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
)? 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. 
