

 

[Red Door]

You can just place transports/submarines on the coastlines and then Nukes/Marines on the land next to them, and load them up. Or you could place both in cities and load them up.

 

[csa945]

IIRC, that's what I did.

 

[csa945]

Just in case anyone is anxiously awaiting the next version:

Unfortunately, my hard drive crashed a week or two ago and I lost all my work on the upgraded scenario, so it'll be quite some time before I finish it. Thankfully, school will be ending soon, so I'll have a lot more time to devote to it.

 

[Edwardnz]

I'm wondering, why is PRC enemies with DPRK? I'd have thought if anything they'd be allied. Just about governments, why have Democracy and Western Drmocracy? PRC's communist, and Russia's Democracy/W. Democracy. Also why's Arabia in there?

However very good looking. off to play now

 

[Redman]

Re: pollution - It was once done in a Civ2 scenario, with 'slave uprisings' replacing pollution. It could be implemented by replacing pollution with refugees, although I lack the Civ3 knowledge as to how it could have pollution clogging roads and impeding swift movement.
Perhaps barbarian units could include mines and refugees, even with some immobile units.

Maybe an idea:
Barricades have the ability to 'slow down' the passing enemy, it will cost all movement-points. Maybe you could come to a sollution where refugees (old pollution) appair on the map, and passing units will lose all (remaining) movement-points?

Redman

 

[zoom577]

after downloading the zip file I pressed the civ-content and clicked on the game and than it said


FILE NOT FOUND

"art\filcs\China.flc"


whats wrong?

 

[Seaman Sample]

Post deleted.

 

[Monjis]

Hi!

I have started a game as NK, to try the challenge of been sieged and such, and after a long and fun first turn my country has become a hole in the ground by Western and Chineese Nukes. They even kept bombarding the same city over and over...

Is this intended? Is there something I have been missing? Is there a way for NK to survive for two hole turns? And don't tell me to destroy the enemy missiles: I only have 12 Nukes and all the other countries have shields against them.

I was really exited about this mod because all the work you should have put on it, but if the "second korean War" ends in less than five turns there is something that's not working well.

 

[Aleenik]

Hi!

I have started a game as NK, to try the challenge of been sieged and such, and after a long and fun first turn my country has become a hole in the ground by Western and Chineese Nukes. They even kept bombarding the same city over and over...

Is this intended? Is there something I have been missing? Is there a way for NK to survive for two hole turns? And don't tell me to destroy the enemy missiles: I only have 12 Nukes and all the other countries have shields against them.

I was really exited about this mod because all the work you should have put on it, but if the "second korean War" ends in less than five turns there is something that's not working well.

This thread is from 2006. The OP last posted here in 2006 as well. Also, according to his profile, he last logged in on July 14, 2009. I highly doubt this mod will ever receive another update or that you will even get a response from him.

 

[Balthasar]

Try this, Monjis: load it up in the editor and set NK and China as Allies. It would make everyone more wary of attacking you, I'd think..