Cold War Screenshots

[Fast_Eddie]

Well, I've had these lying around for awhile, and I was considering getting back to work on it. Just tell whether or not these look like it's worth the time it would take (a LOT) to finish the scenario.



This is a shot of Europe around 1954/55. Notice the T-54/55s and the Pershings. I like them.

I stuck an airbase next to Berlin to simulate West Berlin, but I was thinking of making a fortress there or pollution, or at least something.

The colors are crap because I used a .gif instad of a .bmp (which it looks best for). The bmps are uploaded though, but this one in nearly 1MB in size.

http://www.geocities.com/sifl1690466/Euross.bmp



Here's an image of the map. It's got 7 civs, Americans, Soviets, West Europeans, Baghdad Pact/Arab League, Chinese, Third-World and the Nuetrals. Several important cities like Havana, and Tokyo (all Japanese cities) are barbarians, so they could eventually become either Western backers or Communist backers.

China is also interesting. Only the northern half of the country is occupied by the communists, so they have to counquer the rest of the nation and then progress.

Now remember, this is for TOT, and it's meant to be a 4-player MP game. SO just give me some feedback. I might even contruct a screen shot of some nukes flying at Moscow or Washington.

I decided to add this one as well.

Just a simple image of the US eastern seaboard complete with factories.
[This message has been edited by Fast_Eddie (edited August 12, 2000).]

[DarthVeda]

Those cities are wayyy to close. You need to re-do the map. You could split it up into four seperate maps.

Otherwise it looks ok.

[Mao]

The cities look only one space apart. That terrain better be super-producing...

[Fast_Eddie]

Hey, it took me about 7 months to get those cities placed right...

And that was another idea I had. Both the Soviet Union and the United States have to rely on food caravans to continue production in the larger cities. That way, if war ever comes about, there are two ways to effectively destroy the nation.

1. Take out their large production cities.
2. Take out their farming cities, which makes the production cities starve.

You're also looking at Europe, the most crowded part of the map.

Now, if you guys keep asking questions then I'll have to keep giving out more and more of the ideas I had for this this, and I don't want to do that.
[This message has been edited by Fast_Eddie (edited August 07, 2000).]

[Eternal]

It looks pretty good, but won't you make single player versions? Please?

[SixArmedMan]

City management looks like hell. Especially for the W. Europeans and the Russians. And the tank kinda' loses their value when the cities are barely two spaces apart, don't they? But the concept of the map, I like, flinging nukes over the arctic, and stuff and the graphics are bar none, some of the best I've seen. It looks fun altogether, as long as you're not the euros or the Russians.

[Mao]

China should be pretty over-crowded too shouldn't it?

[Stefan Härtel]

I dunno. It looks good from the optical view, but I think that there are by far too many cities. Mao is right, there are too many European and too few Chinese and Indian cities. Cities like Hannover or Munich would be better off simulated with fortresses or airbases.

[Mao]

Are you going to try to simulate the populations too?

Have you already run out of cities?

[Fast_Eddie]

City management wouldn't be a problem if I got around to finishing it. Trust me.

All units will have to ability to ignore zones of control, making Soviet tanks ideal for taking out American bases in Germany, and the only hope the Americans have to take out those tanks is with attack helicopters.

But anyway...back to city management...cities aren't meant to grow. People would definately have to defend the farming cities. Indutrial improvements (Factories, Farms, Railroads, Suburbs) would have to be made, etc., to the land that is already in the city radius.

Now...STOP WORRYING ABOUT CITY MANAGEMENT. That isn't the point of the scenario. The entire scenario is about trying to balance the strengths of your nation against the weaknesses of your nation, while trying to survive against a hostile opponent. There are lots of little things that you have to take care of to defend your interests. What's not going to happen is each nation cranking out units so that they can attack by 1960....that **** just isn't gonna happen.

The Soviets and the WEs will have one hell of a time continueing to rebuild after WWII, so that's got to happen before any figthing will begin.

I actually think that the Soviets would be the most fun to play. lots of stuff happens, from helping China, to Cuba, to Afghanistan, to the civil wars in Greece and Turkey, and then the Hungary, Czecheslovakia, and Poland revolutions. It's a lot to do.

ANYWAY. China is pretty crowded, but only on the eastern coast where about 2/3 of the people are in 1/3 of the land. NTM that the Chinese and Indians aren't very powerful to begin with. They are recovering form WWII and British Colonialism, and won't be doing much for years.

Now. I think the overall attitude has been a good one. So should I keep going? WOuld anybody actually want to play this as a 4-way MP game?

Remember, there are 3 maps that are for certain (Underwater, Ground, Air), and I'm not sure if I should make a lunar map of not.

[Fast_Eddie]

yeah, populations are fairly important.

I ran out of cities.

[Mao]

So if population is supposed to be simulated too...do you have an extra terrain? You could make it super-producing in food, you could name it "rice patties" or something like in Andrew Livings' WWII worldwide scenario.

[Fast_Eddie]

every terrain square is used up in the map, but grassland and plains have recieved significant boosts in food production. Irrigation (now farms) does a ton of extra food production are are only given to the major farming cities. Level II Farms are rarely used, but you won't be able to tell as they use the same graphic as the Level I Farms.

but you don't even have TOT, there's no point in telling this to you.

[Mao]

That was a cheap shot!

*sniff sniff* My mommy says I can get it if I'm good...

[Michael Daumen]

Never Fear, Civ2ers! I have an original .sav game from version 2.78 with the same basic map. There are not as many cities as Eddie's (and they are not placed as well as his) but this was the first version of what we had in mind. Post here or email me and I will decide which is better, zip file or upload.

We switched to ToT for a couple reasons: the multiple maps and extra unit slots. Extra event space and more unit abilities don't hurt either. But if Eddie has figured out the multiple unit questions, we may be better off going back to normal Civ2.

The multiple maps were for sub warfare, since we made subs able to teleport to the underwater map and evade attackers. Then we said "cool, let's make an aerial map so bombers can avoid SAMs." But the underwater map doesn't work, as I understand that a transport can't teleport unless all the units it carries can teleport as well. So this would mean missiles attacking subs underwater, or only "empty" subs can dive deep. Maybe a two-map ground/sky game is the way to go. Or maybe no one has the objections I have to the underwater missile idea (I envision SLBMs to have pretty limited range anyway, so that a sub has to sidle up pretty close to a coastline to do its damage).

Maybe we should do a cold-war forum, with discussions for:
a) nations involved
b) unit questions
c) city questions
et c.

By the way, I thought Eddie did a hell of a job on the big map even if may go for naught.