US Civil War 2012 - Scenario Idea/Discussion

[McMonkey]

Check this post for tips:

How to make your sig work

I had a bit of a kefuffle with my sig!

[GhostOfDisco]

I wonder if this link will work? EDIT: Yes! it does!

And for an update, here's the title screen I whipped up today:

[GhostOfDisco]

Though nobody seems to be interested...

I've done some updating recently. Here's some of the improvements I've done since I released the [incomplete] alpha:

• Got rid of the units "produced" at the first turn. Long story short, some "turns" occurred while I was developing the scenario, and as a result some cities begin the scenario with "unplanned" units already built, are just being built. So I got rid of them, leaving only the units I still want. Though a few CNA troops emerge at the inauguration - I'll have to see what to do about that.
• Added some texts regarding the capture of San Diego and Los Angeles.
• Replaced the M1A1 graphic for the Abrams with my M1A2 graphic (the only major difference being the placement of the .50 cal and that big square visor-type thing on the left side of the turret. And since no one seems to have any problem with said graphic...)
• Beefed up Chávez unit so that he's a competent fighting unit, rather than just a wimpy "target" (think Chiang Kai Shek in WoC, for example.). He's not the most powerful unit, however, so be careful if using him. (In previous playtests, it seems that when the AI is the Commonwealth, said Venezuelan likes to hang out in Maine and New Hampshire. )
• Added the M1A2 gun sound, as well as a clip from the "Command & Conquer Generals" soundtrack. (Thank God for Windows Sound Recorder! )

Has anyone played it. I know it's not fully done (to say the least), but it's still playable (at least in my opinion.) I'd really love some feedback, especially on these issues:

• Balance. This is perhaps the most important issue. While I'd be siding with the Union in such a conflict, my intention from the beginning was for the scenario to be playable by both the "blue states" and the "red states." So, please, can it be played well by both sides. Is one side too lopsided, and if so, how can I remedy that? I'd love to know!
• Diplomacy. Right now a human Union player can't negotiate with a computer Commonwealth player, but a human playing the Commonwealth can negotiate with a Union played by the AI. This is to depict the different goals of the two sides - while the Union's goal is to conquer the Commonwealth (and thus the Union player should not try to make peace with the Commonwealth), the Commonwealth's goal is not neccessarily to conquer the Union, but to at least survive (and thus, it would be in the Commonwealth's interest for the Union to sign a peace treaty with it.) Unfortunately, if I merely conquer only one city, the USA immediately asks for negotiations. Anyway I can make the Union lose more before suing for peace?
• The title screen. When I loaded the one depicted above, it came out (on Civ 2) as a strange mess. So I went to the original, sent it through the palette of a title screen that I knew worked (the La Belle Epoque title screen, to be exact), but when I loaded up, I got a miscolored mess again. Any help on this?
• Thanks to making the de Gaulle CVN unit a generic "next generation carrier" I've got one more unit slot. Any idea what I should do with it?

[EZRhino]

Anyway I can make the Union lose more before suing for peace?

Yes check out Boco's El Aurens

I won't have much time to try your scenario out till later in the week, but I did make some very cursory observations about the map.

First of all I love it. The graphics look nice and the map has good "flow". Did you make the map?


In my opinion gameplay should come before realism, but I'm wondering why is the map totally consolidated into red vs. blue blocks? San Antonio or Santa Fe for instance, while being in "red" states overwhelmingly favored Kerry. I think he took something like 90% of the vote in D.C. btw Likewise places like Spokane in Washington were in very blue states but as counties went for Bush. In a real civil war we would be fighting our brothers and sisters not some anachronistic north vs south.
Purple America

Second whats with the canal through Mexico? Is it mean to represent the Panama canal? If so I would suggest making it accessible only to the CSA, as the canal is now managed by Hutchison Whampoa a Chinese firm intimatly connected to the PRC state/military. The US has no significant military presence there. They could most certainly scuttle its use to any "Union" shipping for the duration of a war.

I was also wondering why the blue staters armies are made up entirely of forign mercenaries? There are some large bases in many very blue districts of the country and knowing a few of the soldiers stationed there I find it unlikely that some poor soldiers shanghaied in the backdoor daft would give up their homes and families to fight for some neo-cons on the other side of the country. A new civil war would not be such a clear cut thing of rebels and foreign intruders, but something more dark and hopelessly grey with both sides damaged so intimately by the split and claiming to be fighting for the constitution and the "true" America.

I look forward to playing more of it

[GhostOfDisco]

Originally posted by EZRhino
Yes check out Boco's El Aurens

Well, I'm afraid that at least for the MGE version, I can't use any trick that involve flags or anything else unique to ToT version. I might make a ToT remake of this scenario in the distant future, but for now I'm going to focus on working within the classic version.

I won't have much time to try your scenario out till later in the week, but I did make some very cursory observations about the map.

First of all I love it. The graphics look nice and the map has good "flow".

Thanks.

Did you make the map?

Nope. That honor goes to "B-Dawn," whoever he was, who made that map waay back in 2001 or something. (I'll have to check) I chose it because it was the best map of the continental US that served my purposes (true, Harry Tuttle did provide his Atomic Eagle 2 map, but I didn't have MapEdit when I started the scen, and thus couldn't eliminate S. America and the like. )

My one regret is that I didn't get to put a river on the square where NYC is (it should be there, but by the time I realized it, it was too late.)

In my opinion gameplay should come before realism, but I'm wondering why is the map totally consolidated into red vs. blue blocks? San Antonio or Santa Fe for instance, while being in "red" states overwhelmingly favored Kerry. I think he took something like 90% of the vote in D.C. btw Likewise places like Spokane in Washington were in very blue states but as counties went for Bush. In a real civil war we would be fighting our brothers and sisters not some anachronistic north vs south.

You're right about the US being generally "purple," and that was true, to some extent, in the original Civil War as well - Tennessee had a significant Unionist/anti-Southern aristocrat group (that's where Andrew Johnson made his name), West Viriginia - well, it wasn't always there, and I recall one county or so of Alabama which tried to separate from its state when said state seceded from the Union.

Heck, Santorum is from Pennsylvania, a state which, in my scenario, is on the "liberal" side!

So, the main reason why I did the "total consolidation" into red vs. blue was for gameplay purposes.

Second whats with the canal through Mexico? Is it mean to represent the Panama canal? If so I would suggest making it accessible only to the CSA, as the canal is now managed by Hutchison Whampoa a Chinese firm intimatly connected to the PRC state/military. The US has no significant military presence there. They could most certainly scuttle its use to any "Union" shipping for the duration of a war.

Well the "canal" is supposed to represent movement from the east coast to the west coast (and vice versa), either via the Panama Canal or around Tierra del Fuego (which might be more probably with the Union, as the Nimitz class carriers, IIRC, can't fit through the Panama Canal.

Oh, and it's CNA (Commonwealth of North America), not CSA.

I was also wondering why the blue staters armies are made up entirely of forign mercenaries? There are some large bases in many very blue districts of the country and knowing a few of the soldiers stationed there I find it unlikely that some poor soldiers shanghaied in the backdoor daft would give up their homes and families to fight for some neo-cons on the other side of the country.

You mention that they wouldn't fight for "neo-cons," but would they be willing to fight for the intellectual snobs of the Ivy League or the spoiled rich liberals of Hollywood?

Well, from what I know of the military, it seemed like a generally conservative organization, so I figured that if the nation was politically spilt on "liberal/conservative" lines, the military would support the conservatives.

Also, I should mention here that it was the liberals that seceded (and quite openly) from the Union. Therefore, regardless of just what the soldiers might think of the new administration, I think most of them would believe themselves to be honor-bound by their vow to protect the Constitution to fight the lefties.

I should add that the "chattering classes" and the Hollywood élite (to overgeneralize things), the classes who would probably dominate the social/intellectual elite of a "blue" nation, tend to be biased against the military. Now, as I said, it's overgeneralizing, but the (perceived or real) bias of the liberal leadership against the military might affect how soldiers would react to the situation.

On yet another note, the election was in November 2012, and the scenario begins in January 2013. Even if there were enough soldiers willing to join the secession to form organized units, I doubt they could be organized into regiment, brigade, and division strength by the time Santorum is inaugurated.

A new civil war would not be such a clear cut thing of rebels and foreign intruders, but something more dark and hopelessly grey with both sides damaged so intimately by the split fighting for the constitution and claiming to be the "true" America.

True, but , as you said, when it comes between realism and gameplay, choose gameplay.
My watchword for this scenario, as it were, would be "semi-realistic." "Semi" being a very proad prefix.

I look forward to playing more of it

Thanks. I look forward to hearing more of your comments.

[N35t0r]

My one regret is that I didn't get to put a river on the square where NYC is (it should be there, but by the time I realized it, it was too late.)

It is possible to add rivers in-game, though it's a bit more complicated than usual. I'm horrible at giving directions, so wait a sec...

Here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66105

[GhostOfDisco]

Originally posted by N35t0r


It is possible to add rivers in-game, though it's a bit more complicated than usual. I'm horrible at giving directions, so wait a sec...

Here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=66105

I've tried that (somewhat) It didn't seem to work.

Maybe I might try it again. Maybe.

[Tigey]

That method does work. If for some reason it hasn't worked for you, then why not post the latest savegame, and ask someone else if they'd do it for you (I'm willing to do it, if someone doesn't get to it before me)

[EZRhino]

Hi GhostOfDisco, sorry for the greatly belated reply. I've had enough time to play a little more.

Well, I'm afraid that at least for the MGE version, I can't use any trick that involve flags or anything else unique to ToT version. I might make a ToT remake of this scenario in the distant future, but for now I'm going to focus on working within the classic version.

You're right. My suggestion is that for the sake of game play don't let the CNA negotiate with a union ai. They'll sign a treaty as soon as you capture a city. You can always use makepeace events for certain triggers...

You mention that they wouldn't fight for "neo-cons," but would they be willing to fight for the intellectual snobs of the Ivy League or the spoiled rich liberals of Hollywood?

Well, from what I know of the military, it seemed like a generally conservative organization, so I figured that if the nation was politically split on "liberal/conservative" lines, the military would support the conservatives.

I agree completely! Our soldiers would probably be a just as willing to fight for spoiled 'girly-men' liberals as for hedonistic oil-complex satraps The ubiquitous presence in politics of“Ivy league snobs” distinguishes little between “red” and “blue” however

My impression of the military as an institution is the same as yours; however my impression of soldiers themselves is more often very different. I have a more than a few friends who signed up either for the college money or after 9/11 who are now stuck doing a tour in Iraq. These men are not gun-nuts or ultra-nationalists. And being trapped in the occupation is definitely not what they bargained for. The disparity between the pictures presented by our wonderfully innane media or politicians with that of the soldiers actually fighting there never ceases to intrigue me.

Therefore, regardless of just what the soldiers might think of the new administration, I think most of them would believe themselves to be honor-bound by their vow to protect the Constitution to fight the lefties.

Perhaps. But I have a feeling that the the public perception of the constitutionality of contemporary right wing political behavior would reflect itself in the military as well Both sides would believe they were fighting for the constitution.

On yet another note, the election was in November 2012, and the scenario begins in January 2013. Even if there were enough soldiers willing to join the secession to form organized units, I doubt they could be organized into regiment, brigade, and division strength by the time Santorum is inaugurated.

They wouldn't have to be, the U.S army in its entirety would be crippled by desertions as it was in the historical civil war. They took so long to sort themselves out after the break that most of the early fighting was by militias, who already knew where they stood. As to anything being organized in the little time it took for Santorum to be inaugurated, there are very large numbers of foreign troops already deployed on American soil at the start of the scenario. The enormous logistics necessary for that presence implies conspiracy, however this makes little sense unless the democrats knew they were going to lose the election before hand... in which case they would probably have already made arrangements within the U.S. armed forces as well.

But enough of this lets talk about civ2
-My first general observation is that tanks are far too strong. I can easily rely on them to capture cities, which doesn't seem very realistic to me. Tanks historically have proven to be almost less than useless in modern urban warfare. The stats are too high in general though. Perhaps you could lower the attack and give them more hitpoints. In addition you could make the city wall improvement cheaper and give all infantry the ignore city walls flag. This could simulate the central role of footsoldiers in urban warfare.
-There are too many units, this makes the turns take forever. I know you value the realistic OoBs, but for the sake of game play could you prune them down a little? Perhaps make some damaged or out of moves at the start?
-A great many city improvements are finished in the first turn, this takes a while to click though. Perhaps you could have some of this already or only partially built.
-All of the CNA units start with move orders. This is very annoying for the human player to sort out, and the AI ignores them completely, I suggest dropping them completely.

Thats it for now. Are you going to make more updates GhostOfDisco?

[GhostOfDisco]

Well, EZRhino, you've made some excellent points. Though I doubt that the military desertions would be quite as severe as in 1861, given that the "States Rights" ideology seems more prevalent in the military than any left-wing movement right now.

Though you could always say that the military defectees played formed the core of the raised CNA units.

Though it looks like the conversation could go on, with no resolution. (Though it is interesting that we think of the "other" side in terms of "elites" - me with the "Hollywood snobs" and "chattering classes," you with the "hedonistic oil-complex satraps." In fact, if a war like the one in my scenario, propogandists on both sides would no doubt exploit said perceptions of the other. "Do you want to die for Karl Rove and Halliburton?" "Oh yeah, well do you want to die for Barbara Streisand and the New York Times?"
Besides, as I said earlier, it's "semi-realistic, 'semi' being an elastic term." (or words to that effect. )
But as for the game itself-

• Yes, I think the tanks attack value should be lowered maybe a tad. (If their attack value is 9, then a veteran Mech Infantry - which I think would have a defense value of 12 - could defeat it, moreso if it was in Urban or Mountain terrain, behind City Walls or in "fortified" urban terrain, etc.) Though I disagree with you with tanks in urban warfare - while unsupported armor is usually bound to find itself a charred and smoking ruin, armor working in concert with infantry has proven to be a pretty good fire support for the grunts.
  Making tanks the only ones suspectible to City Walls would change them from Urban Fortifications (sort of the kind of system Taiwan has on Quemoy and Matsu, or what South Korea has with Seoul -combining the "many fortresses" aspect of urban defense with the coordination and ease of movement with a designed defense layout) to anti-tank ditches. Plus, it would increase the chances of cities being razed, something of which I am not a fan.
• Less units? The biggest concern I had was that it was too easy for the Union to overrun the CNA (at least the eastern section). I might prune, but then I'm not sure just where to prune, and what, and how to go about it. If I ever do a ToT remake of the scenario, though, I'll take your criticism into account.
• I might try to do an MGE version of AGRICOLA's "semi-intelligent" AI defense, if events space allows.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

[GhostOfDisco]

OK, I’ve been doing some playtesting, moving things around, etc., and here’s some things I’ve got problems with, questions, et cetera.

• The title screen. I’ve tried the “use the colors from an Microprose Civ 2 scenario” trick and always before, it’s wound up looking like some LSD thing. Now, when I try to start the latest version of my scenario, I don’t get it at all – apparently the computer takes some time to load, and then the Civ 2 portion of the screen goes black (not the Windows, just the Civ 2 window), and then the opening “US Civil War 2013, Jan 2013 to…” thingy pops up. Any help on the title screen?
• The rules file. For some odd reason, Civ 2 won’t use it (it says there’s some errors in it.) I’ve tried the @DEBUG thing, but it doesn’t seem to work.
• Chávez and airbases. Right now, how I get the ol’ Hugo to affect the Venezuelan presence is that when he’s killed, a Neutral state trooper is spawned on the airbase where his troops come in, thus preventing any more Venezuelan reinforcements. Unfortunately, Mr. State Trooper won’t spawn if there’s units already on the square. So, my solution is to change the terrain on the airbase square (therefore, hopefully, killing any units on it), and then spawn the Neutral unit. However, the terrain doesn’t seem to change (the guy does spawn if the square is empty, thank God.) Any help on this?
• The Commonwealth’s “native” MBT. Currently, I have them using the Black Eagle because, well, there’s no real American alternative to the Abrams (I’ve got a little “tradition” of giving different American equipment to each faction for equivalent units; i.e., F-16s for the US and F-15Es for the CNA, Union Bradleys and Commonwealth Strykers, etc.), and it just seemed to me that (in the scenario’s semi-realistic universe) that the Russian arms manufacturing companies might be willing to sell tanks to the secessionists. I’ve considered using the Leopard 2A6 (it’s roughly equal to the Abrams, and Germany’s sold it to pretty much any Western country with the money to buy them), but scrapped that as a recolored Leo takes the role of “Generic Tank” in the units list. (Though I might reconsider that, and use the Leo for the CNA tank. I dunno.) Any thoughts?

Also, in the interest of creating an interesting single-player experience, I’ve decided to use varying events files depending on who’s the AI (one event file if you’re fighting the Union, a different one if you’re fighting the Commonwealth, and so forth) in order to create some kind of dynamic defense without the player being able to get the same goodies. My options:

• A MGE variation on AGRICOLA’s semi-intelligence AI defense plan. Namely, when a key city is taken, reinforcement units are spawn in neighboring cities in order for the AI to counterattack. While somewhat realistic, the fact that CiC/FW/MGE requires one wordy event per unit spawned could mean the events text space might get used up quick.
• The technique used by Nemo and Alex in 2194 Days of War; every turn a unit or two is spawned from one of the AI’s major cities. Given the geographically disunited nature of the Commonwealth, I thought I’d split it up into several different “theaters.” (The Northeast, Michigan (for the CNA-as-AI events file), Midwest, and maybe West Coast theaters) While this is still hampered by the wordy “one unit per event” restriction of MGE, I still think it will take up less space, as it requires 1 event per theater (maybe more, if I decide to spawn more units in one theater) rather than a whole new round of events per each city taken. Therefore, this shall be the one I pursue (at least for now.)

I think I might upload an update of the scenario next Monday. (How big can the files we attach to forum posts be?)

[Tigey]

Why bother having a unique tank for each side just for the sake of it? Giving both of them the Abhrams as their MBT would not only free up a unit slot, but would also reflect the fact that it is actually a civil war...

- as for spawning units to counterattack when a key city is taken, how about using the "Partisan" units that would spawn naturally, as part of the solution, and at no cost to events space. Simply use CivCivty to change the original owners of certain key cities, in order to ensure that they are the only cities that will spawn "Partisans" when captured. If you don't want too many to appear, simply make either the Communism or Guerilla Warfare tech unobtainable (but not both!), and this will limit the number that spawn. What unit you put in the Partisan slot is up to you, but you would have to make sure it was an appropriate one...

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by GhostOfDisco
So, my solution is to change the terrain on the airbase square (therefore, hopefully, killing any units on it), and then spawn the Neutral unit.

Actually, a change terrain event destroys 1 unit on the square, not more! So if you have 2 units on the airport, then 1 will remain, and your neutral trooper will not appear!

I think this (ie the fact that only 1 unit is destroyed) was "discovered" only 1-2 month ago (or it was well hidden before that )

[GhostOfDisco]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Tigey
Why bother having a unique tank for each side just for the sake of it?[quote]
If every scenario designer thought like that, the a lot of scenarios would have a lot fewer unit types.

Giving both of them the Abhrams as their MBT would not only free up a unit slot, but would also reflect the fact that it is actually a civil war...

Well, I could do that, though the Abrams factor is (at least initially) in Union held territory...
(Though, by that logic, the CNA troops should be carrying M16s, as the main Colt factory, I believe, is in Massachusetts or Connecticut or somewhere else in New England. But maybe you could say that Colt left the state upon its seccession. Or something.

Hey, if a massive French-Sino-Venezuelan army can descend upon the Northeast, Midwest and the West Coast in November at the earliest and hold strategic positions by the following January ... )

Thinking about it, I remembered that the Black Eagle was part of my title picture, and if it was an Abrams than the "dualism/parallel" thing of that aspect of the pic would be lost. But that's a small detail.

As for alternative MBTs, I was wondering if this could be an option. (Though since I really haven't heard much progress on the project...)

- as for spawning units to counterattack when a key city is taken, how about using the "Partisan" units that would spawn naturally, as part of the solution, and at no cost to events space. Simply use CivCivty to change the original owners of certain key cities, in order to ensure that they are the only cities that will spawn "Partisans" when captured. If you don't want too many to appear, simply make either the Communism or Guerilla Warfare tech unobtainable (but not both!), and this will limit the number that spawn. What unit you put in the Partisan slot is up to you, but you would have to make sure it was an appropriate one...

Well, actually, I've got all the cities "founded" by their respective civs, so that if you take one of them, they'll spawn partisans, even if they're not "key."

On that thought, I might up the defense of the Partisans a bit. Make it a bit tougher for you to advance through enemy territory that way. I know that changing the tanks' attack value from 10 to 9 made a big difference in the way they fight - they're still great offensive tools, but when, say, attacking Mech Inf, they'll suffer a good amount of hits.)

Originally posted by Cyrion
Actually, a change terrain event destroys 1 unit on the square, not more! So if you have 2 units on the airport, then 1 will remain, and your neutral trooper will not appear!

Well, that might complicate things a bit, especially if the AI keeps the spawned units on the base. Anyone have any other suggestions as to how to make the death of Chavez negatively effect the Venezuelans' war effort?

[GhostOfDisco]

The newest alpha is here!

I really need to make a page for that scenario someday...

Anyway, feel free to download and give me feedback (and report any errors and, hopefully, how to solve them).

Note: The events file should contain a limited version of the "2194 defense", as it were (see one of my previous posts). In the full version, there would be different events text, with defneses for each opposing AI side (did that make sense)?

And here's some alternative Commonwealth MBTs I came up with...