Civil War multiplayer?

[techumseh]

Is it possible to be in peace with one AI civ or forbid the human player to attack this civ until a special tech is researched without using the house rule?

Is it also possible to make enduring peace to two AI controlled civs?

Yes, the trick is to have an alliance between the 2 civs, then not allow them to talk. If they can't talk, then they can't break the alliance. There are three ways to end such and alliance:

1. Use the talkermask /listenermask which has an event that allows the civs to communicate when it's triggered.

2. Use a spy to steal a tech or sabotage something of the other civ.

3. Use a mutual 'makeaggression' event.

If one of the AI civs has diplomats or spies, it will sooner or later use them against it's ally, thus breaking the alliance, so it's better to not allow AI civs to have them at all.

The other issue that sometimes arises is when one of the allied civs is attacked, its allies will declare war on its attacker. This may or may not be desireable, but you should take it into account.

[civ2units]

I´m working on my Confederacy campaign. During the game you can research the "Kentucky Invasion" which should start the Rebel campaign against the border state. My idea is to forbid any hostilities between the Kentuckians and the Union. Also I won´t have any hostilities with the human player and the Kentuckians until the tech is researched.

I think the best way to realize this is to use the talker- /listnermask. Unfortunatelly I don´t know how to use it, could you explain it to me?

Diplomats will be only available for the human player and only three at the beginning of the game. When they all killed, you can´t get new ones. They should be used for only checking defense in enemy cities.

[techumseh]

Have a look at this file; it's the section from the ToT manual dealing with the enhanced scenario macro language (events). Check the 'Negotiation' explanation in the 'Triggers' section.

[civ2units]

Great, thanks. I can´t remember that the German version ToT has included a macro.txt file.

[McMonkey]

Techumseh

I don't know if you have been monitoring the progress of the ACW PBEM at Civ Webring between Gelion and myself. It is one hell of a good game. I do have a fairly extensive list of ideas for improvements and observations but it all seems to work very well as it is. I really like the intense rivalry in a head to head game, quite different from one with six or seven players where trade and diplomacy are as vital as warfare. I will compile a full report when the game is finished and I expect Gelion will too

[techumseh]

Thanks, McM. I have been following your game with Gelion. I must say, your strategy is quite Moltke-ish, given the use of railways to transport a large force from positions in the south east, all the way to the US midwest. Gelion shouldn't be underestimated either, as you may soon find out.

If you have comments (and anyone else), it would be better to send them now, rather than wait. I'm substantially into a major revision, based on what I've seen from the playtests and a couple of my own playthroughs as both sides. It's cleaned up quite a bit, esp. the tech tree and the Neutral and Civilized Indian events, research is much faster, and terrain modifications will make the capture of some Confederate ports more challenging. In order to do a full release version in the next few weeks, I would appreciate any comments this weekend at the latest. Thanks for doing this.

[McMonkey]

Gelion shouldn't be underestimated either, as you may soon find out.

I don't like the sound of that. I have a few ideas of what his strategy might be based on what I would do, but the waiting is unbearable! As they say, ignorance is bliss. I will be awake all night now trying to think what he's up to. Thanks a bundle Tech

I will post my ideas here apart from ones that may compromise my strategy which I will e-mail to you.

[techumseh]

I will be awake all night now trying to think what he's up to. Thanks a bundle Tech

You're most welcome.

[McMonkey]

Feedback (McMonkey)

Trade is important in PBEM's. Its a shame there is no Blockade to run when playing as the Confederacy! If you got the balance right the cash and science gained from a successful run (to a European city on the eastern fringes of the map) would make the effort worthwhile and would force to Union to mount a blockade.

To begin with there are few units so potential strategies are limited. In our first aborted game I had sold off all the granaries to get cash to rush build units, but that is not possible. I would like to see a few more units in the game! I think selling improvements should be allowed. Any improvements you don't want the player to sell should be set to cost 0. I think the player should be free to decide what to sell if the need arises.

If the City Walls of a small city are lost upon capture and it swaps hands several times as it is fought over it will quickly be obliterated from the map. My solution to this would be either to set the cost of city walls to 0 and have a house rule stipulating that they must be rebuilt immediately upon capture or include the CivCity tool in the scenario folder so the walls can be reinstated immediately upon capture. Its a shame there is nothing in the rules to stipulate which improvements will not be destroyed when a city is captured!

The map is so large and the settler units are so few that I can see no reason for not allowing roads to be constructed. I could really do with filling in the gap between Texas and Louisiana. The game is not long enough for roads networks to get out of hand anyway so why not let the player have a bit more freedom.

With the distances involved in the western theater I would lower the move cost of Plains and Grassland to 1 and look at altering the cost for other terrains too. Railroads should be the most efficient way to travel but movement shouldn't be completely restricted. The game will be much more interesting if it is possible to do some cross country marches!

Up to now (IE in my current game) there is no way to defeat River Forts. I think that they should be homed to key cities (EG. Cairo / St. Louis / Evansville / Memphis etc...) so that the fall of the support city will disband the Fort and allow ship movement up the river. Later on when the relevant techs are acquired I guess Ironclads will be able to take on the forts directly.

Ships should not be too powerful vs ground units. It sounds like you have already considered this one.

Minor points:

Change wagon graphic

Need a People file

Rename Airbase

At the moment I am involved in this PBEM and Barthi's Sezessionskrieg PBEM. Both are a lot of fun and have good and bad points. The main difference for me is that your scenario is very restrictive (EG no role for trade, no improvement selling, no road building) on the player where Barthi's one gives the player too much freedom (EG you can sell everything, trade like blazes and build endless Engineers and RR). I think if they could meet halfway the balance would be improved.

I will send you an PM with some ideas on strategy.

[Cyrion]

If the City Walls of a small city are lost upon capture and it swaps hands several times as it is fought over it will quickly be obliterated from the map.

If all cities are supposed to have wall, why not simply use an event creating walls upon city capture? If all other cities have wall, they would be built in the newly conquered city (if they don't have walls), correct?

[Gelion]

Feedback (Gelion)

Thanks, McM. I have been following your game with Gelion. I must say, your strategy is quite Moltke-ish, given the use of railways to transport a large force from positions in the south east, all the way to the US midwest. Gelion shouldn't be underestimated either, as you may soon find out.

I feel lurked at Thanks, I hope I will live up to the expectations, especially considering that this is my first Civ2 battle PBEM ever!

Spoiler:

I didn't read about the troops relocation, noup, never.

I don't like the sound of that. I have a few ideas of what his strategy might be based on what I would do, but the waiting is unbearable! As they say, ignorance is bliss. I will be awake all night now trying to think what he's up to. Thanks a bundle Tech

Tremble for the North shall come for you!

First of all I want to thank you techumseh for making this great scenario! Gameplay-wise it is very intense and 1v1 interaction makes it both fast and enjoyable! Great idea!

I will try to organise my report as logically as possible and since i have the luxury of going after McM, I can also comment on his post!

Graphics and Sound
I think the graphics are absolutely amazing. I haven’t had time to inspect the South, but I didn’t see any trouble with Northern units. The Train Freight fits perfectly onto the railroad and everything looks really authentic including the plantation graphics.

Same can be said about the sound. Absolutely amazing! I found one flaw in my test game when I ran a shore battery purposely out of fuel. Guess what sound did it make?

Infrastructure and Trade

To begin with there are few units so potential strategies are limited. In our first aborted game I had sold off all the granaries to get cash to rush build units, but that is not possible. I would like to see a few more units in the game! I think selling improvements should be allowed. Any improvements you don't want the player to sell should be set to cost 0. I think the player should be free to decide what to sell if the need arises.

Besides the fact that this build-up changes the commonly accepted scenario practice I have only one complaint about this choice. It makes conquest unprofitable! The more Confederate ( ) towns are taken, the more useless buildings are under Union care and need to be paid for. I do see how this works historically for the North (re-capture rebel provinces, restore the country, no desire to destroy "own" land), but not for the South (South pillaged quite a bit). Union troops are also known for their luxury taste, but mostly in countryside IIRC.

I really liked the fact that you cannot rush units in this game. If this was the intent, then it is implemented perfectly. I doubt the game designers intended the usual “trade and rush” tactic to be central to any Civ2 game. Some scenarios, like “Eivinds 1936” are designed around the fact that you cannot construct a military without rushing. In my current game I’ve not been able to rush anything besides some key units. I like that as it is both realistic and closer to original Civ2.

I have to agree with McM on city walls 100%! Without any fortresses on the map it might be best to go for cheap city walls to help protect the low civilian population. Needless to say some cities in the beginning are missing city walls. I felt uneasy about stopping my better militia units from producing and switching to city walls at the very start of the game.

I found that neutrals are bankrupting themselves, but I’m guessing the AI cheats enough to counter-balance that.

I may be wrong, but is it possible to build cities on airbases? When the city is gone with it goes the defensive bonus and remaining units are eliminated in one blow. I doubt there’s a way to fix it, but I thought you should know. This could be one more argument in favour of cheap city walls.

I think the blockade is implemented well through the taking of Confederate ports and deficit in Confederate budget. Still, some sort of ships could be generated at the edge of the map (aka Lend-Lease in WW2) and Union ships must try to catch them. This, however, must mean a much larger Union navy in the beginning.

Units

The map is so large and the settler units are so few that I can see no reason for not allowing roads to be constructed. I could really do with filling in the gap between Texas and Louisiana. The game is not long enough for roads networks to get out of hand anyway so why not let the player have a bit more freedom.

I haven't had much chance to experiment with roads construction, but your sneaky tactics of destroying national property from turn 1 has got me thinking that more engineers are needed at the start. They could even be armed too!

Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York S.M.’s for the Union are missing from civilopedia. I haven’t checked for other units, but I suspect that there are more missing units.

My shore battery ran out of fuel and crushed. Most unit messages are untouched from the original Civ2.

I really found my (and enemy!) generals to be the main force behind the offensive! Defensive and especially offensive bonuses make only operations involving generals worthwhile (besides ships). It works as intended.

The Navy theatre might need a bit of a revision. Besides the smugglers unit idea, I think the number of ships could be expanded to include smaller ships. I like how the Confederacy is helpless to attacks from the Sea and this really balances the “take ports to starve the rebels” requirement, but a lack of sea engagements is showing. Smaller ships could hunt each other and smuggler vessels. Also, if the industrially weak Confederate ports could build frigates from the beginning it would do them no harm. Transport ships and Warships should be forbidden to the Confederates for historic reasons.

@McM: Again, I like the strength of the Navy vs ground units. This is how the Union implements the blockade requirement and it should be kept as it is.

I think this idea could be a cool addition to the game: Confederates often found many of the much needed supplies on the bodies of killed Union soldiers. This is well reflected in litterature. You could introduce a bounty for each Union soldier killed (5 gold?) so that this event simulates history and encourages the Confederates to attack more. Again, you’d need to balance Confederate budget even more to allow this to happen. Perhaps this idea could destabilise the scenario, but I think it is worth it for realism and fun.

@McM River forts. I haven’t tested much yet but I think 5-6 river boats should take them down. As with normal forts the price is quite adequate.

Mechanics

With the distances involved in the western theater I would lower the move cost of Plains and Grassland to 1 and look at altering the cost for other terrains too. Railroads should be the most efficient way to travel but movement shouldn't be completely restricted. The game will be much more interesting if it is possible to do some cross country marches!

Ditto. The railroads really limit the flexibility of operations, especially in the hilly East. I am not sure if it is a good point, but units should be able to cross a “death zone” and be able to fight back on the next turn if their ambush goes well.

As McM said, the offensives and defensive operations are relatively limited. Only in the West there’s a certain choice of places to go. Eastern campaign is a crush of steamrollers. Navy is too small to make a significant impact. However we haven’t finished 1861 and I do not know how new units will affect the gameplay.

Overall, I really enjoyed this scenario so far. It has a very good historical pacing towards war, really good atmosphere and immersion given by 1v1 play. However the railroads and difficult terrain turn this war into a war of steamrollers and the sea is too quiet, even if historically accurate. I do not know how the game will develop, but this is my view so far.

I have little to no comments on strategy, so I will be PMing you if I ever get any bright ideas.

[McMonkey]

The Confederate budget is really tight and I expect it to get even worse as cities and ports fall to the Northerners. A small booty for killing Federal troops is a good idea, especially as it will encourage the Confederates to launch attacks later in the game where they will probably be playing more offensively.

I also like the idea of a limited amount of event generated blockade runner ships appearing at random locations in the Atlantic. Their mission could be to get back to a friendly port where they can be disbanded for their shield value (say enough to build a Cannon or Infantry unit or to part build a ship). This would be a much simpler and less disruptive way of including the naval aspect of the war without unbalancing the games tech rate and finances. I would disregard my suggestion for traders. In fact I'm not sure its worth including traders at all for the South as things stand.

Any blockade runner would need to have the submarine flag as it would be too easy for a large Federal Navy with large movement rates to seek them out otherwise.

I have no issues with the Union being the dominant naval power and therefore being able to pick their spot for a landing, I just don't like the idea of their Frigates being able to wipe out my Garrisons with no hope of fending them off. The Confederacy is short of troops as it is and having to station masses of its best troops in ports, doing nothing most of the time, seems wasteful. I would go for more Union ships from the start, both for blockading and for escorting amphibious landing forces. I would just make them less effective at shore bombardment. I would also allow the Confederacy to build its own Frigates for self defense.

[techumseh]

Thanks for those comments. Many of your suggestions have already been added to version 2:

-house rule requiring rebuilding walls, cost to do so set at 0.

-costs of many improvements often sold off are drastically cut - sell at will.

-blockade runner added

On movement and railway construction: I initially wanted to have higher rail movement rates, but because Aggie's research showed that rates higher than X3 reduced the effective movement of ships, I settled for that. To keep an appropriate movement ratio between marching and train transportation, I doubled the movement of ground units and the movecost of terrain.

You may have noticed that there are few real rivers on the map - that's so you can't move land units on minor rivers at the speed of railways and without boats! I've substituted forest terrain for rivers, using real ones only where they connect to sea terrain. 'River' and 'Developed' terrain are both considered to contain roads and have a movecost of 2.

On building railways: the actual historical capacity to build new railways, esp. for the South, was very limited in the timeframe (5 years) and because of the huge competiton for limited industrial capacity and manpower. Here's a map of southern railways: http://www.military.com/Resources/Re...largerview.htm

Note that the sections in brown are the only parts built during the war. So rather than have complicated house rules to limit new construction, I thought it easier to limit it to reconstruction of destroyed lines only.

On naval operations: You will be able to destroy river forts with ironclads and gunboats. I've speeded up tech research quite a bit so you will be able to get them earlier. The Confederates will be able to build ironclads on rivers and the ocean, so some naval action will occur. My concept is to give both sides the same advantages and disadvantages as they had historically. The South could not build large surface ships, including frigates, so they can't in the scenario.

I will add blockade runners for the Confederates. If I was starting from scratch, I would remake the map to include Bermuda and Havana. Together with the Bahamas, the bulk of blockade running teminated there.

I'm late for work, more later. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

[techumseh]

Some of the new stuff for version 2:

Having lost too many leaders assaulting entrenched units on hills and river/river terrain (both +100%), I've cut the defensive bonus of hills to +50%, eliminated the +50% bonus for forest altogether, and reduced the number of squares with both real and fake rivers. However, I've added river/river terrain in a some of the Confederate ports from Wilmington NC to Mobile, as well as Washington and Richmond. Units in these cities will now be doubled on defense, including when attacked by shore bombardment.

I've speeded up tech research to the normal rate, so you won't have to wait till the middle of the war to get ironclads, for instance. I reduced the number of techs needed to research spies and heavy artillery, but added one more before regular infantry units can be built. This means both players still have to build the various militia units for a few turns before they can build regular infantry.

When the Union player researches 'Union Blockade' (Radio), a couple of things now happen. First, the Union player can now use the pre-built airports (Sea Lift) in New York and Boston to transfer ground units (1 per turn) to Key West. Second, a Union fleet is created by events in Key West, so the blockade/naval offensive can be extended to the Gulf ports.

I've eliminated the events which resurect dead leaders, but increased the frequency of creating new generic (U & C Generals). The Union is favoured here, to ensure they have a sufficient number of poor generals.

I've cleaned up the events dealing with the potential Confederate allies, the Neutral States and the Civilized Indians. They no longer have mobile units of their own. Instead they each have an immobile militia unit in each city, plus another belonging the the Confederates. When the events trigger a mobilization, it's Confederate units which appear in their cities. (This trick was used in Frederick the Great) That way the CSA player controls all the units on its side, rather than messing around with having the AI control some.

[McMonkey]

All sounds good, especially the Key West/airlift idea