• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Ukrainian Conflict - New scenario project - Dev Thread

I was not intending to add many of such figures. It's just it would be a nice touch to add the "ghost of kiev" as an extra mig29 IF the opposite side had a similar figure, and leave space for possible future such names. That's all I wanted to add, I do not intend to add any specific general and hero unit beside this one because it did pop up in the beginning. If I added commanders, they would be similar or balanced (I'm considering if I integrate logistics adding a mobile command armor unit which could support units within 1 tile to replenish, if they are far from logistic centers, or to give them +1/+1 stats, not sure yet). I never claimed I would had "many hero units". I just asked if there was such a thing as the "ghost of kyiv" on the russian's side. I'd have considered making a couple on each side maybe, with maybe 1 extra points, or none, to their stats, if I have extra slots available (which is not impossible with 189+1). I do not want to create political units either, or commanders. The chain of command is like you say opaque and clearly top secret anyways. I'm most likely to only use mobile command armor units as support for units.

Thanks so I will rename this "Regiony" :) But what about "respublika"? I want the wonder to reflect the resource power the country has from its different regions.
Personally I'd steer clear of propaganda horseh1t issued by either side :)
 
It's just it would be a nice touch to add the "ghost of kiev" as an extra mig29 IF the opposite side had a similar figure,

There were a few actual Ukrainian pilots IIRC who did quite well - most have been shot down and killed by now - but you might just research "verified" aces (and look I'm going to use that term in quotes but it's a term that should be in quotes for every "verified" kill going back to WW1 as we can more or less assume every ace who ever lived is credited with more kills than he actually achieved due to various issues, some of which at least are good faith but still present). Even if not an ace, someone who was credited with considerable skill. Not long ago a fairly celebrated pilot was killed though I don't recall his name.

I'm sure there have to be some Russian units (if not pilots, though perhaps Buck2005 knows of some) which also achieved distinction.

This is coming from a guy who always likes to throw a few named "special" units into a scenario because I think it makes it fun. But you don't need a fictional Ghost of Kyiv when there's actual people and units who did difficult things.
 
Personally I'd steer clear of propaganda horseh1t issued by either side :)

At most, I'd use it as flavor text or maybe a temporary boost to morale or western support. That propaganda played a big part in getting the West to support Ukraine as much as it did, and it's clearly part of the history of the conflict, but IMO it would be best to clearly present it as rumors/etc. rather than having an actual unit of it.

I do think Zelensky did a very, very good job early on of drumming up support on Twitter/etc. and getting populations to pressure their governments to help. Perhaps that's a tech path the player can invest in, or some other form of quest, but in my mind you have a David v. Goliath struggle here where David needs to make as many friends as he can as rapidly as he can and somehow hold onto them long enough to prevail. In my mind, that's as key a part of this story as Churchill's lobbying the "Former Naval Person" was in the early days of WW2.
 
There were a few actual Ukrainian pilots IIRC who did quite well - most have been shot down and killed by now - but you might just research "verified" aces (and look I'm going to use that term in quotes but it's a term that should be in quotes for every "verified" kill going back to WW1 as we can more or less assume every ace who ever lived is credited with more kills than he actually achieved due to various issues, some of which at least are good faith but still present). Even if not an ace, someone who was credited with considerable skill. Not long ago a fairly celebrated pilot was killed though I don't recall his name.

I'm sure there have to be some Russian units (if not pilots, though perhaps Buck2005 knows of some) which also achieved distinction.

This is coming from a guy who always likes to throw a few named "special" units into a scenario because I think it makes it fun. But you don't need a fictional Ghost of Kyiv when there's actual people and units who did difficult things.
I agree, although with the caveat that air power lasted for the first few weeks for both sides and is virtually non-existant now given high levels of S-300 et al air defence.
 
At most, I'd use it as flavor text or maybe a temporary boost to morale or western support. That propaganda played a big part in getting the West to support Ukraine as much as it did, and it's clearly part of the history of the conflict, but IMO it would be best to clearly present it as rumors/etc. rather than having an actual unit of it.

I do think Zelensky did a very, very good job early on of drumming up support on Twitter/etc. and getting populations to pressure their governments to help. Perhaps that's a tech path the player can invest in, or some other form of quest, but in my mind you have a David v. Goliath struggle here where David needs to make as many friends as he can as rapidly as he can and somehow hold onto them long enough to prevail. In my mind, that's as key a part of this story as Churchill's lobbying the "Former Naval Person" was in the early days of WW2.
This should definitely be a factor for the Ukraine player and as you say is best reflected in researching social media campaigns or lobbying western governments for new equipment
 
Reflecting on your potential units: there are a lot of 'what-if' and vapour-ware vehicles that will probably never see the light of day in any numbers like the T-84 Oplot and T-14. This is very much of war between two combatants who are if anything regressing in their combat capabilities and equipment levels rather than developing and mass-producing new and improved kit. It would be interesting if you removed the capability of both sides to create much new equipment and made them reliant on bringing moth-balled reserve equipment into service (in the case of Russia like older T-72/T-62/T-55s) or 'researching' western equipment (in the case of Ukraine. Perhaps restrict city-built units to militia only with a handful of production centres and main military base cities capable of training regular infantry and the odd expensive refurbished T-64BM/BTR-3 (Ukraine) or T-72B3M/T-80BVM/BMP-3 (Russia). If anything new/refurbished armoured vehicle production should be restricted to the Kharkiv tank factory for Ukraine and Uralvagonzavod and St Petersburg for the Russians.

Air power should be severely restriced for both sides given they field the S-300 AA system. Drones of all types should be key units. Artillery and trench-warfare seem to be the order of the day rather than combined-arms mechanised warfare.

I wouldn't normally recommend wikipedia for research, but these links seem pretty comprehensive and give a decent idea of the numbers of each piece of equipment in use at the start of the war. I'd suggest its a good start point for establishing unit types and how many are/were fielded:

As another thought in addition to researching Western equipment supplies, perhaps the Ukrainians can have a chance of generating a 'captured' Russian tank unit for every Russian tank they destroy. I assume Lua could do this with a certain probability level (I dunno a 10% chance of generating a captured tank for Ukraine for every Russian loss maybe)
 
As another thought in addition to researching Western equipment supplies, perhaps the Ukrainians can have a chance of generating a 'captured' Russian tank unit for every Russian tank they destroy. I assume Lua could do this with a certain probability level (I dunno a 10% chance of generating a captured tank for Ukraine for every Russian loss maybe)
I thought about this by creating a unit or a ressource "Wrecked tank" in my list, as a first idea where each tank unit being destroyed would be an opportunity to recycle the wreck. That or when actively destroying a tank that is caught alone, there's a % chance you add it to your own army (but as a lower grade version of its former self maybe).
Reflecting on your potential units: there are a lot of 'what-if' and vapour-ware vehicles that will probably never see the light of day in any numbers like the T-84 Oplot and T-14. This is very much of war between two combatants who are if anything regressing in their combat capabilities and equipment levels rather than developing and mass-producing new and improved kit. It would be interesting if you removed the capability of both sides to create much new equipment and made them reliant on bringing moth-balled reserve equipment into service (in the case of Russia like older T-72/T-62/T-55s) or 'researching' western equipment (in the case of Ukraine. Perhaps restrict city-built units to militia only with a handful of production centres and main military base cities capable of training regular infantry and the odd expensive refurbished T-64BM/BTR-3 (Ukraine) or T-72B3M/T-80BVM/BMP-3 (Russia). If anything new/refurbished armoured vehicle production should be restricted to the Kharkiv tank factory for Ukraine and Uralvagonzavod and St Petersburg for the Russians.

Air power should be severely restriced for both sides given they field the S-300 AA system. Drones of all types should be key units. Artillery and trench-warfare seem to be the order of the day rather than combined-arms mechanised warfare.

I wouldn't normally recommend wikipedia for research, but these links seem pretty comprehensive and give a decent idea of the numbers of each piece of equipment in use at the start of the war. I'd suggest its a good start point for establishing unit types and how many are/were fielded:

This post will be long because it's to explain how I see the scenario going

That's where I don't agree 100% (but not 0% either :) i'll explain).

I know where you're going from and you seem very well informed about the units, way better than I will ever be. You even know the different variants of each unit etc. But, and it's my opinion, It's supposed to be a game, not a rendition 100% accurate to the events, so IMO it's more fun for the average player if there's a relative logical way for the war to go, in a civ2 way: up and up. We don't even know the details ourselves. In the Civ2 system, if combatants have fewer and fewer offensive units, they will end up not being able to do much and the trench would never move and it would be boring (IRL we all hope there is talks to end the war, but in Civ2 the end is either space or military domination). I did use these Wikipedia lists to throw the first idea (I had to learn about BMP; T80 vs T72, etc, different missile names,the car and troop transports, such things, and I chose those that seem to have the most numbers used or delivered. For ex I didn't know the Humvee was in such number in the ukrainian side). I also used the one in russian by @Buck2005 So my idea is not so much recreating where and what units were used, but more to give different flavours to the factions. (NOTE: if i made a blunder that ukraine has more T64 and BTR3 than 72 and BMP3, I'm totally up for corrections btw)

(Btw @Buck2005 I'm from France :) , by gf is from Moscow and stuck there, and she's half russian half ukrainian by blood (but russian by education and life: born rasied in moscow with some family in st pete).)

The "not for realism" is a total decision on my part: I do not seek to reproduce the war day by day as it happened, we don't even have the information anyways to do that (and to be frank I don't have such an infinite time either :lol:)? I'd say let the player go for it, and either mass produce what they have now, and go to a bit of fantasy and what-if and hold the line, spend in research, to win later with more hi-tech units.

My idea is that Ukraine would get more and more ability to receive (eventually produce locally, which is what the rumors are going for at least ammo, logistics equipment, and possibly repair pieces, so it's not a big stretch in a video game to simulate this is "ukraine can now build Leopard 1s") NATO equipment, while the east would go up and up in theirs. The thing is, I need Russia to continue research, which I'm sure it is doing (the problem is not the tech it's the production and access to some key elements that might be normally received from Taiwan before the war). Sure the T14/T15 is for now probably not combat ready and won't make a difference nor even see the front, but after some time in the scenario, I don't see why it shouldn't for the player, because otherwise, Ukraine will win by default because it's safe to assume if it receives more and more western equipment that is more modern while the east sends less and less of it's latest T72 and more of the older T62/55s like IRL it's a one-sided scenario. Russia is also not sending all its troops to Ukraine, we can only speculate to what it is doing. It does seem it is happy with the status quo and doesn't want to spend its most expensive things when old ones do the trick. I'm just saying it as in "why not"

Ultimately, when the war is over and the dust settles... this can be rethought. And just like a WW2 scenario, it could be altered (btw that's also why I put the scenario on github: if someone wanted to use my work to modify it, I would love to see different takes on the conflict later on!) :) And then, maybe we can reproduce the conditions the war stopped... and give options for the player to go further in the what ifs.

Otherwise, I might just as well give each side their units, and restrict production to almost nothing and it would be an attrition thing done in a few rounds only. These advancements wouldn't be quick either, it's not going an F35 vs Su57 domination fight before many many turns. But if you spend enough time and if the battle is balanced enough, why not go "vapour ware", just like a regular Civ2 game which doesn't always (in deity at least) reaches full tech? Also, I did talk about the possibility of throwing things into a global conflict, in which case I'm considering changing the speed of research if this happens (war does make research faster in the field of military equipment :lol:) and this kind of scenario would bring to the table more of the futuristic units for gameplay purposes. The idea is like proposing a WWII scenario where maybe Hitler actually dominates the sky with the Me262, the americans feel the need to drop a nuke on Europe (but not berlin: the air is now dominated by jets), and so different paradigms happen depending on different players.

Another reason I do not want to go too much into detailed realism is to avoid political bias. I want the game balanced. If Ukraine goes up in equipment and abilities, so should Russia in my scenario. And vice versa. Another consideration is down the road all of this can relatively be easily altered, so I'm not too worried about it. At the end of the day once the map, buildings, LUA codes are done, etc, the units and their stats can be updated, later (and GitHub can make it open source). An example: I would, for now, give similar stats between the F22 and the Su57. There are many reasons to believe they're not an equal match, India pulled off the program to buy the Rafale (note: this is factual) when realizing it, for example. But for the sake of the game, I would be unbiased and consider them face-to-face, the Su75 face-to-face with the F35, etc. Heck, i'd even invent a B2/B21 opponent if needed for balance (I know the Soviets bailed out of a similar program in the 80s, but "what if it revealed it has a stealthy strategic bomber available".

Btw I don't want it to sound "it's my scenario so I don't care", I'm explaining why I do consider the theoretical units as end game units in the scenario :) Because if it's too realistic, well we won't have much going on more than the front barely moving, I like the idea of having to strategically think of how you're gonna pierce the front.

Another idea which I did think of and would go towards your idea, but I thought it would be incredibly annoying to balance is
- ukraine gets more and more nato style units (quality over quantity)
- russia sends more and more older units and the way it would work is its research make units less and less costly, to simulate a ramp of of current technology and attempt to win the war by sheer numbers

Either way

As for production, like you proposed I thought about renaming each of the factory types, specifically the 3 advanced factory types to armor / air / missile (the regular ones make advanced infantries) and indeed I would make "city factories" where they exist IRL. It would be up to the player to build more of them, which would be a lenghty decision over producing armies (just like in Starcraft if you spend time and energy on buildings you open a window for your adversary to attack with its current units). It's in the @IMPROVE txt file. So yes, initally the tanks could only be produced where they should be produced. If the player wants to create a new factory, it could kinda cost like a wonder to build because it's that important for the scenario in theory. Future/vaporware units could be built only in specific cities where some conditions are met to avoid them spawning too easily too. As for basic infantry: barracks would be an academy (after all that's why it elevates units to veteran so I think of it as an academy), militia can always be recruited, conscript if you go "martial law" (fanatism), or play as Russia, and regular units from the basic factory. So, factories play both the role of increasing shield production and allow a list of units to be produced, or not. The commitment between the 3 advanced factories also avoids a city to be able to produce all types of units, just like factories are spread over a continent for obvious reasons.

For the trench, yes that's kind of what I want this system of logistics and mechanics of fortifying lasting more than 1 round mean. The more fortified a unit, the better entrenched and harder to destroy it is (up to a certain %). But far from the lines and logistics => not able to replenish HP or at least not at the same rate against shooting howitzers than are insisting on the position. That helps the line stay where it is unless you really push hard (like the autumn Ukrainian counter-offensive which objectively took a few km, albeit of good defensive positions, and not much more), and that gives an incentive for the player to find ways to get to the opponent's logistics units and its air defenses so it can bring helis and drones and missiles right on the enemy lines without going kamikaze, or that their missiles can reach further before the S300 destroy them if they retreate (I don't expect the AI to be able to do that, but the player sure could retreat their SAM and logistics).

As for the air, the thing is I want to open the scenario to what-ifs. The S300 and all SAMs when coded would basically neutralize air units anyways. But the player can make the adversary's SAM sites its target to be able to use their air forces. The air forces exist, they are just mostly grounded due to lack of options to use them because of the domination of SAM sites. I don't think there is any reason not to open slots for each side to have a few air units and I also don't think it's that interesting for players to have 10 variants of a T72 to deal with. Drones I need to add a lot to though, it went over my head but during the last throw of units ideas I made in the spreadsheets I wanted to fill the slots with what obvious equipment there are, and then I'll remove the least relevant. There might not need to be more than a few drone units on either side (it would be kamikaze short range drone, aliexpress-styled drones to drop a grenade, proper UAVs eetc). For the technical idea of how SAM could work, my idea is that a SAM would remove HP each move to air units within its range. I need to figure out exactly the counter to it. Maybe one SAM unit can only remove X HP per round which means it can be saturated of missiles to be hurt. Not sure yet. Obviously targetting it on the ground is an option but I don't want too many paratroop ability to go beyong the trenches to shortcut the game either. So, a special force unit would act as a spy and could only damage the site.

So, I'd like the front to be mostly ground and howitzer based not because I ban air units, but because of the reasons why air units can't be used (at the beginning of the scenario at least). If the player (and AI if you program once in a why its own targetting of it, if it is even possible) decides to avoid an attrition and pyrrhic win in an area and wants to spend recon and resources to aim at logistics and opponent's AA units, that's how I see an advantage possible. Also, because of the ("fun") potential of deciding to choose a different diplomatic path and just make everything a WWIII, I want air assets to exist and be positioned on the map too.
 
This should definitely be a factor for the Ukraine player and as you say is best reflected in researching social media campaigns or lobbying western governments for new equipment
That's the idea behind what I would imagine a big chunk of the ukrainian "tech" tree to be (ukrainian research would be mostly lobbying and cooperation with countries and NATO, while russia would be more of a mix)

You spend more on research = you get less money to pump units but you increase the long term help from the west. You basically lobby for western deliveries and eventually possible local production of units in the long run (real or fictional) as a successful intense lobbying.

EDIT: an idea would be for ex for each notable european country (germany, poland, france, england, baltic, nordic) to have a "Visit to XYZ" and then, the deliveries of units related to the country would start, every X turns a unit pops at the ukrainian border. But before that, a few research like overall lobbying according to roughly the events would need to be accomplished.

On the russian side, similar things would be needed for example making the law of conscription (several times maybe: each time it pops free conscripts + reduces their cost or something like that), in parallel to options to do pure research on improvement on the units.
 
Last edited:
There were a few actual Ukrainian pilots IIRC who did quite well - most have been shot down and killed by now - but you might just research "verified" aces (and look I'm going to use that term in quotes but it's a term that should be in quotes for every "verified" kill going back to WW1 as we can more or less assume every ace who ever lived is credited with more kills than he actually achieved due to various issues, some of which at least are good faith but still present). Even if not an ace, someone who was credited with considerable skill. Not long ago a fairly celebrated pilot was killed though I don't recall his name.

I'm sure there have to be some Russian units (if not pilots, though perhaps Buck2005 knows of some) which also achieved distinction.

This is coming from a guy who always likes to throw a few named "special" units into a scenario because I think it makes it fun. But you don't need a fictional Ghost of Kyiv when there's actual people and units who did difficult things.
The rule for an ace is officially 5 confirmed and verified kills (normally via camera, even during WWII fighters had a little camera at the front. Not sure how they did in WWI). Just like for ground kills, officially you need a proof and the dogtag of the ennemy is usually proof enough if the story makes sense.

EDIT: an interesting fact is now with modern warfare, shooting a cruise missile, or shooting a UAV counts as a kill. It's not as glorious, but it qualifies to be called an "Ace". I don't know if shooting a balloon with an F22 qualifies for the superiors though :lol:
I know it's a fake picture but I had to quote it :p
1702056977242.png

There are indeed a few pilots who stood out and have a dedicated wikipedia page for having shot a few ennemies and helicopters.
 
Last edited:
At most, I'd use it as flavor text or maybe a temporary boost to morale or western support. That propaganda played a big part in getting the West to support Ukraine as much as it did, and it's clearly part of the history of the conflict, but IMO it would be best to clearly present it as rumors/etc. rather than having an actual unit of it.

I do think Zelensky did a very, very good job early on of drumming up support on Twitter/etc. and getting populations to pressure their governments to help. Perhaps that's a tech path the player can invest in, or some other form of quest, but in my mind you have a David v. Goliath struggle here where David needs to make as many friends as he can as rapidly as he can and somehow hold onto them long enough to prevail. In my mind, that's as key a part of this story as Churchill's lobbying the "Former Naval Person" was in the early days of WW2.
Interesting note on this. A former candidate and ethics commissioner of the Wildrose Independence Party, the Alberta branch of the Maverick (formerly WEXIT) party, lives across the street from me, and though I don't share his ideology at all, we're able to have civil discussions (what a rarity nowadays), and he said, several years ago, "an independent Republic of Alberta would want to avoid entanglements in foreign wars, like Ron Paul says. But, when one fifth of Alberta's population are probably descended from Ukrainian farmers, it would be very hard to shrug this off."
 
(Btw @Buck2005 I'm from France :) , by gf is from Moscow and stuck there, and she's half russian half ukrainian by blood (but russian by education and life: born rasied in moscow with some family in st pete).)

Stuck? This is quite possible if she plans to travel to NATO countries. These states have lowered the Iron Curtain in front of the people of Russia. This is more than surprising, given that only Russian residents who share Western values and openly oppose the Putin regime are considering emigrating to these countries. Western countries thus created problems only and exclusively for their supporters from Russia. In my opinion, this is devoid of logic. However, of course, this is exclusively an internal matter of these countries. Logic in general is absent from all participants in the conflict.

The rest of the world (if you don’t take into account a couple of dozen NATO countries, and even among them there is no complete unity) is completely open to Russia. As far as I know, over the past two years, several countries around the world have either simplified or abolished the visa regime for residents of Russia. So, if your friend is experiencing some problems in Russia, she can choose almost any country in the world to emigrate.

Shakespeare's Theatre > Free Pr0nHub as placeholder until I have a good idea of something that would make everyone unhappy happy :lol: during WWII hitler gave the first amphetamines to his population so they were "happy" but that's in the past, that's the closest thing I could think of that can make everyone unhappy "happy" unless going SciFi :blush:

In your scenario, fundamentalism is called "martial law". The main effect of fundamentalism is the absence of dissatisfied residents. The Shakespeare effect is similar. Therefore, one can view the construction of Shakespeare as the introduction of a “state of martial law/emergency” in a single city. Two ways to use Shakespeare:

1). In your scenario, it is planned that Ukraine will have fundamentalism (martial law) from the beginning of the game. Therefore, Shakespeare may be relevant for the Russian player. For example, a player can build Shakespeare in their major cities (such as Moscow) from the start of the game, simulating the radically harsh measures imposed by the Russian authorities to maintain order. Some important technology limiting the action of Shakespeare can serve as a balance. “General mobilization”, “mass production of T-14” - something significant, your choice. Thus, the player will be faced with a dilemma: either maintain martial law in a particular city (receiving the corresponding production and other bonuses from this). Or cancel the action of Shakespeare, and research this certain important technology.

2). Second option. If I'm not mistaken, using Lua, it is possible to change the location of the wonder of the world during the game. Since you chose (correctly, in my opinion), a mobile version of the game, which includes many maneuver warfare scenarios for both parties to the conflict, we can assume, that players, sooner or later, can capture major cities from each other. By going on an active offensive, the Russian player can capture Kiev, Kharkov, and Dnepropetrovsk. Ukrainian player - Donetsk, Lugansk, Rostov, Bryansk. Obviously, during the assault on the city, many city buildings ("temple", "cathedral", "colosseum") will be destroyed. In this case, when capturing a large city, the player may receive a pop-up window offering him, for a certain amount of money, to introduce “martial law” in this city (to move the Shakespeare Theater to this city). The player will have stable control over the city, and will be able to get time to restore the destroyed city infrastructure.

I'm sure there have to be some Russian units (if not pilots, though perhaps Buck2005 knows of some) which also achieved distinction.

Of course, I know the real names of outstanding pilots who distinguished themselves in this conflict, on both sides, by Russian Ukrainian forces. However, I am a fundamental opponent of the use of any specific names, as well as excessive hyper-realism in a game simulation on the Civ2 platform. If a respected script author deems it necessary, he can independently find specific names on the Internet. I don't want to be involved in this.
 
Interesting note on this. A former candidate and ethics commissioner of the Wildrose Independence Party, the Alberta branch of the Maverick (formerly WEXIT) party, lives across the street from me, and though I don't share his ideology at all, we're able to have civil discussions (what a rarity nowadays), and he said, several years ago, "an independent Republic of Alberta would want to avoid entanglements in foreign wars, like Ron Paul says. But, when one fifth of Alberta's population are probably descended from Ukrainian farmers, it would be very hard to shrug this off."
The WRIP has ethics commissioners?
 
I'm not sure where you are going with the scenario. Is it attempting to simulate the strategic options of both sides in a somewhat realistic fashion, or is it a semi-fictional game where both sides are artificially balanced to produce a completely even scenario? Will you override the effect of modern weapons systems in order to create a more interesting game where the reality of static trench warfare is ignored?
 
Stuck? This is quite possible if she plans to travel to NATO countries. These states have lowered the Iron Curtain in front of the people of Russia. This is more than surprising, given that only Russian residents who share Western values and openly oppose the Putin regime are considering emigrating to these countries. Western countries thus created problems only and exclusively for their supporters from Russia. In my opinion, this is devoid of logic. However, of course, this is exclusively an internal matter of these countries. Logic in general is absent from all participants in the conflict.
Yes but thes people are married, or have a job and therefore can have a shenghen visa. At the moment, it's a lottery to get a visa more than a few weeks and you need to take 2 tickets to come here which are more than a salary for regular people. So it makes the situation complicated. It's not a matter of being able to move it's a matter of being able to stay in the country. She doesn't want to emigrate, it would only be to my place, but here i'ts not Visa free. The schenghen "easy" visa application has been abolished for a year and a bit so it's a complicated topic between us because at the same time marriage would be precipitated (it implies way more than just this)..
Of course russian citizens can move away. Her friends have been in Georgia or Thailand etc since day one, so that is not really the problem. She kept her shenghen visa for a while and was able to come but now it's more complicated. Another factor is she's self employed, she has to lie to get a visa (to produce employment papers etc).
In your scenario, fundamentalism is called "martial law". The main effect of fundamentalism is the absence of dissatisfied residents. The Shakespeare effect is similar. Therefore, one can view the construction of Shakespeare as the introduction of a “state of martial law/emergency” in a single city. Two ways to use Shakespeare:

1). In your scenario, it is planned that Ukraine will have fundamentalism (martial law) from the beginning of the game. Therefore, Shakespeare may be relevant for the Russian player. For example, a player can build Shakespeare in their major cities (such as Moscow) from the start of the game, simulating the radically harsh measures imposed by the Russian authorities to maintain order. Some important technology limiting the action of Shakespeare can serve as a balance. “General mobilization”, “mass production of T-14” - something significant, your choice. Thus, the player will be faced with a dilemma: either maintain martial law in a particular city (receiving the corresponding production and other bonuses from this). Or cancel the action of Shakespeare, and research this certain important technology.




Of course, I know the real names of outstanding pilots who distinguished themselves in this conflict, on both sides, by Russian Ukrainian forces. However, I am a fundamental opponent of the use of any specific names, as well as excessive hyper-realism in a game simulation on the Civ2 platform. If a respected script author deems it necessary, he can independently find specific names on the Internet. I don't want to be involved in this.
That's correct that's what I've been calling it so far (Martial Law).

What you propose is interesting indeed, because I did think Martial Law would be the de facto choice in the beginning of the war for Ukraine, Communism (I mean despite the fact it's a Democratic Republic, it has de facto characteristics of the Communism system in Civ2: control of the government, full decision by the leader who is the actual commander and more control of the population) for Russia. As such, I didn't give yet Shakespeare an equivalent because I wasn't sure what kind of thing can make all people "happy". But seeing it from the other point of view, it's more like "control the unhappy people" and as such can be renamed to something that makes sense that way. And yes some of those wonders can have a specific moment they come and go. For ex, King Richar Crusade could be available to whichever country reaches a "tech" that implies indusry mobilization and it would be a mega factory of sorts.

I'll copy here the current state of the @IMPROVE part of the txt file, nothing is set in stone
Pyramids, 20, 0, Mas, > Regiony
Hanging Gardens, 20, 0, Pot, > Red Square in moscow
Colossus, 20, 0, Bro, > WholeSale Megamarket
Lighthouse, 20, 0, Map, > Maritime Surveillance
Great Library, 30, 0, Lit, > ? To be obsolete immediately
Oracle, 30, 0, Mys, > Red Cross
Great Wall, 30, 0, Mas, > National Def. Perimeter To be obsolete
Sun Tzu's War Academy, 30, 0, Feu, > Military Doctrine To be obsolete
King Richard's Crusade, 30, 0, Eng, > Gigafactory
Marco Polo's Embassy, 20, 0, Tra, > UN seat
Michelangelo's Chapel, 40, 0, MT, > Bolshoi (music arena in all cities) in Moscow
Copernicus' Observatory, 30, 0, Ast, > FoldingAtHome
Magellan's Expedition, 40, 0, Nav, > Chernomorskiy Flot in Sevastopol
Shakespeare's Theatre, 30, 0, Med, > ?? to be obsolete
Leonardo's Workshop, 40, 0, Inv, > Repair Logistics
J. S. Bach's Cathedral, 40, 0, The, > Security Assistance?
Isaac Newton's College, 40, 0, ToG, > Kurchatov Institute in Moscow
Adam Smith's Trading Co., 40, 0, Eco, > Humanitarian Help
Darwin's Voyage, 40, 0, RR, > Intelligence Headquarters
Statue of Liberty, 40, 0, Dem, > Statue of the President
Eiffel Tower, 30, 0, SE, > Propaganda Institute
Women's Suffrage, 60, 0, Ind, > Civilian Mobilization
Hoover Dam, 60, 0, E2, > Military Mobilization
Manhattan Project, 60, 0, NF, > Hiroshima
United Nations, 60, 0, Cmn, > United Nations in NATO
Apollo Program, 60, 0, SFl, > Mars Colony to be in NATO
SETI Program, 60, 0, Cmp, > Folding At Home
Cure for Cancer, 60, 0, Gen, > Social Security

.
2). Second option. If I'm not mistaken, using Lua, it is possible to change the location of the wonder of the world during the game. Since you chose (correctly, in my opinion), a mobile version of the game, which includes many maneuver warfare scenarios for both parties to the conflict, we can assume, that players, sooner or later, can capture major cities from each other. By going on an active offensive, the Russian player can capture Kiev, Kharkov, and Dnepropetrovsk. Ukrainian player - Donetsk, Lugansk, Rostov, Bryansk. Obviously, during the assault on the city, many city buildings ("temple", "cathedral", "colosseum") will be destroyed. In this case, when capturing a large city, the player may receive a pop-up window offering him, for a certain amount of money, to introduce “martial law” in this city (to move the Shakespeare Theater to this city). The player will have stable control over the city, and will be able to get time to restore the destroyed city infrastructure.
That's a good idea. Martial law is decreted in a specific city only. I like this option, as it helps you take the local factory and produce units right away, but doing so you have to sacrifice the effects of the wonder in the previous city where you should have had the time to appease the people.
I'm not sure where you are going with the scenario. Is it attempting to simulate the strategic options of both sides in a somewhat realistic fashion, or is it a semi-fictional game where both sides are artificially balanced to produce a completely even scenario? Will you override the effect of modern weapons systems in order to create a more interesting game where the reality of static trench warfare is ignored?
That was the point of my long post. To make it shorter

- semi realistic/Semi-fictional: there should be trenches, and there would be SAM and Logistics gameplay that would force the scenario to naturally create front lines. Or i'd help them with a bit of code

but

My idea is that the game doesn't have to reflect the real situation. Also we don't know the future yet so for now it's a dead end. At least up to now, after the very initial weeks, the front has been established to what it is now, give or take kherson and a few km of land https://liveuamap.com/ . The latest ukrainian counter offensive has given mitigated results in terrain (we don't know though if the idea was also to make an attrition game against russian troops and some politics on the russian side played a major role. For ex, it is theorized Kherson was "left" to win to Russa but at a great cost, a strategic decision to make it an attrition place and the Russian had a Pyrrhic victory, which was mostly Wagner and is thought to have been a political move to reduce the effect of Wagner (Prygozhyn said he was waiting for ammo that didn't come, lost a lot of men for nothing, and after that is when he marched to moscow. And later this year he has a "plane accident"). It's only theory, and just shows how complicated a modern war can be. And these are things I do not want to enter, as I pledge on page 1: there would be no bias.

As such, I do not want the map of the scenario to reflect IRL things for three reasons
- no political bias: the game should be winnable for either side even if, say in 1 year, the war stops.
- if we make it 100% realistic, then you can spend a year with no front line movement. I challenge this as "fun" for the player, I myself can't imagine myself enjoying having a static line and only sending troops to each other and nothing else. I find it more interesting to have to think "what tech should I do, where are localted the sam and logistics of the ennemy? Should I send some spec forces to recon the area? so i can effectively choose where I concentrate my attacks and attempt to target the support of the ennemy in the trenches. When I'm finally able to kill one of those support units, the trench war becomes easier and eventually the front moves. That's how I see it "fun" to play the trench war in the ukrainian scenario: it's how it's happening IRL in fact.
- it stays a Civ2 game and as such, i personally believe it would be, at least for now, a more "fun" scenario if either side can escalate their tech. That's my personal opinion, some might like a strictly mega realistic scenario, but for now I think it's not even possible to make this happen since the fog of war still exist. We're not gonna see books with details of what happened for decades.

Also, like I said, I want it to be a playground, so I'd love to be able to have a diplomatic scripted option to maybe Buy belarus and change the tides, force the disappearance of the invisible wall between countries (btw it's something I need to adress: units should not be able to pass a border except russians toward ukraine, and mercenaries. If ukraine wants to go beyond its border it decides to attack russia which unleashes the belarus front, and it would be interesting that also triggers a WWIII. Also if Russia takes more thank Kyiv since it officially said it would "remove the government" and because it's a war game we could assume you either accept the defeat or let the game continue and as ukraine retreats to the east, NATO decides to make a move because Russia officially went beyong its objectives, or something like that. So there could be scenarios where superpowers fight each other, and as such, tech in the common sense of Civ2 is important and "fun" to have.

That said, static warfare is a thing I want to make happen with several things

- fortification starts slowly but goes further than the normal bonus (maybe 10% by turn spent in fortification state up to + 100% as opposed to +50% as per normal civ2 rule
- by adding "fortresses" on the map premptively where it would make sense when units fall back (trenches, maybe a few static defensive bunkers or something of this nature), that way I want the AI to use those fortresses and make a front line. I think the default AI of civ2 is quite happy to use fortresses when it finds some and the units is flagged as a defensive unit for ex.
- the idea of adding SAM and logistics units makes front line units more resilient, protects from Air, while units that go by themselves beyond the line cannot replenish HP and are quickly dismissable with Air attacks. As such, they can't expect to siege a city holding on a hill and replenish easily their HP. Also maybe a howitzer should loose some HP when it fires, to reflect its need for repairs and ammo and not camp at 2 tiles of a city.

So yes, there would be this simulation of trenches but not by not adding planes: by having SAM sites and logistics center placed where it matters, that's where it's semi realistic. For the AI, they would be pre-placed as "NONE" units. I'm considering having them have 0 movement for the AI if it uses them stupidly, so that for the human player it would be a matter of breaking each line of defense, while the AI with deity and maybe a bit of help would throw units at you. So it makes sense for the human player to use trenches to their advantage, and to target the key elements (support units: i'm also considering adding a mobile command armor which the user can use to help locally units, but I don't want it to be powerful enough to by itself and with 2 or 3 howitzer hold a hill by sneaking through the forest and take kyiv or moscow by cheesing the system. So this remains to be tested. But the game should escalate to a fantaisist state which is where it would be semi-fictional, where the end game with more and more tech would help unlock the status quo of trenches.

I'm open to challenging my concept and tell me where it falls and to alter it. After all I started thinking of MGE and was convinced to switch to ToT and now am thinking of more complex things :)
 
Last edited:
I think the project is quite ambitious, especially for a first scenario. Large, complex scenarios tend to remain unplayed, if not unfinished. When I consider a subject for a new scenario, I try to think of it in terms of what would be interesting for the person playing, rather than for the person designing. Does researching speculative technologies in order to break a static trench line meet that test? Not for me, I'm afraid. But I've been wrong before, and wish you all the best with your project. I look forward to playing the finished scenario.
 
I'd say advice from a veteran like @techumseh is well worth listening to. It is indeed challenging to recreate a modern war that is ongoing with abstact CIV2 functions.
But if all else fails, it could be made into a plain, fun conquest mod, with very tough defenders units and limited attackers...(and zero income to reflect Russia's empty coffers) ;)
 
I think the project is quite ambitious, especially for a first scenario. Large, complex scenarios tend to remain unplayed, if not unfinished. When I consider a subject for a new scenario, I try to think of it in terms of what would be interesting for the person playing, rather than for the person designing. Does researching speculative technologies in order to break a static trench line meet that test? Not for me, I'm afraid. But I've been wrong before, and wish you all the best with your project. I look forward to playing the finished scenario.

I'd say advice from a veteran like @techumseh is well worth listening to. It is indeed challenging to recreate a modern war that is ongoing with abstact CIV2 functions.
But if all else fails, it could be made into a plain, fun conquest mod, with very tough defenders units and limited attackers...(and zero income to reflect Russia's empty coffers) ;)
That was the point of my long post. To make it shorter

- semi realistic/Semi-fictional: there should be trenches, and there would be SAM and Logistics gameplay that would force the scenario to naturally create front lines. Or i'd help them with a bit of code

but

My idea is that the game doesn't have to reflect the real situation. Also we don't know the future yet so for now it's a dead end. At least up to now, after the very initial weeks, the front has been established to what it is now, give or take kherson and a few km of land https://liveuamap.com/ . The latest ukrainian counter offensive has given mitigated results in terrain (we don't know though if the idea was also to make an attrition game against russian troops and some politics on the russian side played a major role. For ex, it is theorized Kherson was "left" to win to Russa but at a great cost, a strategic decision to make it an attrition place and the Russian had a Pyrrhic victory, which was mostly Wagner and is thought to have been a political move to reduce the effect of Wagner (Prygozhyn said he was waiting for ammo that didn't come, lost a lot of men for nothing, and after that is when he marched to moscow. And later this year he has a "plane accident"). It's only theory, and just shows how complicated a modern war can be. And these are things I do not want to enter, as I pledge on page 1: there would be no bias.

As such, I do not want the map of the scenario to reflect IRL things for three reasons
- no political bias: the game should be winnable for either side even if, say in 1 year, the war stops.
- if we make it 100% realistic, then you can spend a year with no front line movement. I challenge this as "fun" for the player, I myself can't imagine myself enjoying having a static line and only sending troops to each other and nothing else. I find it more interesting to have to think "what tech should I do, where are localted the sam and logistics of the ennemy? Should I send some spec forces to recon the area? so i can effectively choose where I concentrate my attacks and attempt to target the support of the ennemy in the trenches. When I'm finally able to kill one of those support units, the trench war becomes easier and eventually the front moves. That's how I see it "fun" to play the trench war in the ukrainian scenario: it's how it's happening IRL in fact.
- it stays a Civ2 game and as such, i personally believe it would be, at least for now, a more "fun" scenario if either side can escalate their tech. That's my personal opinion, some might like a strictly mega realistic scenario, but for now I think it's not even possible to make this happen since the fog of war still exist. We're not gonna see books with details of what happened for decades.

Also, like I said, I want it to be a playground, so I'd love to be able to have a diplomatic scripted option to maybe Buy belarus and change the tides, force the disappearance of the invisible wall between countries (btw it's something I need to adress: units should not be able to pass a border except russians toward ukraine, and mercenaries. If ukraine wants to go beyond its border it decides to attack russia which unleashes the belarus front, and it would be interesting that also triggers a WWIII. Also if Russia takes more thank Kyiv since it officially said it would "remove the government" and because it's a war game we could assume you either accept the defeat or let the game continue and as ukraine retreats to the east, NATO decides to make a move because Russia officially went beyong its objectives, or something like that. So there could be scenarios where superpowers fight each other, and as such, tech in the common sense of Civ2 is important and "fun" to have.

That said, static warfare is a thing I want to make happen with several things

- fortification starts slowly but goes further than the normal bonus (maybe 10% by turn spent in fortification state up to + 100% as opposed to +50% as per normal civ2 rule
- by adding "fortresses" on the map premptively where it would make sense when units fall back (trenches, maybe a few static defensive bunkers or something of this nature), that way I want the AI to use those fortresses and make a front line. I think the default AI of civ2 is quite happy to use fortresses when it finds some and the units is flagged as a defensive unit for ex.
- the idea of adding SAM and logistics units makes front line units more resilient, protects from Air, while units that go by themselves beyond the line cannot replenish HP and are quickly dismissable with Air attacks. As such, they can't expect to siege a city holding on a hill and replenish easily their HP. Also maybe a howitzer should loose some HP when it fires, to reflect its need for repairs and ammo and not camp at 2 tiles of a city.

So yes, there would be this simulation of trenches but not by not adding planes: by having SAM sites and logistics center placed where it matters, that's where it's semi realistic. For the AI, they would be pre-placed as "NONE" units. I'm considering having them have 0 movement for the AI if it uses them stupidly, so that for the human player it would be a matter of breaking each line of defense, while the AI with deity and maybe a bit of help would throw units at you. So it makes sense for the human player to use trenches to their advantage, and to target the key elements (support units: i'm also considering adding a mobile command armor which the user can use to help locally units, but I don't want it to be powerful enough to by itself and with 2 or 3 howitzer hold a hill by sneaking through the forest and take kyiv or moscow by cheesing the system. So this remains to be tested. But the game should escalate to a fantaisist state which is where it would be semi-fictional, where the end game with more and more tech would help unlock the status quo of trenches.

I'm open to challenging my concept and tell me where it falls and to alter it. After all I started thinking of MGE and was convinced to switch to ToT and now am thinking of more complex things :)
I believe it is techumseh's advice that caused me to rethink my Iraq War scenario I was doing in 2004 on Apolyton. In fact, I recall him calling my project, "ambitious," (as well as, "difficult") very specificaly.
 
I'm sorry if that advice deprived us of a fun scenario. :sad:
Not at all. You were probably of wise counsel at the time. Nowadays, however, with the conflict largely centred on events in Kurdistan and the Ninevah Plains, and most direct non-Middle Eastern intervention withdrawn from the country, it might be easier to revisit, one day.
 
I also tried to develop a 2nd Iraq War scenario, but abandoned it part way through. I actually have a rather large collection of incomplete scenarios. It was notable in that I used hex editing to move cities next to each other in order to create multi-tile cities. As I recall, Baghdad and Teheran were 3 tiles, and Basra and Mosul were 2. It was a long and tedious process to learn how to do it (for me, anyway), which I haven't bothered to repeat. I wonder if it's perhaps something that Lua could do?

(Sorry about the hijack here.)
 
Top Bottom