• 📚 Admin Project Update: I've added a major feature to PictureBooks.io called Avatar Studio! You can now upload photos to instantly turn your kids (and pets! 🐶) into illustrated characters that star in their own stories. Give it a try and let me know what you think!

The Third World War 1989

I'm considering getting rid of military alliances. They add little other than chaos. Nor do they make much sense historically. The game just wasn't designed to have locked alliances and diplomatic relations work well together. Also, embargoes might need to go too. Whatcha think?
 
I've always disliked embargoes. Far more important - you've designed, built, maintained, and improved '89 for, oh, nearly a decade or so :worship: Offhand, I'd say that playing with, and releasing, a version without locked alliances, sounds like a worthy endeavor. :popcorn:
 
I agree. Locked alliances are ok for time periods such as WW1 or WW2. In a scenario that is meant to be a 'what if' it would probably be better to do away with locked alliances. Or maybe reduce the number of locked alliance members so that something totally unrealistic does not occur?

Meaning if you don't want to see silly things like Poland and Ireland team up to go to war with both the USSR and Germany then keep Poland in the Warsaw Pact but maybe remove Rumania or Hungary from the WP?
 
Thank you, gentlemen. I should clarify, I am talking about getting rid of the "Military Alliance Against" diplomatic option. Removing the locked alliances would be disastrous for the scenario. It would simply cease to function. The problem specifically I have with military alliance forming is that the AI goes ape with it and drags everyone in the fight in ways that make no sense. Civ 3 simply doesn't have the nuance to represent international relations the way we need for the scenario. Even with a system like Europa Unversalis it would probably work. But there's nothing to stop them from creating utter nonsense like Switzerland blitzing Milan.

With just locked alliances, anyone that decided to declare on a neutral would drag their alliance into it, which seems more logical.

I like to get you guys' feedback because you all have a wealth of experience and different perspectives help improve the game. I know what I think on the subject, but hearing what you think helps cover what I haven't considered.

Edit: Thanks, scholar! This scenario is perfect for people who love agonizingly long turn times.
 
I see what you are saying now.

Oh yeah get rid of MAA's for sure then. If you can figure out how to do that please let me know. I'd like to mod some of my work to do away with MAA's. It's wreaking havoc with my modified versions of El-Justo's 'The Cold War' and 'World 2004'.
 
That's just unchecking the feature from the tech, isn't it?
 
Thank you, gentlemen. I should clarify, I am talking about getting rid of the "Military Alliance Against" diplomatic option. Removing the locked alliances would be disastrous for the scenario. It would simply cease to function. The problem specifically I have with military alliance forming is that the AI goes ape with it and drags everyone in the fight in ways that make no sense. Civ 3 simply doesn't have the nuance to represent international relations the way we need for the scenario. Even with a system like Europa Unversalis it would probably work. But there's nothing to stop them from creating utter nonsense like Switzerland blitzing Milan.

With just locked alliances, anyone that decided to declare on a neutral would drag their alliance into it, which seems more logical.

AH! :hammer2: Then: Absolutely! :yup:
 
The first side to discover alliances gains an advantage by dragging the other's alliance neighbors into war with it. Necessity to force Yugoslavia and Switzerland to spend their mobile assets against your enemy not you was the reason to push for Diplomatic part of the tech tree. I do agree that having MAA option is more trouble than it's worth but it does add a bit of spice for me.
 
The first side to discover alliances gains an advantage by dragging the other's alliance neighbors into war with it. Necessity to force Yugoslavia and Switzerland to spend their mobile assets against your enemy not you was the reason to push for Diplomatic part of the tech tree. I do agree that having MAA option is more trouble than it's worth but it does add a bit of spice for me.

This is exactly my thinking as well. I don't like to lose that dimension of gameplay which Fortis pointed out but as you said, it's more trouble than it's worth. In the new version, there are now plenty of bonuses that make the diplomatic path worth it even without military alliances.

Right now I am working on tech trees and resources. We now have machinery, automotive, and consumer goods added. The Poland resource is now the Poland/Czechoslovakia resource (I need a better name for this). I just went through the Warsaw Pact and made sure everyone had something that others didn't, so we can facilitate trade. In reality, the Soviet Union would be willing to accept a trade deficit in order to support its allies but of course the game AI will do no such thing. So now, we have the DDR with synthetic rubber, Hungary with the aluminum, Bulgaria with electronics, etc. And with military alliances and mutual protection pacts being eliminated, there are fewer chances that your trade reputation will be destroyed through no fault of your own. Now I have to go through the West and do the same for them. Not sure if this means I have to add Louis Vuitton, Ferrari, Lego and Playmobil as strategic resources.



resources.png
 
I like to get you guys' feedback
Tony, I agree to that setting and there is to add, that it seems to be no good idea either, to provide only some of the civs by special era-none-techs to sign military alliances. In early versions of CCM1 I tried to provide Britain and France with such a special "diplomatic trait", but the result was, that in nearly all games these both civs were mostly the first to be eliminated, as all other civs draw them in wars continuously.

I skipped military alliances for SOE more than a decade ago.
 
Tony, I agree to that setting and there is to add, that it seems to be no good idea either, to provide only some of the civs by special era-none-techs to sign military alliances. In early versions of CCM1 I tried to provide Britain and France with such a special "diplomatic trait", but the result was, that in nearly all games these both civs were mostly the first to be eliminated, as all other civs draw them in wars continuously.

I skipped military alliances for SOE more than a decade ago.

Yeah, I remember specifically that no-era tech but like you said, the problem is the same and the guy that usually gets hurt the worst is the one making alliances. I was thinking of SOE since paratroopers have been added to the tech tree in 1989. I remember well in SOE when the Reich would produce huge masses of Fallschirmjaeger, especially after I bombed their synthetic oil. It was important to make sure the AI doesn't mass produce these troops according to its own internal logical. For example, airborne engineers were enabled and next thing I know the Soviet Union had a stack of 12 running around Italy. I think the AI values paratroopers highly in mods and the reason that it doesn't in a normal game is because they are offensive units with low offense.
 
Maybe it's time to test a new editor that would restrict paratrooper production to the cities with Airborne Academy or something?
Hungary with the aluminum
DDR should have PIKO model railways, Hungary should have Ikarus buses. The later were known as "Kádár's revenge" among those who rode them.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking of SOE since paratroopers have been added to the tech tree in 1989.
Paratroopers become even more powerful with the Flintlock mod. The next versions of my mods and scenarios will use the Flintlock mod instead of the Antal1987 exe. Do you use the Flintlock mod for your next versions of 1989 and Worldwide, too ?
 
... bulgarian electronics ... must not troll ...

but lkarus buses were really cool , especially the extended versions . Poster failed the once in a lifetime chance to become an engineer because the buses to university were always full in the mornings and usually could not get on them .

how about naming specific industrial zones as resources ? Say , Skoda facilities would no doubt provide spares to all WP countries ? After it was delegated by Moscow to produce them as a single source .
 
As for Czechoslovakia/Poland -how about loading them up with VLs?

Victory locations are primarily loaded up in Western Europe. If Warsaw Pact aims to win, they must go get them.

Also, the national resources take the place of luxury resources and represent several things: cultural or soft power influence, luxury goods, political influence, and technical know-how (so as to produce nation-specific weapons systems). I wanted to make Poland/Czechoslovakia share a resource because their arms industries are were built along similar lines, allowing us to streamline the unit roster.

Skoda facilities would no doubt provide spares to all WP countries ? After it was delegated by Moscow to produce them as a single source .

I thought about making it a wonder a long time ago, but what would it produce? Rolling stock? Also considered making a railroad resource but again, don't want to overload resources. Each resource has to be essential to produce something so the AI and player will want to trade for it. This is why tobacco is out of the game now.

No PIKO trains, unfortunately. Hungary got one automotive resource, but it's next to Gyor to represent Raba since there was no room left around Budapest for Ikara.

The next versions of my mods and scenarios will use the Flintlock mod instead of the Antal1987 exe. Do you use the Flintlock mod for your next versions of 1989 and Worldwide, too ?

Worldwide, yes. 1989, no. This scenario is so far along and I just went through yet another tile-by-tile audit of all the units and airbases that I can't do it again. I did some experiments specifically with the artillery routine of Flintlock and it did not go well. On the other hand, I changed the artillery back to regular bombard (not naval bombard) and the AI uses it quite well on the front lines. The issue is the ratio of artillery to defenders, which does not work well with the units as they are now. In current game we do see defense units escorting artillery, but when I tried with Flintlock they went nuts. I'm sure that with many countless hours of testing and refurbishing I could get it to work better but just don't have it in me at this stage of the game. As Oz said, it's been 10 years and still much to do before the year is over, including more tech tree work, resource balancing, checking AI behavior, and yup more units. I am looking forward to the day when this mod is done and never needs to be touched again. :cool: However, there would be nothing to stop players from using the Flintlock exe, whether it's just for little things like the civilopedia graphic or trying to make big re-balancing. But with this scenario so far along in development, I don't want to make it dependent on the Flintlock patch, which precludes things like Airborne School wonders.

Worldwide is a different matter and I am looking forward to finishing this so I can get back to that. Like you, I am excited to see what we can accomplish with all these new wondrous tools in an epic game setting. There were already many changes in that mod to the combat system, governments, and traits even before the Flintlock patch. It has been interesting reading your takedown of Civ 4 in the general discussion thread (:)). You and I have some different perspectives on the game which means the mods will each be a unique take on the subject. This is good as it means the new worldwide will not simply be an inferior CCM clone, but instead players can try both and have a different experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom