Iron Curtain PBEM

[academia]

Well, i´m opening this topic for two reasons:

1) The obvious reason. Start a pbem!!
If you are interested, post here!

2) Suggest ideas.
Before we start the pbem, i´m interested in making some adjustments.
I must add something important here... my original idea was to split this scenario in different segments: 1964-1970, 1971-1975, 1976-1980, etc.
Unfortunately, none of the pbems played was able to reach 1971...
So, i couldn´t just make that "period change".

In other words, i realize that this is a key point for the developmente of the entire scenario.
What do you guys want? A shorter scenario? focusing on let´s say 1964-1975 period? or would you really like to see multiple periods and files?
The main problem is the tech tree... and i have to "update" my original decision


Apart from that issue, feel free to say anything you want. Ideas, suggestions, comments, etc.


I´ve uploaded the last version in the scenario league:

http://sleague.apolyton.net/index.php?title=Iron_Curtain

As you can see, the page is under construction

To sum up, give me a hand with that construction

[academia]

Choose your civ

CIVS

USSR - OPEN
USA - Eurisko
NATO - OPEN
China - Academia
Non-Alligned - AI
SEATO - OPEN
Arab Alliance - OPEN

[Eurisko]

I will comment more in-depth later, but a few suggestions right off the bat:

1. It should be stackable.

2. I don't know how much sense the SEATO civ makes. Basically, the SEATO already cracked after the west lost the Vietnam war, and in 1973 first members already withdrew.

Maybe India would be a better choice for a civ?

[Eivind IV]

-How about something like this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_Map_1959.png

1. WARPAC
2. Soviet allies (cuba, egypt, syria etc.)
3. NATO (one large)
4. NATO allies (Japan, Australia etc.)
5. China
6. India
7. Non-aligned
8. Third World (Africa - S. America - Barbarian?)

And some general observations:

-If you go with one large NATO civ, remove some cities (in America firstly) to balance it out, and create more Third World cities, as that's where the real hot wars where fought.
-Give Yugoslavia it's legitimate Non-Aligned status.
-Also, I would remove a lot of roads and infrastructure from the map, so the player could focus a bit more on that instead of just armament.
-There's also a lot of useless city improvements that you could remove. They are too easy to sell.
-Maybe you could rework the governments a bit, and change the cosmic rules a bit, so it's more expensive shield wise to have a large standing army?
-I would also see a lot less units - the scenario is too large, and it takes too much time to play with all those units.
-Remove the stinger, didn't come before 1981.
-Maybe more specific abilities for units. Too many similar units. for example, right now the only difference between NATO and WARPAC troops is the graphic. Either make it a generic unit, to make up for new units or give them different abilities or prices.
-As pointed out many times before, give more emphasize to the Barents region, which was NATO's northern most front. Add Tromsø (maybe remove Malmø for that) as a city or at least an airbase in Northern Norway.

that's it for now. Hope it helped.

Btw, there's no scn file in the zip-file at sl-wiki.

[Eurisko]

Ok, now my elaborate post:

1. As I said, the scenario should be stackable, for obvious reasons.

2. The civ lineup should be changed, to something much like Eivind has suggested.

I don't know if the NATO being one big civ would be fair to the soviets, they would have to be weakened quite a bit. To give the soviets more of an advantage, I would suggest giving them the Arab Oil Wonder (could be renamed to Caucasus Oil).

Maybe they should also get a few other wonders to put up a veritable resistance against a super-NATO civ.

Consider the fact that soviet trade is less efficient (maybe even non-existant) compared to NATO trade.

I don't know if a non-alligned civ is needed, I guess there will not be too many events relying on barbarians and not much barbarian activity to begin with, so the non-alligned could be barbarians, which would free up another civ slot.

I have no clue about what civ that one could be used for yet, though.

Maybe Pakistan could be it's own civ?

3. As for the minor civs: They should, of course, be played like the rogues or allies in NWO.

4. Unit prices, etc: Considering current production levels of cities in Iron Curtain, I think the current prices are OK. They should not be changed.

5. Infrastructure: Again, I think it's fairly OK as it is. I would actually enjoy a Cold War scenario which places less emphasis on building up but rather concentrates on the proxy war concept.

6. Expanding the tech-tree: If you ask me, there are currently many pointless units in IC.

For example the Arab MiG or the Chinese J-7.

If you ask me, units should be categorized as follows:

1. Soviet-specific units.
2. NATO-specific units.
3. Minor eastern units.
4. Minor western units.

Maybe China and India could get very few units of their own (only one infantry unit or so).

This would allow for many empty slots, which you could use to create several generations of a certain unit type.

Also, there are several units which are simply unused or out of place, namely the howitzer, stinger and the terrorist.

7. City changes: I would propose adding Bangladesh, removing a few NATO cities and adding more cities to Africa, Iran and Afghanistan.

[Eivind IV]

Respond to Eurisko:
1. Agreed.
2. I think one large could be feasable under those circumstances - remove some cities, give ussr more wonders etc. Also in this way the NATO trade wouldn't be so efficient as they too would have to trade with the third world. I strongly disagree with Pakistan as a civ. There's a whole lot of questions that arises with Non-aligned as barbarians, mainly that the AI would go nuts on them. but first and foremost they deserve their own civ, as it's a major force throughout the cold war - a neutral one at that - but many of them changed side as events changed.
4. I think the prices are way too cheap. Too easy to rush build, and make the scenario even larger in terms of amount of time required to play with all those units.
5-6. Agreed on the units - disagreed on the infrastructure. Building infrastructure is a challenge and hence a fun part of the game.

In my opinion the unit thing and the infrastructure thing is one of the reasons all IC PBEMs have ended before 1971...

[Eurisko]

2. You are right, I didn't think about that. Then the minor pro-western civ should get a bad government form like monarchy, to decrease the effectiveness of their trade while the minor soviets should get a better form like fundamentalism.

Also, about the nonaligned civ: The barbarians don't go wild in New World Order, where neutral barbarians work just fine. The same could be the case here. And the change of alignment could still be simulated by conquering them with the minor civs.

4. A minor increase could be made, but the production of units should not rely too heavily on money, but rather on actual production capability itself.

Also if he made them expensive etc, IC would be too much like FS. The scenarios should have differences, and as I see it the emphasis in FS is on building up, so the emphasis in IC should be on building units.

5. Again, see above.

If you ask me, not only building infrastructure, but also many proxy wars can make the game last longer.

[Eivind IV]

Regarding the non-aligned, you could at least keep the major non-aligned players such as Brazil, S. Africa, Yugoslavia etc. in an untouchable civ. Maybe as barbarian, hex-edited allied to everyone, so they can't be attacked. The remaining cities that actually changed sides could be called neutrals and then have their own civ - or in a larger Third World civ.

[Eurisko]

Well, it would be easier if everyone simply agreed not to attack them.

Btw, I forgot to say that the minor civs should of course also be human-controlled.

[academia]

first of all, thanx for giving so many ideas!! i didn´t expect that.

and now, let´s answer/discuss some of the issues:

1) Stackable terrain. Yep, i´m going to do it.

2) India for SEATO? ok, i´m willing to split SEATO and the Arabs.
I decided to test these civs:

1. WARPAC
2. Soviet allies (cuba, egypt, syria etc.)
3. USA
4. NATO
5. China
6. India
7. NATO allies
8. Non-alligned (barbarian civ)

3)

-If you go with one large NATO civ, remove some cities (in America firstly) to balance it out, and create more Third World cities, as that's where the real hot wars where fought.

Ehh... in my scenario, southamerica+africa have 42 cities, while in first strike they have 33. Do you really want me to include more third world cities?

4)

Give Yugoslavia it's legitimate Non-Aligned status.

Yep, you are right.

5)

Also, I would remove a lot of roads and infrastructure from the map, so the player could focus a bit more on that instead of just armament.

Yes, i agree with you. i tend to overpopulate the map with infraestructure. i´ll remove some things.

6)

There's also a lot of useless city improvements that you could remove. They are too easy to sell.

mmm... don´t know what to do.

7)

Maybe you could rework the governments a bit, and change the cosmic rules a bit, so it's more expensive shield wise to have a large standing army?

ok. i´ll take a look at your scenario.

8)

I would also see a lot less units - the scenario is too large, and it takes too much time to play with all those units.

not sure. i enjoy having lots of units. in pbems, i prefer to see some action fast. it´s just my point of view.
sorry, but i won´t change that.

9)

Remove the stinger, didn't come before 1981.

hehe. consider it done!

10)

Maybe more specific abilities for units. Too many similar units. for example, right now the only difference between NATO and WARPAC troops is the graphic. Either make it a generic unit, to make up for new units or give them different abilities or prices.

Yes, i´ll try to have more generic units. However, you know that i love to have different graphics for infantry troops i won´t change the infantry!!

11)

As pointed out many times before, give more emphasize to the Barents region, which was NATO's northern most front. Add Tromsø (maybe remove Malmø for that) as a city or at least an airbase in Northern Norway.

Good. i´ll do something in the area.

12)

I don't know if the NATO being one big civ would be fair to the soviets, they would have to be weakened quite a bit. To give the soviets more of an advantage, I would suggest giving them the Arab Oil Wonder (could be renamed to Caucasus Oil).

I think one large could be feasable under those circumstances - remove some cities, give ussr more wonders etc. Also in this way the NATO trade wouldn't be so efficient as they too would have to trade with the third world

Nope, i still prefer USA and NATO/Europe as two different civs. I simply like it that way.
About the Caucasus Oil idea... might be useful.

13)

I don't know if a non-alligned civ is needed, I guess there will not be too many events relying on barbarians and not much barbarian activity to begin with, so the non-alligned could be barbarians, which would free up another civ slot.

Yep, the non-allgined civ will be barbarians. pretty much like nwo.

14)

As for the minor civs: They should, of course, be played like the rogues or allies in NWO.

yep. i agree with you.

15)

Unit prices, etc: Considering current production levels of cities in Iron Curtain, I think the current prices are OK. They should not be changed.

I think the prices are way too cheap. Too easy to rush build, and make the scenario even larger in terms of amount of time required to play with all those units.

I´ll probably increase them a little bit. not to much.

16)

Expanding the tech-tree: If you ask me, there are currently many pointless units in IC.

Yep, like eivind said before, i´ll focus on more generic units. that´ll let me have a more interesting tech-tree and make research relevant in order to get new units.

17)

Also, there are several units which are simply unused or out of place, namely the howitzer, stinger and the terrorist.

yep, i´ll work on the units list.

18)

Regarding the non-aligned, you could at least keep the major non-aligned players such as Brazil, S. Africa, Yugoslavia etc. in an untouchable civ. Maybe as barbarian, hex-edited allied to everyone, so they can't be attacked.

Yep, i´ll do that.

[academia]

well, on second thoughts, i decided that SEATO stays.
why? because it worked fine in the past PBEMS and its a unique characteristic of this scenario.
After working a few minutes with the new civ distribution, i felt that this scenario would become too similar to first strike, and i really don´t want that.

SEATO stays. India will appear.
On the other hand, i´m still going to erase the arab league. But this slot will be ocuppied by a "pro-soviet" civ.

I made a choice. that´s all guys. as you know, i prefer playability over realism. why the hell should i change so many things about civs distribution if that worked so well?
As you pointed out in your past topics, there are lot of things to improve, that i consider more important.

[Eurisko]

So there will be the SEATO instead of the minor NATO?

[academia]

Originally posted by Eurisko
So there will be the SEATO instead of the minor NATO?

yep, i still prefer that option.
i won´t change the current US-NATO-SEATO cities distribution.


btw, i decided to establish the game period in 1964-1975 and probably reduce the months per turn rate.
if you want the next period, go play first strike

[Eurisko]

Actually, if you had a minor NATO, would the SEATO not be included in it anyway?

[academia]

Originally posted by Eurisko
Actually, if you had a minor NATO, would the SEATO not be included in it anyway?

i don´t want a worlwide pro-US civ. i´m willing to include japan or south korea in this expanded SEATO. i feel that it won´t harm playability. moreover, it could even involve more the SEATO player in the conflict.