Cold What scenario?

[Eivind IV]

Without saying too much about what I'm working on, I'd apreciate some help updating this units file with the 'top of the pops' units. The theme is 60s-late 80s.

I like the units as they are by all means, but I think I've seen some fancy camo versions of some of these units around, and these are the best I've found yet.

Thanks in advance!

[Broken_Erika]

m-48a5 and m-60a3,
i'll see if i can get a t-72 and t-80 in the same style,

[Eivind IV]

Cheers, Erika!

[curtsibling]

Eivind, I notice you have your units file marked up with the proper Wav sounds!

A good move, to plan the units ahead with their sounds!

[Eivind IV]

It certainly is, Curt!

[curtsibling]

Nice one!

*saves to his archive*

I think that will be excellent for all MGE scenario makers!

[Cyrion]

One more file to save in my archives!

Thanks Eivind!

PS: I might soon have some request for help, if you can spare some time for me in a few weeks!

[jim panse]

Looks fine, Eivind! Would you mind sharing some more information about that one? Since I have quite a big database of Cold War era units, I *might* help you out on this or that unit

[Eivind IV]

Ok then, since you ask so nice

It's a scenario I started two years ago but abondoned as Academia released his Iron Curtain. But now I've blown dust off it and restarted it with a different approach, to justify another cold war giga scenario.

Basically there are 4 playable civs. (1)WARPAC, (2)CHINA, (3)NATO and (4)USA. The remaining civs are (5)PRO-SOVIETS, (6)PRO-WESTERN and (7)NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT. Barbarians will be neutrals, allied to everyone by hex editing, efectively making these countries un invadable.

The Pro-Soviets and the Pro-Western will be at war, so the human civs will be encouraged to fight different proxy wars by gifting money and units to these civs. I'll try to tweak it so that if one of the human civs attack one of the other ideology's pro civ, there will be danger of ww2.

It will start in the late 60s and last until the fall of the berlin wall.

What more to say at this point? I'm about 70% done with the scenario. Expect to have it done before Christmas.

Any tips, suggestions and help are welcome

[our_man]

I'm not absolutely sure about this, but I think by the late 60's Spain had been welcomed in from the cold by the West. I think the Americans had air force bases there by this period. Maybe it might be more appropriate if they were pro-western?

[fairline]

I thought that Spain was out on a limb until Franco died? (1976?). They joined NATO in the early '80's I think.

You're probably right though O-M, the US didn't mind supporting Fascist states as long as they were anti-Soviet during the Cold War. Think Chile for example...

@Eivind: this idea of fighting the Cold War by proxy is interesting. You're saying NATO can't openly fight Warpac and vice-verca, but will have to give money to smaller nations to support their wars. Will the AI be able to cope with this, or are you thinking MP only?

Why have the US as a separate civ to NATO BTW?

[fairline]

How will US involvement in Vietnam be simulated? This obviously didn't trigger WW3....

BTW, shouldn't Angola be pro-Soviet?

[jim panse]

Oh, that´s good news, comrade

I would have some suggestion(s) though ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coldwarmap.gif

This map suggests dividing up the world into NATO, countries receiving aid from the U.S., colonial areas (which would be kewl for you could spawn independentist movements via events), Warsaw Pact, nations receiving aid from the USSR; this would make 5 civs (though the colonies could be barbs, whatever ...).

What about the units you´d still need?

[Eivind IV]

Spain:
That's correct about Spain. Eisenhower established some bases on the Iberian peninsula, so they should be in the pro-western civ. And why they shouldn't be in the NATO civ is exactly why Gareth points out - they didn't join NATO until 1982.

Proxy Wars:
I'm not saying NATO can't fight WARPAC openly, I'm just saying that instead of having pro soviet countries in the soviet civ, I chose to have two supporting civs for simplicity, especially for SP games in mind. If it was solely for MP games, cities could be in either the Nato or the Soviet civ, and use limited wars. So instead of fighting an open war against the communists, or vice versa against the capitalists, proxy wars are encouraged to gain your civs goals without having to fight openly. This will be best simulatedt in MP games as I see it now. I've never seen the AI gift money or units to another civ.

Vietnam:
I'm waiting with the placement of untis until the very end of the scenario development, so issues such as the vietnam war will be considered in time. I'm even thinking of abstracting it entirely, having the pro westerners fighting it alone, or starting the scenario after the vietnam war, just to avoid an all out war between NATO/US and the pro soviet civ. When did the vietnamization start? Maybe starting as the Vietnamese was left to fight alone would be natural sollution.

EDIT: according to wikipedia this began as Nixon took over in 1969.

Why US not in NATO civ:
To better represent the different economic entities. A civ's development, economically and scientifically, will rely heavily on trade. This will not only make the two civs dependent on each other but I hope it will be more fun to play these civs seperately. One large NATO civ would also be harder to handle due to the enourmous size of it.

But even that may change in the end.

Angola:
Also, Angola wasn't independent until 1975. So rebel pro-soviet units will be active in ther region.

Civs (respond to the map fro Steph)
I've seen this map and come to the conclusion that the sollution I have now is what I want. Most colonies were decolonized or within the west or soviet sphere by the late 60s (early 70s) already anyway.

Units:
I don't really need any units per se, but some of those nice camo units I've seen around would be nice. Not absolutely neccessary though. These units are as good as perfect as they are!

[Patine]

I actually did a Cold War scen (though it went only from 1979 to 1990) some time ago with Pro-Western and Pro-Soviet States separate from NATO (though including the US, in my case) and the Warsaw Pact, along with China & Allies, the Nonaligned States, and Iran, plus barb 'Volitiles & Insurgents.' I thus think the idea of proxy wars is a good one, though I always ended up in mine with nuclear war between NATO and WARPAC, and both nuking each other's allies. If that could be avoided, it could be great. I'd planned to one day revise my scen, but I'd like to see what you come up with. Here's that very scen if you'd like to have a look.

[Eivind IV]

I had no idea about this one, but I'll check it out. Cheers!

[KASHANKA]

For Vietnamisation - the process started in 1969, but it wasn't until 1972 when all US land units were evacuated.
If I were you I'd either start the scenario in 1975 when the Vietnamese conflict ended, or in 1964 when it was still unclear how the US will handle the problem.
1978 is another interesting date in Indochina, since it marks the beginning of the Vietnamese-Khmer Rouge conflict which lead to a war between China and Vietnam.

[Eivind IV]

I read that as well, Kashanka. It's not quite decided yet, but I might just start in 1975 afterall. Or abstract the war as already noticed.

Btw, I've done some rearranging of civs according to 1975 if that's the end choice:


* One American NATO civ and one European NATO civ.
-The American NATO has Lisbon, Naples and Munich in Europe.
-South Korea and Japan in Asia.
-The European NATO has Australia and New Zealand.

* Many cities rearranged accordingly to alignment.


Comments?

[Patine]

I think Iraq had fallen into the US's pocket by '75, but I could be mistaken (it could have been later). Hard as it is to believe today, old Saddam Hussein was once a staunch pro-US despot, especially during the Iran-Iraq War.

[Case]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
-The European NATO has Australia and New Zealand.

Why? Australia has been very closely alligned with the US from about 1965 onwards and NZ was also towing the American line at this time. Britain withdrew from 'east of Suez' in the late 1960s(?). Stick Australia and NZ in with the US.

Also, the following changes should be made:
* South Africa should be pro-western
* Thailand and the Phillipines should definetly be alligned with the US (either as part of the US Civ or as part of the US-Allied Asian Civ)
* You may want to consider adding Iran to the US civ.

[Eivind IV]

That's why I asked for comments. I'm not an expert on Australian/NZ political history, 'maite'

According to the reading I've done SA was an important member of the non-aligned movment (wikipedia). They might be wrong though, or maybe taken out of the cold war context.

Thailand is in the pro western civ, it's just not on the map posted. Isn't it enough to have the Philipines in the pro western civ as well (ther is no 'us allied asian civ', only a world 'pro western civ')? If not, please enlighten me.

And Iran is indeed a nut I havn't quite worked out yet. Did the Americans have military units inside Iran? If not, I'll let it stay in the pro western civ. Or if they did, only give them a military base or something. This way it can easier be 'overthrown' when the revolution happens.

[our_man]

Originally posted by Case
* South Africa should be pro-western

Was SA not an international pariah by this period?

[Case]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
According to the reading I've done SA was an important member of the non-aligned movment (wikipedia). They might be wrong though, or maybe taken out of the cold war context.

I believe that SA was, while regarded as unattractive, not considered too awful in 1965 and was firmly aligned with the west. It didn't become a pariah state until the late 1970s.

Thailand is in the pro western civ, it's just not on the map posted. Isn't it enough to have the Philipines in the pro western civ as well (ther is no 'us allied asian civ', only a world 'pro western civ')? If not, please enlighten me.

Seeing as both countries hosted huge American bases until the end of the cold war they should be very firmly alligned with the US.

And Iran is indeed a nut I havn't quite worked out yet. Did the Americans have military units inside Iran? If not, I'll let it stay in the pro western civ. Or if they did, only give them a military base or something. This way it can easier be 'overthrown' when the revolution happens.

Yeah, it doesn't fit comfortably into either camp. While the US didn't station any military units in Iraq, US thosands of US 'advisors' were based in the country where they provided vital support the the Iranian military.

[Eivind IV]

Originally posted by Case
I believe that SA was, while regarded as unattractive, not considered too awful in 1965 and was firmly aligned with the west. It didn't become a pariah state until the late 1970s.

Ok, but this scenario seems to be starting in 1975, and not '65.

What's a pariah state btw?

EDIT:
Did some google on it, still not sure though. Have I understood it correctly if it's a state hated by the whole world?

If pariah means non aligned or rouge or whatever, then maybe for simplicity they could by 1975 (even though it's not until late 70s as you point out) be in the 'non aligned civ', no?

Originally posted by Case
Seeing as both countries hosted huge American bases until the end of the cold war they should be very firmly alligned with the US.

Ok, US civ it is!

Cheers!

[Eurisko]

Hey Eivind,

how about canning the unalligned civ and using India instead? The other nations which are in the unalligned civ could become neutral, India in the hands of the AI is just way too easy prey for China and others, as many, many Iron Curtain PBEMs have shown

[our_man]

Hate might be too strong a word for a pariah - in terms of international diplomacy at least. The best way to put it is to say that other countries shun their company (there, I should have been a diplomat).

Making SA unaligned I think is the right call.

[Eivind IV]

Finally I can commit to this again, as I've finished all my exams. Now it's christmas holidays for me until the new years. Yep, you read right - over a month!

I just finished the tech tree today so now I just have the easy part left:

1. Improvements to cities + balancing production etc.
2. Unit placement
3. Events
4. Fine tuning graphics for icons etc. + text files.
5. Done!

I reckon this'll be ready in beta before Christmas!

(also update the units in the first post)

[Eurisko]

Eivind, sign me up as the US NATO in the playtest at Evo, please.

[rmsharpe]

Here's my perception of geopolitical affairs in and around 1975. An explanation will be presented.

[rmsharpe]

I'll start with the Americas.

Mexico was solidly under the thumb of the PRI, a one-party leftist/socialist regime. Mexico was not openly hostile to either Washington or Moscow, a kind of American Titoism.

Brazil's Geisel, unlike his predecessors, believed that Brazil could play both sides of the fence, and recognized regimes like those in Angola, Mozambique, and mainland China. He also renounced the alliance Brazil had with the United States.

In Argentina, Juan Peron had died and his wife Isabel had taken over. She led a short ruled regime that was replaced with Jorge Videla, who was best described as being kind of an idiot. I went with neutral since the U.S. administration (Carter) changed and respectively changed the policy towards Argentina from cordial to lukewarm.

Now, in Africa. Benin and the Republic of Congo had Marxist coups and had the governments replaced. It's unlikely either will be in the game since they're both pretty insignificant, but that should be noted anyway.

I had a tough time trying to figure out where Uganda stood. Uganda did not have a pro-Soviet regime so much as an anti-U.S. and anti-Britain regime. Amin was actually more pro-Libyan than anything else, something that can't really be reflected in the game. I threw him in the "neutral" category, even though Amin would be removed by neighboring Tanzania four years later, who I had also colored green.

Somalia under Siad Barre was officially socialist, but they hosted U.S. bases and received a lot of support from non-socialist countries. This comes in contrast to Ethiopia's Mengistu Haile Mariam, whose regime was a lot more Soviet-style and ideological than Barre's.

Zambia is a hard nut to crack. Kenneth Kaunda wasn't really pro-Western or pro-Soviet, he kind of stood in the middle. Zambia, aside from Mexico, might actually be the only real neutral country in the game.

Rhodesia under Ian Smith was not popular in the circles of power in Washington and London, so Rhodesia did not really have a pro-Western policy, but more of a pro-independence and anti-communist policy. Like Somalia and Ethiopia, this could be a potential Soviet ally/neutral country conflict.

South Yemen was the only Arab communist state and despite it's policy not necessarily always being in line with Moscow, it was still not a hostile regime towards the Soviet Union. I'd move them into the pro-Soviet category.

Albania's Hoxha broke ties with Yugoslavia because Yugoslavia was becoming too "anti-Soviet." Then he broke ties with the Soviet Union for being too 'anti-Soviet." After that, he broke ties with Deng Xiaoping, saying that China had become too "anti-Soviet." Albania managed to isolate itself from all of it's allies, hence it's inclusion in the green non-aligned category.

South Africa belongs in the pro-Western category. It wouldn't be another 10 years before the United States even considered economic sanctions against South Africa. U.S. "support" (although it was not always vocal) for South Africa in the seventies was vital for the strategy of containing communism.

Australia and New Zealand were just made pro-Western because I didn't want to interfere in whether they were really NATO countries or not.

That might be all I changed and all I feel I really need to explain. The last thing, the only reason Eivind's name doesn't appear on the map is that I started with a fresh world map and recolored it, so it doesn't appear on there.