Iron Curtain Pbem #1

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Darius871


This is wrong on SO many levels. For one it wasn't 'us', meaning the USSR, it was Cuba and Cuba alone. Castro did not even ask us for approval although we probably would have given it to him.

So, if Castro is independent from Rusia, Can we engage in war with Cuba without being in war with Rusia?

Secondly, for the LAST time, Cuba didn't 'conquer' any city just like you didn't 'conquer' Mexico. Genghis Khan taking China was 'conquest'; Adolf Hitler launching a blitzkrieg on France was 'conquest'. What we did in Belize was active military support of one side in a civil war, and if I hear the word 'conquer' again I'm going to puke. Not to mention that YOU have been these subversive measures in Latin America for decades. Hypocrisy!

Show me evidences about USA getting involved in those activites We had supported democracy in all the countries ( ) And I want to intervine in the Civil War of Honduras.... Would be that an attack on Rusia or an attack on Honduras?

Thirdly, the hypocrisy's even more blatant since you've been playing in our 'backyard' for years as well. Hell, you've even invaded us before! We would NEVER whine like little babies if you were to make moves in Central Asia. And we aren't whining one bit about your nuclear missiles in Europe and Turkey.

Nuclear missiles in Turkey are there to safe this country of being attacked by Rusia. We know all about the 'rusian dream' of put their foot on Istambul..

And finally, you will notice that there are NO nuclear weapons in Cuba or Honduras, and there never will be. We reached an agreement during the Cuban Missile Crisis and we will stick by it.

And our deal was to not attack Cuba, but now Cuba is expanding socialism in a continent that NO other power can expand on it. It is the Monroe Doctrine and backs to the 19th century, much before the USSR existed

Honduras will not be surrendered to a capitalist puppet government, and other underground movements in Latin America could be pushed to success at any time in the future. Any attack on our allies in Latin America or Cuba will be an attack on the USSR. Period. If you want to start World War III over a pathetic patch of jungle so be it; history will remember that you were responsible!!!

If you want to start a World War III, just expand it again in America All continental america countries have signed a teatry with us and are part of OEA [Organización de Estados Americanos, American States Organization]. We will defend the rigth of OEA States to have a democratic, religious goverment and Rusia (or their puppet, Cuba) is not going to expand the socialism in America.

We offer a deal, we let the Belize revolution to stay untouched as far as Cuba doesn't expand more in the continent. In fact, any attack agaisnt any other country in America will be considered an act of war of Cuba against America, and we'll do what we would feel rigth to figth against that.

[BTW, Darius, your post sounds very angry. I hope that we can separate the PBEMs from the real life... And understand that I'm very bad with English, so my posts sound rude although I don't want that they sound so roude... I'll let time for diplomacy and I'll try to move tomorrow.]

[Darius871]

Originally posted by yaroslav

So, if Castro is independent from Rusia, Can we engage in war with Cuba without being in war with Rusia?

Cuba is an independent nation that is firmly allied to Russia, in the same way that you are allied to Japan. So the answer is no.

Originally posted by yaroslav

Show me evidences about USA getting involved in those activites We had supported democracy in all the countries ( )

BS. (Disclaimer: Note that this is not my political view even though it is apparently the view of many on this board. Just saying what the commies would probably say)

Originally posted by yaroslav

Nuclear missiles in Turkey are there to safe this country of being attacked by Rusia. We know all about the 'rusian dream' of put their foot on Istambul..

That may have been the dream of the DEAD tsar but we have other plans.

And how ironic, our missiles in Cuba were to save this country from being attacked by the West! And yet somehow we were kind enough to remove them while you take the moral high ground.

Originally posted by yaroslav

And our deal was to not attack Cuba, but now Cuba is expanding socialism in a continent that NO other power can expand on it.

So, are you saying that you will NEVER put any more Latin American nations under your 'influence'? Doubtful.

Originally posted by yaroslav

We will defend the rigth of OEA States to have a democratic, religious goverment

If they DID have democratic governments then perhaps we would leave the region alone. Unfortunately very few of them are, and the remainder are oppressed by dictators that you support. We will not allow our comrades to die by their hands.

Originally posted by yaroslav

We offer a deal, we let the Belize revolution to stay untouched as far as Cuba doesn't expand more in the continent. In fact, any attack agaisnt any other country in America will be considered an act of war of Cuba against America, and we'll do what we would feel rigth to figth against that.

Fine, then attack us. Communist revolutions will continue to succeed in Latin America, and they will continue to offer allegiance to us. Since most Latin American nations are in no way allied to you (in the way that Japan or Taiwan are; flying your flag that is), you have no right to attack us without being seen as the aggressor.

If you want to stop us without direct war then your only option is to get them on your side before we do. God knows you have a larger military in the region than us, so it should be a small task.

Originally posted by yaroslav

[BTW, Darius, your post sounds very angry. I hope that we can separate the PBEMs from the real life... And understand that I'm very bad with English, so my posts sound rude although I don't want that they sound so roude... I'll let time for diplomacy and I'll try to move tomorrow.]

Lol, it has nothing to do with you Javier! I'm usually a very generous person in PBEM's and real life, but for once I wanted to be uncompromising, just to see what happens. This is all in-game, don't worry. Now play your turn! You know I'm not going to change my mind.

[academia]

GREAT NEWS!!!!
As a result of the effectivity of the russian attack in order to destroy the USA/NATO nuclear forces, I decided to do something to correct this problem; well, to make it less unfair
(CFC Iron Curtain PBEM #2)
I mean, it´s obvious that in a turn-based game (and in the case of a nuclear war) we face the problem of "the one who strikes first wins / has a considerable advantage"
Because, if you are able to destroy between 90-100% of the nuclear forces of your enemy, you can prevent a nuclear counterattack.

So, how can we solve that problem?
It´s not that hard
I added a command in the events.txt file.
It says something like this:
If "USA ICBM" destroyed by "ANYBODY"
THEN Create "USA ICBM" in "a specific location" (i´ll give you 4 or 5 possibilities)

So, in case of a soviet attack, all the ICBMs destroyed by the soviets, will "magically" appear again in the american soil. I made some tests, and no matter if the ICBM is in an airbase, submarine or carrier. IT WORKS!!!! THE ICBM APPEARS!!!!

THERE´S ONLY ONE PROBLEM!! when you place a ICBM in a city and (for example) the soviets nuke that city, the command doesn´t work. It´s the only case
Ok, I also know that if the ICBM was in the pacific ocean, it wouldn´t appear in the same location again. Sorry, but i can´t guess the location of the missile

This is an attempt to recreate MAD. Yea, it´s not perfect, but i think it´s an interesting aproximation of the real situation
It will give you the chance to mantain the same nuclear force (quantity of nukes) that you had before the soviet / anybody attack.
In other words, You´ll have enough nukes to strike back

[academia]

So, do you want me to post the new events.txt file with the modification?

I´d like to hear your comments about this idea

[Darius871]

Absolutely, and good work! Actually I think this was discussed a while back, wasn't it?

Also I'm assuming that this provides for a U.S. first strike as well?

Anyway post the file, definitely.

[academia]

PART 1

Let´s see...
First of all, i´m glad to hear your comments / suggestions! That means that you´re really interested in solving this "problem"
Ok. As you may imagine, i presented this idea in every single Iron Curtain PBEM. So, i received some interesting ideas.

GREENY EXPLAINED THE PROBLEM PERFECTLY (CFC Iron Curtain #2)
In reality the nuclear responce would happen while the emeny nukes were in the air.
I was trying to find a way to recreate that in a turn based game. ok?

Tracid comment in CFC Iron Curtain #1

If you HAVE to implement this, at least do it for every civ....including those who do not have nukes at start of the game.

Of course, i´ll do it for every civ. The US/USSR situation was just AN EXAMPLE

Yop73 comment in CFC Iron Curtain #1

Well, I for my part are not going to let this game end in a nuclear inferno. I say we all sign an anti-nuclear treaty and the one who violates it, will be attacked by all other nations

Guys: Remember that using or not using nuclear weapons depends on you
It´s your choice: Global Nuclear War or Non-Proliferation Treaty

Conmcb25 comment in CFC Iron Curtain Pbem?

Like I said in Game 1, I vote to implement and try to do something for the powers that currently dont have Nukes but may get them in the future. This was the one feature of the game that was beginning to make me wonder about it. So I say lets do it.

I agree with you

Emugod comment in CFC Iron Curtain Pbem?

That seems kind of unfair. If you strike first and destroy your enemies's arsenal, then you have successfully eliminated an opponents' arsenal. Regenerating it is very unrealistic. The whole point is for each player to hide his nuclear arsenal from his opponents. If they find it, then they can attack it and destroy it. You might as well make all units that are destroyed also regenerate if you do that to the nukes. But if you insist on it, how about making this only apply for MRBMs and not ICBMs?

Well, i think this is a problem between "civ2 game style vs. reality"
In a civ2 game, you don´t have silos to "hide" your nukes. The player can find and destroy the nukes wherever they are.
In real life, as Greeny explained, NUCLEAR RESPONSE WILL HAPPEN WHILE THE ENEMY NUKES WERE IN THE AIR
Personally, i´d like to recreate that.
MRBMs or ICBMs? I think we should reach a decision about implementing the "regenerate" idea first.

Germanos comment in CFC Iron Curtain #2:

Let me first say that I destroyed the bulk of USA Nukes (both ICBM and MRBM) because I sunk many subs, and quite a few on airbases. I'm not completely sure, but I am quite confident I destroyed 3/4 of the nukes by conventional attack. If the USA would have moved his Nukes out of any danger-zone, he would still have them. I mean, some of his subs were right next to my destroyers . I see no reason why any tactic like that should be rewarded by invulnarable nukes.

Good point in the case of the subs. The US player made a wrong choice. In real life, soviets may have sunk subs in a conventional battle.
The nukes in the air bases? that´s other story

Secondly, if you do implement this, you should make ICBM's much, MUCH more expensive. There can be no price to high for undestructable units! I for one would not build ANY MRBM's under your proposed 'solution'. I think a price in the range of a Wonder would be in place, these would be 'miracle' weapons .

Mmm... maybe...

The Soviet closing statement therefore is: had the USA protected its nukes better, there would have been no reason for the proposed alteration of the existing game. I also find the whole concept of invulnarable units ridiculous.

One more time, i refer to Greeny´s explanation. We aren´t talking about conventional units.

Earlier I have suggested to Academia though that all nukes at the start of the scenario should be NONE-units, so that nukes cannot be lost due to capture of their 'home'-city. That would ensure at least some MAD in case of a first strike. A few NONE-subs could carry these nukes, if necessary.

I like this idea. Could be a nice option

[academia]

PART 2


Greeny comment in CFC Iron Curtain #2:

How about, to eliminate germanos' objection to indestructable units, have a new unit, called the "lauched ICBM" or something, which is created someware in the middle of enemy territory when an ICBM is destroyed. In range of the enemy cities but without enough movement to get back to home cities (so use 'em or lose 'em). Representing birds that made it into the air "during the enemy turn" before being destoyed. There could be a house rule that you cannot attack these units (no SDI back then) and they could have an insanely high defence to help enfore this. This would be a more realistic way to implement M.A.D. IMHOconsidering the limitations of a turn based nuclear warfare.

Interesting idea, but impossible to do.
Whree should i create the units? I can´t give the AI a command like this:

USSR destroys US ICBM in a base near Miami. WHERE SHOULD I CREATE THE "LAUNCHED ICBM" unit? Near Moscow, Cuba, Kiev, Stalingrad?
By doing this, i´m forcing the US player to nuke a specific city. What if he wants to nuke other cities or even units?

I doubt this would be possible, but would there be any-way to only make the "lauched ICBM" unit appear only 50% of the time or similar? Reflecting the fact that Nuclear Silos/ NORAD or whoever might be caught unprepared and not get the birds in the air before the enemy nuke destroys them. This would be ideal as it would add a realistic first strike bonus but not eliminate the possibility or M.A.D. entirely.

No, no way. The command in the events.txt will work 100% of the time.
Yea, another problem: What if the US might be caught unprepeared and not get the nukes in the ari before the enemy destroys them????
Very difficult to answer that; even in real life!!!


Pinkygen comment in CFC Iron Curtain #1

I like Greeny's solution too. There should be some benefit for a first strike, but their also needs to be retaliation.

That's the point. Benefit for a first strike, but also a retaliation. THIS IS NUCLEAR WARFARE!!!!


Jim Panse comment in Apolyton´s Anyone for Iron Curtain PBEM?

due to the cause that most of the us/nato nukes were/are in silo-based and submarine-based i think that is ok. i haven´t heard of missile ramps in cities yet. therefor some kind of missile silo unit would be fine to have the missiles reappear

That´s the point!! What should we do with missiles in silos?
ONE MORE TIME:THAT´S REAL LIFE!!!!
NO SILOS IN CIV2!!!!

i also support this idea because of the fact that he who strikes first can mostly avoid nuclear retaliation.

Exactly

or use something like this mobile icbm launcher or silos

Mmm... not sure.

Tanelorn comment in Apolyton´s Anyone for Iron Curtain PBEM?

For my part, I have to say I completely disagree with the infinite nuclear spawning idea.

"infinite"? you missunderstood the idea.
It´s not infinite regeneration. Relook my first post:
If "USA ICBM" destroyed by "ANYBODY"
Only if someone destroys your ICBM!!!!
If you use the ICBM to nuke Moscow, that´s it. It´s gone!! No "regeneration in this case" ok?

If somebody doesn't want his nukes obliterated during a suprise attack (which is a valid strategy), he should scatter them beyond his enemy's reach. Put them in silos (airfields) and submarines, or cities with SDI when this comes along.

One more time:
"civ2 gameplay vs. reality" What should we choose?
SDI? Completely unrealistic!!!! I´ll never use it.

I agree with making nukes NON units, to prevent disbanding caused by city capture- though this would be a disadvantage for SEATO, Neutrals & me.

Another guy supporting the "NON units" idea. It could be a viable alternative, don´t you think so?

If you want a silo safe from nukes, surround it with helicopters & other air units, so that the nukes can't get to it. And give your Nuke subs air-cover. If nuclear players can nuke/be nuked with impunity there 'll be nukes on the air for trivial pretexts...

Mmm... surround it with units? mmm... pretty difficult...

I also think that nukes should be made forbiddingly expensive to build.

Yea. I´m considering the idea...

[academia]

In my opionion this is the situation:

THE BIG PROBLEM
In reality the nuclear responce would happen while the emeny nukes were in the air.

In other words, i think we should decide between these 2 options:
"Civ2 turn based game style" (no possibility of "nukes in the air") VS. "Real life situation" (MAD)

In Favour of civ2 style:
Destroying your enemy´s arsenal is a valid strategy.
What if I conquer the territory and find nuclear weapons in airbases? Remember how many secret weapons (and not so secret. V-2 missiles) the allies found in germany during WW2!!! They conquered the territory and capture german weapons.
I destroy / sink subs with nukes in a conventional battle. It´s not my fault if the subs had nuke missiles!!!

In Favour of real life situation:
Nuclear responce would happen while the emeny nukes were in the air
MAD was a real possibility. We should recreate that in a cold war game
Benefit for a first strike, but also a retaliation. THIS IS NUCLEAR WARFARE!!! Remember, no winners in a nuclear war

If you want to add more, feel free to do it.


In my opinion, these are our options:

1) Implement Academia´s idea. Regenerate ICBMs
2) Implement Germanos´ NON-Units idea. Would ensure a parcial MAD in case of a first strike
3) Mantain the current situation. No changes

Another options:
4) Greeny´s idea of "launched ICBM" units. I simply don´t like it. It´ll force the player to nuke a specific city. No liberty to strike wherever / whenever you want.
5) Greeny´s idea of "the lauched ICBM unit appear only 50% of the time or similar". Is not applicable in a civ2 game.
6) Jim Panse´s idea of "mobile icbm launcher or silos". I think it has the similar problems to Greeny´s idea


What should we do? Do you wanna go on with this discussion and present new ideas / support the old ones? Or do you wanna vote between the 3 options?

[El León]

I'll be out of town until Sunday. The earliest I can post a turn is Monday morning. Sorry, job-related and last minute.
I don't really want someone else to play, but if they must, I'll PM the password to them...

[conmcb25]

I vote for 1 and 2.

Although I didn't think I would ever agree with Germanos on anything........................

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Darius871
Cuba is an independent nation that is firmly allied to Russia, in the same way that you are allied to Japan. So the answer is no.

Understand.

BS. (Disclaimer: Note that this is not my political view even though it is apparently the view of many on this board. Just saying what the commies would probably say)

And also I'm playing to be American, not saying the things that I actually think (that may or may not agree with that USA made)

That may have been the dream of the DEAD tsar but we have other plans.

We don't believe this. Turkey is menaced by USSR expansionist army...

And how ironic, our missiles in Cuba were to save this country from being attacked by the West! And yet somehow we were kind enough to remove them while you take the moral high ground.

What do you say we took? There would be no more misiles in Cuba!

So, are you saying that you will NEVER put any more Latin American nations under your 'influence'? Doubtful.

Not. What we're saying is that only us have the rigth to control America, only USA! [Monroe doctrine]

If they DID have democratic governments then perhaps we would leave the region alone. Unfortunately very few of them are, and the remainder are oppressed by dictators that you support. We will not allow our comrades to die by their hands.

Tell me what democracy is beneath the Castro regiment and I'll be agree

Fine, then attack us. Communist revolutions will continue to succeed in Latin America, and they will continue to offer allegiance to us. Since most Latin American nations are in no way allied to you (in the way that Japan or Taiwan are; flying your flag that is), you have no right to attack us without being seen as the aggressor.

I saw yesterday 13 Days, so I'll do a better thing: to block Belize and Cuba until you agree to not expand futher in America...

If you want to stop us without direct war then your only option is to get them on your side before we do. God knows you have a larger military in the region than us, so it should be a small task.

We're working in this sense, and also are blocking Belize and Cuba

Lol, it has nothing to do with you Javier! I'm usually a very generous person in PBEM's and real life, but for once I wanted to be uncompromising, just to see what happens. This is all in-game, don't worry. Now play your turn! You know I'm not going to change my mind.

Ok. Sorry, but English isn't my strongets point.

[yaroslav]

USA turn report:

After the URSS agression on Central America, that goes agaisnt the Monroe's Doctrine, we've supported revolts in Managua and San Salvador, and destroyed Port-au-Prince. We've also blocked Honduras and start to block Cuba.

To China:

We can't mantain this stupid war: you've show the world that Korea is easy for you to take it (South Korea has fallen) and I've shown that I could avance futher in Vietnam. Would you agree to sign a peace teatry with North Vietnam in exchange from South Korea?

My turn file

[yaroslav]

First bug (to Academia)

I've seen two things that I don't understand.

First of all: when you try to buy any unit, it shows something like

It will cost: ABC1$
You've: ABC2$

and ABC2 is always to ABC1, always!

The GAME.TXT section concerned is:

@COMPLETE0
@title=Treasury Secretary
^Cost to complete %STRING0: $%NUMBER0m.
^Treasury: $%NUMBER0m.

but in any standard GAME.TXT it is:

@COMPLETE0
@title=Buy %STRING0
^Cost to complete %STRING0: %NUMBER0 gold.
^Treasury: %NUMBER1 gold.

I think that the NUMBER0m in the last line of our GAME.TXT is wrong

[yaroslav]

Second bug (Darius)

The second thing that i don't understand is how a missile can stay without any submarine: Or didn't I see the sumbarine? Here I attached a picture when you can see a missile without any other unit in the square. Is there a submarine or a carrier or...?

EDIT: the square is 127,25

[academia]

I think that the NUMBER0m in the last line of our GAME.TXT is wrong

Yea, you are right. Problem tested and solved

The second thing that i don't understand is how a missile can stay without any submarine: Or didn't I see the sumbarine? Here I attached a picture when you can see a missile without any other unit in the square. Is there a submarine or a carrier or...?

Germanos noticed that problem in CFC Iron Curtain #2

I even released a new rules.txt file in order to fix it.
You can finde the file in the page 9 of this thread.

Darius:
Did you download that file???