US Civil War 2012 - Scenario Idea/Discussion

[GhostOfDisco]

Been playing a bit as the Commonwealth in Deity mode. Oddly enough, changing the CNA tank from "Black Eagle" to "T-95" seemed to help things. Don't know why, but what the heck. (Interestingly enough, I checked the game's files and they said that the "Black Eagle" was still that. )

(And now I see that when I actually change the CNA tank to "T-95," I get this:
[qupte]AppName: civ2.exe AppVer: 0.0.0.0 ModName: ntdll.dll
ModVer: 5.1.2600.2180 Offset: 00001230[/quote]
... even though the CNA file doesn't have "T-95" or "Black Eagle" in it at all. Weird. Don't know what I'm going to do Any help?)

I've only gotten to March 2013, and there's been a lot of fighting going on. Going on the offensive, I managed to capture Baltimore, Salt Lake City, and all the Ohio cities save Cincinnati. However, the AI has managed to blunt me, to say the least. Baltimore was razed in the Union counterratack, Columbus was wrested from my grasp, and it appears that those "gurellia" events seem to be worth it, for with the help of some F-16 air support, Hillsdale gurellias were able to bring the state capitol of Michigan, Lansing, back into Union hands.

As of now, I've lost 127 units overall, the Union 83.

Thought the Union's still officially suffering a "Decisive Defeat"!

Anyway, here's an update of the graphics I might be using. I dunno - fairline's latest graphics are, as always, impressive, but I don't want anything to "not fit in," as it were:

(Also, the prop plane is a placeholder graphic for what I'm calling now the "Conscript Jet" - the final graphic, I think, will be a PZL trainer jet aircraft (forgot just which - as that's the most numerous jet trainer out there, including not a few in the hands of private US citizens...)

[GhostOfDisco]

Hmmm, seems not to be much interest in this topic (which is about one month away from being a whole year old!)

Anyway, I came to the realization that the primary flaw with the CNA events text file (besides the fact that it crashes the game! ) is that it is a primarily defensive structure, while the main AI civ (the Union) has an offensive mission. True, the events file did hamper greatly my CNA invasion of Union territory, but the Union didn't advance into my land much (save for those Hillsdale gurrellias )

I'm going to try my hand with the MOVEUNIT command, though I'm not so sure about this (In Red Front, for example, I've managed to take Dnepropetrovsk and keep the Nazis from taking the Crimean Peninsula but, given the historical situation at the time, events-spawned Panzers and whatnot have taken Rostove and are working their way towards Stalingrad, despite the fact that the area this massive Nazi army is behind my front lines. In another example, I've been playing WW2: Fight For Freedom and even though I've conquered most of Germany (save for Berlin, as taking that will result in Stalin going to war with me), the Nazis still manage to conquer souteastern Europe, given that they basically did so (well, Yugoslavia and Greece, with alliances with Bulgaria and such) at that time historically.)

As for fairline's latest modern graphics pack, I've updated some of the graphics, but not all of them - I'm not sure if they'd mesh well with some of the graphics I don't plan on replacing. Then there's the issue of vehicle type - while the exact type of machine in a strategic scenario like this is somewhat nonessentail, nonetheless there's some I'd like (you wouldn't have any Type 86 IFV, VBCI, Stryker, or Type 90 tank graphics of that quality lying around, would you, Gareth? )

Anyway, here's some graphics I might be using - some updated French units (though the French APC, being a VAB instead of a VBCI, might be counted as a "downgrade"), and - since the election of Szarkozy (sp?) means that the French government might not support a government like the CNA - some Dutch units, as they might be able to replace France as the CNA's European ally. (Hey, Amsterdam has perhaps the most in/famous Red Light district in the world. Who do you think they'd support in a Red/Blue war? )

[GhostOfDisco]

Just thought of this, looking over at SinoDefence(Defense).com...

Should the Chinese tank be the Type 90, or the Type 99? The Type 99 is more "modern" and thus would be the frontline vehicle, but (at least according to Wikipedia) it won't be fielded in large numbers, and my scenario (at least with the Union events file) will involve a lot of PLA armor. And there's a lot of Type 90s in the Chinese inventory.

So, should I stick with the 90, or go with the 99? It's really a cosmetic question, considering the scenario, but still...

[GhostOfDisco]

Yet another post in a row by me. However, thiks one actually might be worthwhile, as I'm announcing the release of alphas # 6 (I think - I discarded the old alpha numbering system, which, well...)

In it you'll see a working CNA events file, among other things... (Check my sig! )

[McMonkey]

So far I have not had a go at this scenario, I have sort of been waiting for the final release

Sounds like you are pretty close to finishing though so I will take a look at it

[GhostOfDisco]

Here's the latest graphics update.

I'll note that I changed soem of the vehicles, but I it won't affect gameplay and the unit names will be corrected in the next release.

[GhostOfDisco]

An update of sorts:

• Upped the movement of the helicopters from 6 to 17 (roughly the Blackhawk's range of 400 miles). Hopefully this will make them more useful.
• Upgraded the BB, cruiser and destroyer's attack and defense ratings so that they'll be useful in coastal bombardments and such.
• Added an event to the Union events file where CNA-supported marijuana growers in the Appalacians strike back (gleanred from the History Channel that drug growing is a big problem up in "hillbilly country."
• Modified the Mountain Artillery unit to a grey color.
• Got all the units to have the right vehicle designations.

Some things I need work on:

• Transports. Currently I'm using Nemo's old transport graphic (as you can see), but I'd like to replace it with something more modern. I'd love an HSV-2, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get a graphic with the same quality as the rest of my units. Considering reverting back to an "Invasion Fleet" unit, but I'm not sure. What do you think?
• Planes. Do you think they've got adequate defensive strength to, say, escort bombers and stuff, or what? That's my main concern - I want the fighters and stuff to be able to defend themselves in the air, but I don't want it so they're so powerful defense-wise that the player won't use land units to defend cities. What do you think?
• I'm thinking of using the Aero L-39 Albatros, but I don't have a graphic for it. Any takers?
• The tech tree. The picture posted down there is the scenario's tech tree in all it's current glory. Any comments/advice on what those techs should be named (and I techs like "Cavalry Tech #" and so forth can be replaced by plausible alternatives in the tech tree.) Any advice on that?

Well, that's all for now!

[EZRhino]

Hey Ghost. I've played a few turns of your latest alpha. I just now figured out that all of the updates were being posted on the wiki

Also, what jet should I use for the "Cheap Fighter" - the L-39 Albatros (Warsaw Pact trained), T-38 Talon, or some other jet trainer? (Please be specific )

IMO you should go with UAVs or cruise missles instead of conscript civil jets. For the purposes of realism UAVs are relatively cheap and easy to produce, and quickly becoming more so. They've already been making a huge impact in Iraq/Afghanistan; they would seem more realistic in a civil war scenario than some sort of mass produced trainer jets with jury rigged weapon systems... besides kamikazi units are more interesting than basically just a cheaper&****tier version of other attack aircraft. Nobody will ever build them if given a choice...

Transports. Currently I'm using Nemo's old transport graphic (as you can see), but I'd like to replace it
with something more modern. I'd love an HSV-2, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get a graphic with the same quality as the rest of my units. Considering reverting back to an "Invasion Fleet" unit, but I'm not sure. What do you think?

Case used a pretty cool graphic for an LPD in Raging Dragon... if you think it would go well enough with everything else I would recommend it over the obviously anachronistic wwII era landing craft you're using now

Planes. Do you think they've got adequate defensive strength to, say, escort bombers and stuff, or what? That's my main concern - I want the fighters and stuff to be able to defend themselves in the air, but I don't want it so they're so powerful defense-wise that the player won't use land units to defend cities. What do you think?

I think you've reached this equilibrium already.

Here is an idea I had for some tech tree names:
Peer-to-Peer Researching

Counter-Insurgency(mountain troops)
->brown water navy (patrol boats, LCV, or old missile hydrofoils perhaps...)

Asymetrical Warfare(guerrilla warfare)
->DoS (i.e. information warfare)
->IEDs or Urban Warfare or something like that

Security Contractors

Combat UAVs
->Swarm Intellegence/neural network(Arsenal ship or Tomohawk swarm or something)

Network Centric Warfare(prereq for tanks and high tech aircraft)
->ERGMs (shore bombardment ships like the DD1000)

Anti-satellite weaponry
->killer micro-sats

Distributed mfg->nano-tech mfg



Some general observations...
-Make urban fortifications and SAM sites researchable improvements.

-Gurkhas: in modern times they have only been used by the Great Britain and her former colonies i.e. India and Singapore. Private security contractor firms would be more realistic as modern 'mercenaries'.

-It would be fun to add more regional flavor to the CNA and Union nations. Try to make it so that they will play differently, ultimately this will add to the fun and replayablility of the game. For example give the Union the protagonist flag, lots of factories and overwhelming old-school cold war military supremacy, but make them a fundamentalism and cash-strapped. Give the CNA a far-left separatist ideology with the unstable democracy gov't, and lots high-technology investment. But also make them militarily anemic. They will always be struggling with peace protests, and trying to hang on by fighting a (slowly) losing guerrilla war until their high technology is able to pay off with superior units. Let the Union build better curches or T.V. networks, and let the CNA build anti-pollution and science improvements...This is just an example obviously, but things like this make the game more dynamic and interesting.

-Essentially this scenario has only one tank. The only thing in general that differentiates CNA and union units is their art. This goes for all of the units in the game. Try adjusting the statistics of some units to give them more character. Make CNA mountain inf. more powerful ,for example, meanwhile the Abrams should out perform the Type-95 or Lelerc...

-Not as bad as in earlier alphas but the turns are still agonizingly long, I suggest removing more units. I understand your desire for realistic OoBs, but in a civil war these would fall apart anyway. If you understand much about the way our financial system works you know that most government spending comes from issuing securities rather than collecting taxes. The U.S. is unique in this way. Because most of the worlds financial institutions believe the U.S. has a small credit risk the U.S. borrows huge amounts of money this way. However in the event of a civil war, foreign investors would likely start to stop buying, or at least charge a MUCH higher interest rate for, U.S. securities out of concern for the future ability of the U.S. to pay them back. Essentially the U.S. would default on its foreign debt. Because of our fiat monetary system this would be a complete disaster for the whole economy and not just the gov't's bottom line. In this case it is unlikely that the US would be able to continue funding many of the DoDs extravagantly expensive pet projects, i.e. our big blue water navy with all of its expensive CVN groups and all that other good stuff. Anyway, in gameplay terms it is maddening and boring to move all of those units...

-IMO the emphasis on naval units unjustifiable. There aren't that many coastal cities for them to really be useful and yet they take up like 10 slots plus they would be somewhat unrealistic for the above (longwinded) reason, not to mention that Iowa BBs are horribly obsolete...

-Lastly I would get rid of all the so labeled 'generic' units they seem to be overwhelmingly redundant. Please at least call them something different "export model" perhaps

Anyway, sorry if I've put anyone to sleep

[GhostOfDisco]

Interesting thoughts, EZRhino.

IMO you should go with UAVs or cruise missles instead of conscript civil jets. For the purposes of realism UAVs are relatively cheap and easy to produce, and quickly becoming more so. They've already been making a huge impact in Iraq/Afghanistan; they would seem more realistic in a civil war scenario than some sort of mass produced trainer jets with jury rigged weapon systems... besides kamikazi units are more interesting than basically just a cheaper&****tier version of other attack aircraft. Nobody will ever build them if given a choice...

Yeah, I've been thinking that, too. I just need to find a good UCAV graphic that will mesh with the rest of my units.

Although I'm a bit sentimental about the "Conscript Jet" - the very idea has all those suggestions about desperation and improvisation et cetera...

Case used a pretty cool graphic for an LPD in Raging Dragon... if you think it would go well enough with everything else I would recommend it over the obviously anachronistic wwII era landing craft you're using now

You mean this unit? Or did Case release a later version of Raging Dragon with different graphics?

No offense to Case or anything like that, I'm just wondering.
Anyway, that particular graphic doesn't seem to mesh well with my graphics, but I might try to look for a good graphic of that kind of vessel that would go well with my ships...

(Though the game's vanilla transport unit does bear a certain resemblance to the US Navy's latest/last LST...)

I think you've reached this equilibrium already.

Thanks.

Here is an idea I had for some tech tree names:
Peer-to-Peer Researching

Counter-Insurgency(mountain troops)
->brown water navy (patrol boats, LCV, or old missile hydrofoils perhaps...)

Asymetrical Warfare(guerrilla warfare)
->DoS (i.e. information warfare)
->IEDs or Urban Warfare or something like that

Security Contractors

Combat UAVs
->Swarm Intellegence/neural network(Arsenal ship or Tomohawk swarm or something)

Network Centric Warfare(prereq for tanks and high tech aircraft)
->ERGMs (shore bombardment ships like the DD1000)

Anti-satellite weaponry
->killer micro-sats

Distributed mfg->nano-tech mfg

While some of those techs seem to be different from what I envisioned in my tech tree, I like a good number of those suggestions. I think I might use some of them.

Some general observations...
-It would be fun to add more regional flavor to the CNA and Union nations. Try to make it so that they will play differently, ultimately this will add to the fun and replayablility of the game. For example give the Union the protagonist flag, lots of factories and overwhelming old-school cold war military supremacy, but make them a fundamentalism and cash-strapped. Give the CNA a far-left separatist ideology with the unstable democracy gov't, and lots high-technology investment. But also make them militarily anemic. They will always be struggling with peace protests, and trying to hang on by fighting a (slowly) losing guerrilla war until their high technology is able to pay off with superior units. Let the Union build better curches or T.V. networks, and let the CNA build anti-pollution and science improvements...This is just an example obviously, but things like this make the game more dynamic and interesting.

I've actually done some of that - the Union has a Republic government (meaning that, as long as they hold Washington, new military units don't cause unhappiness - there is, however, the problem of corruption, and since the Union is (in Civ 2 geographic map terms) so large), while the Commonwealth has a Democracy (military units will cause unhappiness - in fact, I think in some playtesting its government has actually fallen.)

Also, with the events files (the CNA one in the latest alpha should have MOVEUNIT events) I know the games are different - while the US has to fight its way to conquer a tenacious defender (especially with CNA units generated by events every turn), the CNA human player has to deal with an aggressive attacker (thank you, MOVEUNITS) that never seems to relent (again, event-generated units that appear every turn). Heck, one time I was playtesting as the CNA at Deity level, and I was impressed with the Union's aggressiveness - it seemed I couldn't do much to stem its advance. Of course, the units in the assault were all Abrams (events-generated, most probably) resulting in massive tank armies like this, though they could never take Chicago (veteran French Mech Inf+urban terrain = tough nut to crack). I mean, northwest Illinois must have been filled with tons of Abrams carcasses, given all the armor units the AI was sending in futile attempt after futile attempt to take the Windy City. I have wondered about diversifying the types of units generated, but how (I'd love to have something like armor on the odd turns, mech inf on the even, but)... Or maybe just the Union units with the CNA SP campaign. One of the reasons I chose the armor for the units generated every turn was because it had both a great attack and a decent defense rating which should at least provide an adequate challenge for its oppenent on both attack and defense.

Speaking of armor...

-Essentially this scenario has only one tank. The only thing in general that differentiates CNA and union units is their art. This goes for all of the units in the game. Try adjusting the statistics of some units to give them more character. Make CNA mountain inf. more powerful ,for example, meanwhile the Abrams should out perform the Type-95 or Lelerc...

I've thought about that, but I've also wondered... "Sure, each of the tanks have their own advantages and disadvantages, but how does they weigh against the effectiveness of their units' organization, the competence of the crew members, etc.? More, will it make much difference when fighting units other than armored ones, and thus will it be work changing stats over?"

I've also wondered if the changing the stats might give one side or another an unfair advantage i.e. would making the Abrams more powerful than the Chinese Type 99 or the French Leclerc make the Union ever more powerful than it already is (which would be bad for the CNA in SP mode, where the Union invasion is already hard to stop).

-Not as bad as in earlier alphas but the turns are still agonizingly long, I suggest removing more units. I understand your desire for realistic OoBs, but in a civil war these would fall apart anyway. If you understand much about the way our financial system works you know that most government spending comes from issuing securities rather than collecting taxes. The U.S. is unique in this way. Because most of the worlds financial institutions believe the U.S. has a small credit risk the U.S. borrows huge amounts of money this way. However in the event of a civil war, foreign investors would likely start to stop buying, or at least charge a MUCH higher interest rate for, U.S. securities out of concern for the future ability of the U.S. to pay them back. Essentially the U.S. would default on its foreign debt. Because of our fiat monetary system this would be a complete disaster for the whole economy and not just the gov't's bottom line. In this case it is unlikely that the US would be able to continue funding many of the DoDs extravagantly expensive pet projects, i.e. our big blue water navy with all of its expensive CVN groups and all that other good stuff. Anyway, in gameplay terms it is maddening and boring to move all of those units...

You do have a point, but my response is, "which units should I remove?" One of the things I tried to do when I started the scenario was to give the Union and Commonwealth parity when it came to military units (maybe a little bit in favor of the CNA when in my first playtests or so it seemed the Commonwealth fell too easily to a human Union player) - which is why there's so many French and Chinese units (probably more French units of their type than there actually are nowadays. )
As for the OoB falling away, that basically happens in the beginning of the game anyway, with the player losing a lot of mechanized units in the early turns (where double-digits of unit losses do seem to be common, at least when I've played) and thus having to rebuild his army. Also, it seems to me that both sides could have the attitude of "let's when the war, then worry about all that financial stuff." For example, the fact that the CNA balances it budget (if it does so) won't matter if the CNA no longer exists. So, I dunno. I do think I can trim the carrier battlegroups from having two ships of every type to only one ship (which is the current CVN OoB anyway), but other than that, I'm not sure what.

Speaking of ships...

-IMO the emphasis on naval units unjustifiable. There aren't that many coastal cities for them to really be useful and yet they take up like 10 slots plus they would be somewhat unrealistic for the above (longwinded) reason, not to mention that Iowa BBs are horribly obsolete...

Thinking about it, you might have a point. I did, in my work since the last released alpha, up their attack and defend values so that the ships might be more useful in shore bombardment. Though, upon further reflection, and the fact that the coasts don't play that much of a role, I could pare the naval units down into "Carrier Group" (the carrier unit) "Invasion Fleet/Amphibious Task Force" (the transport unit, with maybe some attack) and "Battleship Group" (the Iowa BB unit), instead of one unit per ship, as I have right now.

I definitely need a transport unit, otherwise the People's Liberation Army can't retake the Pacific ports... er... return several conquered California coastal cities back to their rightful Commonwealth owners. Carriers might still be useful, though, as they can move planes, which still could be useful. As for Iowas being obsolete, I'm not so sure about that. There seems to be quite a bit in the military community who want to see the Iowas back in action, and from what I hear the USMC would like it a lot if they could have some of that 16-inch gunfire to support their naval landings. I mean, those giant shells would be as effective in shore bombardment than those fancy missiles found on the proposed "arsenal ships" and such, and at a lesser cost, too.

Though I think a hit a snag on that idea - the transport unit. A while back someone on the boards noted that if you give the transport unit the submarine flag and a an attack value of 1, then the AI treats it somewhat as it should - as a platform to transport units to distant landings. I'm not sure if it would do the same if the amphibious task force/invasion fleet was able to bombard land units. Anyone know how AI "Invasion Fleet" units act? (To take a unit idea from Dictator 6. )

So, in short, the reduction (though not elimination) of naval units (both type and number), while not certain, is most definitively a possibility.

-Lastly I would get rid of all the so labeled 'generic' units they seem to be overwhelmingly redundant. Please at least call them something different "export model" perhaps

Well, I made the "generic" units so that Canada and Mexico could have units of their own without taking up too many unit slots. Also, the Generic Infantry unit takes up the Rifleman slot, and it seems more appropriate for it to be generated when you see get the "mercenaries" from a village ("Small Town," in this scenario) than the US Infantry that formerly occupied that space.

Though, if I go through with the "naval task force, not naval ships" plan, I might have some unit slots available for the Canadians and Mexico.

As for the Gurkhas, I think they might go. For what I'll replace them with, I dunno - I'll have to see if they emerge as "mercenaries" in villages before I make a decision.

[EZRhino]

I've actually done some of that - the Union has a Republic government (meaning that, as long as they hold Washington, new military units don't cause unhappiness - there is, however, the problem of corruption, and since the Union is (in Civ 2 geographic map terms) so large), while the Commonwealth has a Democracy (military units will cause unhappiness - in fact, I think in some playtesting its government has actually fallen.)

I think a fundamentalist gov't would be a good choice to represent the likely creationist/pro-war sentiments of the consolidated conservative union. Also you should consider not making all units NONE, not only is this unrealistic but it takes some of the challange out of the appeasing the protesters dynamic

I've also wondered if the changing the stats might give one side or another an unfair advantage i.e. would making the Abrams more powerful than the Chinese Type 99 or the French Leclerc make the Union ever more powerful than it already is (which would be bad for the CNA in SP mode, where the Union invasion is already hard to stop).

It won't be unfair if you compensate for liabilities with advantages in other fields. This makes a scenario more interesting anyway, otherwise the only major difference in gameplay between the CNA and union is the different look of the units and the color of the cities you're attacking...

You do have a point, but my response is, "which units should I remove?" One of the things I tried to do when I started the scenario was to give the Union and Commonwealth parity when it came to military units (maybe a little bit in favor of the CNA when in my first playtests or so it seemed the Commonwealth fell too easily to a human Union player) - which is why there's so many French and Chinese units (probably more French units of their type than there actually are nowadays. )
As for the OoB falling away, that basically happens in the beginning of the game anyway, with the player losing a lot of mechanized units in the early turns (where double-digits of unit losses do seem to be common, at least when I've played) and thus having to rebuild his army. Also, it seems to me that both sides could have the attitude of "let's when the war, then worry about all that financial stuff." For example, the fact that the CNA balances it budget (if it does so) won't matter if the CNA no longer exists. So, I dunno. I do think I can trim the carrier battlegroups from having two ships of every type to only one ship (which is the current CVN OoB anyway), but other than that, I'm not sure what.

Easy for you to say till the pentagon rigs you on the red phone and says the navy has two weeks left of fuel and saudi arabia wants to see cash first
My suggestion is to put small garrisons of state troopers/national guard in most cities, then concentrate stacks representing foreign expeditionary forces in a few specific cities(or even in the field!). For example the chinese could have made San Francisco and Seattle their main bases for the american campaign, while all the other west coast cities would have only state troopers/secessionist soldiers guarding them. Hugo Chavez might have landed on the Rio to bring civil rights to the huge Hispanic immigrant populations of the south and open up a new front against the union (good revolutionary PR goes far back home in venezuela).

Btw the I found the carriers to be fairly useless in the campaign. Since the air force would be better protected not to mention closer to their targets at land bases, I just disbanded the carriers...

As for Iowas being obsolete, I'm not so sure about that. There seems to be quite a bit in the military community who want to see the Iowas back in action, and from what I hear the USMC would like it a lot if they could have some of that 16-inch gunfire to support their naval landings. I mean, those giant shells would be as effective in shore bombardment than those fancy missiles found on the proposed "arsenal ships" and such, and at a lesser cost, too.

Well they took the the iowas off the register in 2006 and the navy seems to think it would actually be more expensive to reactivate the aging warships then it would be to build a completely new class of dedicated off-shore support ships. Also the huge problem of vulnerability to modern weapon systems that has caused every other navy in the world to scarp their dreadnoughts. Hence the DD1000 which has already had approved funding for at least 2 ships... plus there are already some cool gfx floating on the forum

[St Leo]

Originally posted by GhostOfDisco
Some progress notes:
• I give both Union and Commonwelath Gurrellia Warfare, but when the Union takes a Commonwealth city, there's no insurgents. I think the answer might lie in the fact that the cities were all originally Union, and then "conquered" by the Commonwealth. (The "city was originally owned by you" thing.) Any way to reverse this (so that Union troops have to deal with Commonwealth insurgents- and vice versa) without destroying and re-founding the Commonwealth cities?

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

Try giving both Communism (Cmn).

[GhostOfDisco]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by GhostOfDisco
Some progress notes:
• I give both Union and Commonwelath Gurrellia Warfare, but when the Union takes a Commonwealth city, there's no insurgents. I think the answer might lie in the fact that the cities were all originally Union, and then "conquered" by the Commonwealth. (The "city was originally owned by you" thing.) Any way to reverse this (so that Union troops have to deal with Commonwealth insurgents- and vice versa) without destroying and re-founding the Commonwealth cities?

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

Try giving both Communism (Cmn).

Actually, now both the CNA and the USA get insurgents when their cities were conquered (thank you CivCity! )

And only the CNA has Cmn (the whole "Churches" thing.)

[GhostOfDisco]

A longer response to EZRhino

Man, this thread is as much about current military stuff as it is about the scenario itself.

Anyway, my response to some things:

The reason why I've made the government of the Union a Republic instead of a Fundamentalism is because, while it may have a right-wing orientation, is still a representative government, and therefore Rick (or Alan if Rick dies) still has to deal with Congress. Not to mention the fact that Congress might now want to spread the war into Canada and/or Mexico. Heck, I put "Women's Suffrage" in Washington (as The Mall, I think) to show the effect of the war's popularity with the people - the Union citizens are going to be less likely to support the war if the USA can't even hold onto the District of Columbia, while the people of the CNA will be more supportive of their government's struggle for independence if said government's side is able to capture the enemy capital.

As for the BBs, I don't think they're as obsolete as you make them out to be. Their recent removal from the naval roster seems to have been quite controversial, and since they had upgraded weaponry and such at the time of the Gulf War, it shouldn't be too hard to upgrade them to the 21st century. Plus the fact that they'd have escort ships with them (such as AEGIS crusiers and such) might help offset what lack of new stuff the Iowas themselves might have. (And I still think they're a better option for shore bombardment than those über-expensive, missile-laden DDX/arsenal ships you mention. I mean, the Navy won't even upgrade their guns from 5-inch to 8-inch!)

In one of your suggestions, EZRhino, you mentioned river gunboats and such. I've wondered about river warfare and such, and have given thought to adding navigable rivers to the game and river gunboats and such. Of course, I'd have to find some good graphics for a gunboat and such.

(Though a gunboat unit would take up a unit slot, which means if I did the naval streamlining - reduce the seagoing naval units to BB Task Force (the BB unit) and Amphibious Assault Group (the transport, with maybe a bit of shore bombardment capability)- that would mean one less unit for the Canadian and Mexican armed forces, which I might make since you seem to detest the "Generic" army units so much. :P )

Carriers? Yeah, I do like to send their fighters to the mainland, and the sea itself doesn't play that big a role in the game (though its role is still necessary). I might get rid of them (even though I love their current graphics.)

As for Chávez and the illegal immigrants, I'm not sure if the undocumented workers would rally to him - sure, he thinks he's on the side of the poor and all that, but he's also a dictator who's cultivating a cult of personality, and the Union might be willing to forgive much for the undocumented/illegal who's willing to fight for them.

Though I did think of a similar event I could put in a Union events file - Cuban soldiers invading Florida on behalf of the left. It might put those Marines in Miami to good use, though I wonder if Cuba will still be Communist by that time.

Also mentioned was the option of giving the differing nation's units a bit more variety in their stats. Now, I'm wondering about the balance and such, but maybe if I multiplied all the units' attack and defense numbers by the same multiplier, the balance wouldn't be as effected if I then did some tweaking.

Not really sure right now. I am thinking, however, to changing Police Station to some kind of propoganda thing, but I'm not sure what...

[GhostOfDisco]

And I've started some experimentation with rivers...

What do you think? Should they be in the game? Do I need to "oceanify" more rivers? If so, which ones? Just wondering...

[AGRICOLA]

Definitely the St Lawrence and possibly the Hudson plus the Erie Canal as an alternate route to the Great Lakes.