Red Storm - The Cold War Gets Hot (scenario development)

[Elensar]

Would that even be appropriate to represent in terms of a Civ unit, then? Even without finite unit slots causing problems, it seems to not work very well in game mechanics.

Maybe a (low but not nonexistant defense - since they are armed) static "diplomat" (for the antispy abilities).

[Timoleon]

Check this out, especially the comment half-way down the list.
This is early around the time of the soviet break-up.

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Regiments.html

[GhostOfDisco]

TEH MEGA POST!!1

To determine at what RL-unit-to-Civ-unit ratio I should have, I did some tabulating of the NATO forces - 1 unit per brigade/regiment, and 2 units per division, and, well, I wound up with over 200 land units. A bit much, don't you think

When I looked at this table of tank formations in Europe circa 1982 and calculated it on it on a one division-one unit basis, and I cam up with the much more manageable number of 78, excluding corps helicopter, artillery, and air force stuff. However, in getting this number I had to discount the independent regiment- and brigade-size units (except for the US Armored Cav Regiments, which are their own unique units) and many of the NATO countries (especially the smaller ones) had significant military units of said strength. How should they be represented? Does anyone have any useful "rules of thumb" for converting RL army OOBs into player-mangeable units without becoming too inaccurate?

(I know the AI needs a lot more units than a player does to ensure not getting rolled over, which is why I'll have separate events files for a NATO SP game, a WarPac SP game, and a multiplayer game.)

I've also been wondering about unit stats. For one thing, what about range - how fast could a mechanized unit move in a week? I know the US Army's 24th Infantry Division, a mechanized infantry outfit, moved 260 miles in four days during Desert Storm, but how much of that was cross-country, and how much of it was done by roads? How would road travel impact a unit's traveling distance vs. open country? In his comments on Dictator 7 (whose map I'm using), AGRICOLA noted that the range of the ground units in that scenario was accurate for WWII. I wonder if mechanized units got any significantly faster in the 45-ish years since the days of Churchill and Stalin…

Attack and defense numbers have got me thinking. Playing Ostfront, I was quite impressed by the aggression with which the Axis AI attacked me (predominately with Panzer VI and Waffen SS units) without MOVEUNIT commands and wondered what made them tick. Well, all the tanks have attack values at least double their defense, probably in part (at least) due to the fact that all the terrain squares were fortresses and so the units had to compensate for the 2x defense bonus. I also looked at First Strike's numbers, but I'm not so sure about them - T-80s had a better attack value than the West's best MBTs! I know in the Gulf Wars the Western armored vehicles seemed to eat their Iron Curtain counterparts for breakfast, but how would the NATO forces face up against the Warsaw Pact? (Also, should I make separate units for the Type B and C WarPac formations? I've already got T-55 and T-62 units, but as for the Motor Rifles…)

(On the issue of fortresses, I'm divided on the issue - on one hand, I want to avoid the "stacks of doom" that plagued Ostfront (mostly in that scene because of the SS), on the other hand, I don't want the NATO frontline forces to be doomed to complete destruction in the first turn…)

Yet another issue … can Type 3 units be carried by carriers? I ask this because I'm thinking of having Harriers as a Type 3 units with the Trireme flag and a 100 percent chance of Triremes sinking, so that 1)they can attack multiple units per turn 2)they can't take cities but 3)they can't just wander around willy-nilly in the ocean when realistically their fuel would have been expended. Also, if a Type 3 unit has the carrier flag and a plane lands on it, say, in the ocean, will the plane land normally, or will it crash?

Sorry if I seem worrisome, excessively bothersome, or anything like that. I've already made some sounds for the scene and will probably do some more. For a parting gift, here's my mock-up of the title screen. What do you think?

[curtsibling]

That is a kickass title screen, sir! Very nice...

I have sat and pondered the vagaries of the AI hostility for a while, the same attacks
go on in Eurasian Wars too...The AI never lets up with the fiendish air/land assaults...!
I think it has to do with defence units - If they are weaker in A/D than the attackers,
the AI decides to assault. I have seen this many times when tinkering with stats...
The weaker A/D values are OK for conscript units, but can be offset with decent
H/F values for the more powerful infantry or defence unit types...

PS
I have an article on type 3 units here that you might (or might not) have seen?

http://sleague.apolyton.net/Guides/sldt_domain_3.shtml

I'm sure these units can land on carriers, but get left behind by them when the carrier moves...

[GhostOfDisco]

Glad you like the title screen - I was trying to get something that said "Soviet armada coming to get you" combined with "Europe" and "KABOOM!" Nice to see I succeeded.

Pondering movement rates and all, I read that in Soviet wargames, it was determined that, had the Soviets had the upper hand, their T-80 units would reach the English Channel in five days. Looking at the map, that means a T-80 unit would cross twenty-two squares in a single week.

Could a T-80 equipped unit really cross more territory in a week than its WWII counterparts could in a month?

[GhostOfDisco]

Glad you like the title screen, Curt. I has hoping to convey "Massive Soviet tank Armada," Europe, and "All [censored] breaks loose," so I hope I conveyed it!
Looking over the roundtable discussion EXRhino linked to, one of the WarPac generals said that while they were first expected to advance 150km a day if war broke out, it was later realized that 60 km per day was more realistic for a unit's advance. 60x7=420 km per week, and looking through wikipedia, most modern armored vehicles have a range of about that before they need to refuel. So I'm thinking that 400-or-so-km per turn (at least on roads) when unchallenged is a good movement rate for the mechanized units.

Problem is, said vehicles have a maximum movement rate or 40 or so mph on the road, 30-something cross-country (assuming they're crossing "cavalry" terrain and not, say, the Alps.) Which means that the road movement is 1.5 times that of ordinary terrain, or that ordinary terrain is 3/4 of road movement. Can this be simulated in Civ 2 somehow?

EDIT: Well, I tried to do "1.5" road movement multiplier, but it didn't seem to take. (How did Boco do that terrain=fractional movement thing in his El Aurens scenario?)

As for A/D values - could it be that the AI attacks so aggressively because the defence value is so much lower than the attack? That might also explain the "SS stacks of doom" in Ostfront - their defence value is 9, so in the "stackable" for it shoots up to 18! It might give a reason to "fortify" the map - the only problem is, if a city has no walls and you don't have the Great Wall wonder, any units inside the city will have half the defence value they would if they were out in the field.

[Elensar]

Well, you could make a "city" terrain all city squares are located on with superior defense to grassland/plains/desert/anything I'm forgetting, but that probably would have its own consequences - not to mention it would use up a terrain slot, which may not be desirable.

My first thought - those who know more about modern warfare please amend this with your superior knowledge - is that it might not be inappropriate for units in cities to defend poorly (in a multiplayer scenario, not so much vs. the AI) - it would encourage not being "bogged down" in a city fight, which is rarely a good thing (of course, its not good for the attacker, rather than not good for the defender - but by and large, armies seem to have avoided it).

On that note: What will the city wall improvement be? And how hard will it be to build?

[GhostOfDisco]

Well, I'm using Curt's Ostfront map as a basis for mine, so it's already got urban and industrial terrian.

I tried doing fractional movements on the terrain - giving grassland a movement rate of 86 in the hopes that it would result in costing a unit only 2/3 of a movement point instead of a full 1. I tried it with a Knight (movement 2) as it has the same basic movement rate I'd be giving my mechanized units (2x3= 6 units on the road, which is in the distance rate I'm looking for. It's movment went from 2 to 1 1/3 upon moving one square, as expected, but it wouldn't go a square further.

I'm increasingly coming to believe that the best solution to the problem is to reduce the multiplier rate to 1 and give the mechanzied units a movement rate of, say, 5. True, this means that tanks and mech inf units could cross as easily over grassland and plains as they can over highways, but most vehicles of said units can go cross-country at 3/4 the speed they can on-road, so it's somewhat accurate. Plus, it has the advantage of allowing my planes to move at a whopping 127 squares per turn.

What do you think?

[Elensar]

I would (as someone who wants a realistic scenario - subject to being playable, but this isn't limiting playability) personally be fine with it. The goal is to represent tanks being able to get from here to there in a given amount of time - maybe if Civ was more tactical trying to find some alternative would be better, but this seems right for the kind of scenario Civ can actually do.

A nonroad square isn't necessarily completely without roads, after all - it just doesn't have anything significant for the road movement modifier.

So assuming normal (but not good) quality roads are better than "cross country" movement...its not too far off.

Meanwhile, planes being able to go really long distances is a nice benefit.

If you already have urban squares, that takes care of that (on defense), I think.

Sure as heck is making me think I prefer helping other people develop scenarios than trying to make them myself though. Civ is a fun game, but its little quirks are not always cooperative with design goals.

[GhostOfDisco]

I'm going with a 1-movement rate for roads and have been calculating the movement rates of different aircraft.

One thing I'm wondering about: should I have different units for the WarPac's class-A,B, and C formations? I know they all had different equipments and levels of training, but is it enough to give them separate unit slots?
(I've already got unit slots for the different types of Communist-bloc MBTS (T-55, T-64, T-72 etc.), so it's more a question about the Mech Infantry/Motor Rifle-type units...)

[GhostOfDisco]

Well, one of the reasons I'm wondering about the Class B and C divisions is because I've been completely revamping the unit roster, trying to categorize everything by type rather than the random hodgepodge I had previously. So if I need to add extra unit(s), it will take some unit slot re-arranging.

Here's what I have so far...


(Oh, and the BTR-70 is really supposed to be a BTR-60; the unit is a Class B and/or C type. Since the two look very similar, I thought it'd be OK, at least for a placeholder...)

[GhostOfDisco]

Checking the NATO units, I still seem to have over 100 units... then again, I looked at the Eurasian Wars, and in the German campaign the Nazis have over 100 units (not counting the non-motorized infantry, many of whom serve as garrisons) and I don't recall anybody complaining about it being too large.

In any case, here's the '89 NATO OOB that I've "reduced" to help with my eventual unit placement (I've tried to keep it to 1 division = 1 unit for land and 1 wing = 1 unit for the air, but I'm not sure what to do with all those independant Brigades in Britain's Territorial Army.) What do you think?

[GhostOfDisco]

So everyone's lost interest in this scenario?

I've been doing some things for the scenario, such as adjusting the pop count of cities, adding some cities, revising some terrain graphics, and so on and so forth.

I also looked through my NATO OOB, and using the rule of thumb "1 unit = 1 division" (with the exception of some units, such as brigades), I calculated these numbers
Infantry: 49
M1 Abrams: 2-3
Patton: 2
Bradley: 2-3
Armored Cav: 2
M113: 16
Challenger: 3
Leopard I: 2
Leopard II: 6
Marder: 4
AMX-30: 12
AMX-10: 2
Airborne Brigades: 5 (2 Division's worth)
Airborne Div: 3
Mtn. Div: 5
Motorized Infantry: 15
Foreign Legion: 1
Helicopter: 16 (1 per corps)
Artillery: 16 (1 per corps)

160 Army units in all, and that's not including UK's Territorial Army, the National Guard units on the US portion of the map (you didn't think Ivan could land on the American East Coast completely unopposed, did you? :P ), the NATO Rapid Reaction Force, and so on.

I then tabulated the air units, using the rule of thumb "1 unit= 1 air wing" and got this:
A-7: 2
F-4 Phantom: 10
F-5: 3
F-15: 2
F-16: 15
F-18: 2
A-10: 2
F-104: 5
F-111: 4
B-52: 2
Tornado: 13
Harrier: 2
Jaguar: 4
Alpha Jet: 4
Mirage III: 2-3
Mirage V: 1
Mirage F-1: 4
Mirage 2000: 1

All in all, 77 air force units, for over 200+ units total! Any advice on how I can pare this down (if possible) without sacrificing general historical accuracy and/or those colorful "special" units?

And since everyone likes eye candy, here's an Armored Cav unit with a new "unit shield" I whipped up this afternoon:

[Elensar]

This is far out of my league when it comes to an understanding of how things worked, hence having hesitated about commenting.

I would generally go for "does it look like it would make a difference?" when it comes to units of different levels of training/equipment.

If yes, do it.

For instance, if one level is "useful for garrison and rear area duties only" and and another is "front line material", obviously there should be two seperate units (unit slots permiting) - but if the difference is minimal (obviously one is superior, but not by enough to make such a drastic change), its probably not worth it.

On unit count: Is "NATO" one "civilization"? If so, you might want to pare things down a bit. But if NATO is represented by more than one civ, it becomes very managable (though of course the time it takes to move everyone might bother some people, its more "that many units on the map" and less "that many that I have to move")

[GhostOfDisco]

Well, a lot of those units are home guard/militia/reserve units. Looking at the mechanized units (excluding the "Motorized Infantry" many of whom are part of resevere units) it looks like a more manageable 64 units.

(And yes, NATO is one civ. Saves a lot of time with

Still, it's made me wonder - when exactly do people complain about "too many units?" I never heard anyone complain about that regarding 2194 Days of War, even though, looking at the German campaign, the Nazis had tons of units - though many of them were garrisoned in cities, I believe. The Germans in Eurasian Wars also had a lot of units, but I've never heard anyone claim they had too many units when playing as the AI.

From my own experience, it seems that "unit fatigue" doesn't come from fighting a war with massive numbers of units - it's from moving tons of units from one part of the map to another behind the lines. One of the biggest frustrations in playing Red Front, for example, was not fighting the Nazis advancing into the Motherland, but moving scores of infantry from the trans-Ural region to the front. (Eventually I just started disbanding said units as I could build decent units closer to the front anyway) So if units can get to the front without too much effort, there shouldn't be a problem.

Anybody else share my experience?