Anyone for Iron Curtain PBEM?

[EmuGod]

Ya I have it, I'm at a different computer but I'll play and post my turn when I'm using the right one.

[EmuGod]

USSR Turn 2

The Arms Race Completed!
This month the Arms Race was officially established within the USSR, a great wonder of the world that will stand for all time, along with the Soviet Union herself.

The People's Democratic Republic of Iran (PDRI) was proclaimed at Teheran, after the last remaining pockets of resistance were crushed by Soviet forces, particularly through the use of an aircraft division. Prisoners have been sent to POW camps within the USSR, though some were unfortunately executed. The USSR looks to establish a permanent border with the south of Iran and hopes to begin negotiations with the Arab League on the paritition of the former Iran, and to discuss policies ensuring the security and safety of the region from further conflict. We invite the Arab League representatives to meet with this discussion at Tabriz, Iran.

Afghanistan continues to remain rebellious, however the USSR will not take action in Afghanistan and hereby leaves the future of Afghanistan to SEATO.

[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

[jim panse]

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 (you know that an airfield is not equal to an missile silo. an airfield will look a bit ... hm different after a nuclear attack than a missile silo)

whatever, i think this idea would be good but think about letting the nukes reappear on airfields (i guess this was meant by some specific locations on the map)
or use something like this to let them reappear (though i confess that lettimg the nukes reappear on mobile icbm launchers is much more difficult than letting them reappear in silos)
i also support this idea because of the fact that he who strikes first can mostly avoid nuclear retaliation.

or use something like this mobile icbm launcher or silos (i wanted to include them in one of my - yeah you´re right - still unfinished scenario (just another crazy idea)

[Iron Chancellor]

Looks good.
SEATO thanks the USSR for her self-restraint, and urges China to hurry up and play her turn so that SEATO can go.

Is it considered good form to give notice when building a wonder of the world?

[FiGu]

USA!

[EmuGod]

Like I posted in CFC, I am against the idea of regenerating nukes.

[tanelorn]

For my part, I have to say I completely disagree with the infinite nuclear spawning idea. Not only is it unrealistic, it would dramaticaly tilt the gameplay in favor of established nuclear powers. 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. I agree with making nukes NON units, to prevent disbanding caused by city capture- though this would be a disadvantage for SEATO, Neutrals & me. 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...
I also think that nukes should be made forbiddingly expensive to build.

[tanelorn]

Another thing. While there is an impending threat of war because of Iraqi oil (and alledged weapons of mass destruction) in the real world, there is no Iraqi oil in this map! Or in Brunei, Azerbaidjan, Siberia, Alaska etc.
Also, the ZSU 23-4, a mobile anti-aircraft weapon is given howitzer stats
A soviet howitzer like the SU-152 or even better a rocket launcher like the BM 21 or RM 70 would be prefferable, I think
What about including chemical-biological weapons as high attack (bellow 99- non nuke) short range missles? they are the "nukes" of the poor, after all

I hope this isn't too much, Academia

[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 opinion 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?

[academia]

Tanelorn:

Another thing. While there is an impending threat of war because of Iraqi oil (and alledged weapons of mass destruction) in the real world, there is no Iraqi oil in this map! Or in Brunei, Azerbaidjan, Siberia, Alaska etc.

Yea, i know that. I don´t know how to place specific resources in the squares.
Do you know how to do it??

Also, the ZSU 23-4, a mobile anti-aircraft weapon is given howitzer stats. A soviet howitzer like the SU-152 or even better a rocket launcher like the BM 21 or RM 70 would be prefferable, I think

You are totally right!!!! My mistake
I´ll use a BM 21 instead of the ZSU 23-4. And i´ll replace the Type 63 for the ZSU 23-4
THANX FOR YOUR HELP

What about including chemical-biological weapons as high attack (bellow 99- non nuke) short range missles? they are the "nukes" of the poor, after all

The problem is the lack of unit slots
I considered that option in the past... To be honest, i don´t know. It´s an interesting option... but i haven´t made up my mind yet

[jim panse]

sorry for the delay. i´ll post my turn tomorrow. i´ll have to party the end of my semster today