Real World Scenario

[Timeline]

Um, ok, I am not an editor, but my question is for all those who are:

Is anyone planning on making a scenario of the current world situation? They had one for civ2 a long time ago, and I was just wondering if there will be one for ctp2.

Thnx all, and thnx to all those modders!!

[OmniGod]

Fairly easy to do, not planned at the moment... but not a bad idea, there is only one flaw with this... due to the limitation so far noted with the ctp2 scenario start parameters you could only create a scenario from one civ's perspective and be limited to that player... thus if from an american standpoint, you'd not have the choice to start as other civs... unless this can be remedied then the likelyhood is small since why create a scenario for one civ, when everyone wants to play someone different from it...

Omni

[Timeline]

quote: Originally posted by OmniGod on 12-09-2000 09:26 PM Fairly easy to do, not planned at the moment... but not a bad idea, there is only one flaw with this... due to the limitation so far noted with the ctp2 scenario start parameters you could only create a scenario from one civ's perspective and be limited to that player... thus if from an american standpoint, you'd not have the choice to start as other civs... unless this can be remedied then the likelyhood is small since why create a scenario for one civ, when everyone wants to play someone different from it... Omni

Wow, I didn't know about this, that really stinks. Funny that you should answer my question Omni, because I was just thinking about you as I thought of this. Without your new map, it would not be worth making a 20th century scenario!!

The Scenario for civ2 was quite extensive and extremely fun. The turns incremented by months. The world was divided into 7 generalized groups (this was because you could only have 7 civs in civ2). Here was the Description:

"This scenario presents the world at the end of the 20th century, dividing the world into 7 generalized groups. The situation is ripe for nuclear proliferation, and the superpowers still possess enough warheads to devastate the planet. Can you conquer the globe, given a reasonable representation of the modern world? The American Navy reigns supreme, but the European Union is in a very strong position and the Russians possess a formidable army. For a real challenge, try playing the Third World."

These groups were:

China: Beijing, etc.

European Union: London, Munich, Rome, Madrid, Berlin, etc. But also, the European Union in this scenario held Cape Town (Africa), Perth, Melbourne, Sydney (Australia), Reykjavik (Iceland), and Nuuk (Greenland)

India: Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, etc.

Middle Eastern: Baghdad, Tehran, Ashgabat, Ankara, Mecca, etc (Middle East). Cairo, Mogadishu, Rabat, etc (Africa).

Russia: Moscow, Kiev, St. Petersburg, Kirov, Volgograd, Nizhny, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Vladivostok, etc.

Third World: This was mostly comprised of South America and Africa - Mexico city, Brasilia, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Panama, etc (South America). Kinshasa Dakar, Lagos, etc (Africa). Antananarivo (Madagascar). Bangkok, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh (Indonesia).

United States: Washington, New York, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Toronto, Winnipeg, Quebec, Anchorage etc (North America). Tokyo (Japan). Jerusalem (Middle East).


These, of course, are not all the cities each nation held. However, I can give you a map/screenshot of the scenario and a list of all the cities for each nation. I think it would be cool to add an eighth nation (since ctp2 supports 8 races). The eighth could be the "Neutral Alliance" - Canada, Japan and Jerusalem. This would make the US not so strong (it was a bit powerful in the civ2 scenario) and add some more spice to things.


Timeline



[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 10, 2000).]

[Timeline]

ah, triple post, now they are really going to kill me, sorry.


[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 09, 2000).]

[Timeline]

[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 09, 2000).]

[OmniGod]

If we were to undertake this... what nation/group of nations would be the primary focus for first release or would you suggest that we have 8 seperate releases... which in my mind is a whole heck of a lot or releases...??

Omni - doable, but very time consuming... would require 8 people starting with the same basic map, just changing first player from one nation to the next.. just so the scenario played out the same...

A triple post... don't push your luck

[This message has been edited by OmniGod (edited December 09, 2000).]

[Timeline]

"Omni - doable, but very time consuming... would require 8 people starting with the same basic map, just changing first player from one nation to the next.. just so the scenario played out the same..."


So, are you saying you would have to create the scenario 8 times to have it so that any of those 8 nations can be first player? If that's the case, then all I can say is wow! That would be a load of work.

Isn't there any text file you can edit to change first player? If not, then maybe we can press Activision to correct this difficulty in -a future- patch?

Also, I think you would only need, oh maybe 3, nations as playable. Maybe the US, EU, and Russia?


[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 09, 2000).]

[OmniGod]

Without a patch to correct the problem, I don't see another way.. but I've not checked it out completely yet, but it's something the mod guys would have to say.. Omni we gotcha the fix... build away... until that time, it's only a dream... maybe after 1st patch we'll take a look

Omni - unless YOU want to start now?

[Timeline]

"maybe after 1st patch we'll take a look. Omni - unless YOU want to start now? "

Ha ha, no, I don't think so. I'm afriad I won't have any time to do too much in making this scenario , wish I did. I agree with you, no sense in rushing into it until the modders have a fix. I am sure this scenario for civ2 didn't come for years after the game's release, so I can wait. But you gotta admit, it was a very cool idea that guy had, whoever he was (or she).

Oh well, thnx for entertianing the idea Omni, and keep up the fine work.

quote: Originally posted by OmniGod on 12-09-2000 09:26 PM due to the limitation so far noted with the ctp2 scenario start parameters you could only create a scenario from one civ's perspective and be limited to that player

omni, i believe this only happens with over 8 civs.

if you try to do a 8 civ scenario, you wont have such problems...

[Sabre2th]

I think Mark is right, Omni. There's an option in the cheat menu for player selection.

[OmniGod]

hmmmm.... let's give it a try then... what civs titles should I use?


Omni

[Dom Pedro II]

I don't think those groupings are the best...

I think it is better to go by economic blocs and diplomatic pacts...

1. American - U.S. cities, Canadian, Mexican.

2. Latin American - Brasil, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, etc.

3. European Union - Belgium (capital), France, England, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, etc.

4. Commonwealth of Independent States - Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, etc.

5. Arab League - Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Somalia, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, etc.

6. China

7. India

8. The Asian members of APEC excluding China - Japan, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, etc. (Maybe include other South Asia countries)

The African countries don't get much representation, but thats the way it is. If there were a ninth civilization, I'd say throw them in there in that spot, but since there isn't, I say just put Barbarian cities in for many of them. The only two countries that are getting ripped off in this are Nigeria and South Africa since they are the larger powers of Africa, but maybe with some compromising they could be included in one country or another.

I think this so-called "Third World" thing is ridiculous. Your grouping together a vast group of people from all over the globe that would never work together under any circumstances. And I resent Brasil being included in the Third World. There are in the list of the top 10 largest economies in the world. It's not fair to put them in the Third World especially since the Third World originally meant those who did not take sides in the Cold War and in fact Brasil did join the capitalists.

[Timeline]

Dom Pedro II - "I think this so-called "Third World" thing is ridiculous. And I resent Brasil being included in the Third World. There are in the list of the top 10 largest economies in the world. It's not fair to put them in the Third World especially since the Third World originally meant those who did not take sides in the Cold War and in fact Brasil did join the capitalists."


Ha ha! Hey, You'll get no arguement from me!! I didn't put that scenario together (not that it was bad, just ... strange) But, somehow I knew that there would be some who would get offended by the grouping of Brasil into the so called 'Third World', Brazilians are very patriotic .


MarkG - "i believe this only happens with over 8 civs."


Cool! There ya go Omni, you have your fix hehe

It would be a big job Omni, and like I said, I wouldn't be able to help that much because of time restraints. Let's find out who would be interested in something like this. Anyone, interested in a scenario like this, Please say so here. If we get a few responses, we can start a new thread.

Oh, about Africa, SOMETHING will have to be there. Barbarians sounds like a nice idea, but you can't make treaties with them and they attack anyone (somewhat unlike the current situation LOL) Almost sounds like this should be that "Arab Alliance" Dom Pedro talked about to simulate terrorism and the unpredictability of Iraq LOL. SOMETHING has to go there or els you will have an open colonization area, which would give an advantage to the human player and also be unrealistic.


Timeline


[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 10, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 10, 2000).]

[OmniGod]

Sorry Timeline..I've jumped... new thread... coming up as soon as we decide on the breakdown...

America - USA, Canada, Mexico + Israel (some people might take offense if it's in the Arab league)....
European Union - Europe
Commonwealth of Independent States - former USSR
Arab League - Arab Nations of Middle East + Egypt
China - China
Latin America - Mexico and South to Argentinia
APEC (or another name) - everone in the group cept China
African Alliance - Africa less Egypt

Personally I don't believe that India should be considered a superpower, like China and USA and thus lumped them into APEC... it will be a size advantage for them and maybe a military one... that remains to be seen...

Next q if there are no objections to the civs is who are the leaders... hey what can I say, I like to know who we are dealing with so their personalities can be set up and tinkered with if necessary...

Omni - once that's decided I'll start a new thread on the scenario, and get more opinions...
[This message has been edited by OmniGod (edited December 10, 2000).]

[OmniGod]

Okay.. sorry to have to correct you Mark and Sabre... I just started on the Scenario, and placed a single city and settler for each of the nation groups... restarted my computer just to be sure, and sure enough I was forced into player1... the American Alliance... therefore, I'm stopping production there and waiting for a patch correction of this problem or maybe someone can come up with the solution... unless you guys know another way to start the game with cities and such yet still be able to choose the nation you'd like to be... given the other options for placing civs is based on a start location not on cities or anything that's been built... and the map that I used was my original with 8 civs... there might be a problem decreasing the civ total, but I don't believe so with CTP2....

Omni the dissappointed...

[wheathin]

Omin: who gets Turkey? If you gave it to EU, you could include Israel in the European power as well - it would make less sense relative to the world today, but it might enhance playability.

[OmniGod]

Okay... Turkey... I thought... yeah give it to the EU... then I guess Israel could go to EU, but they're getting pretty powerful... hmm... have to think about that one... be nice though to have an engine that'd let you choose your starting nation...

Omni

[Timeline]

OmniGod - "Okay.. sorry to have to correct you Mark and Sabre... I just started on the Scenario, and placed a single city and settler for each of the nation groups... restarted my computer just to be sure, and sure enough I was forced into player1..."

Well, this is dissapointing news indeed. I agree with you Omni, until a fix is created or found, there is just no sense in continuing .

Well, just on the speculation side, assuming we find a fix ... I think it would be logical for the U.S. to have -something- in Europe so it wont be cut off from the world (I.E. It's always fun to wage a war oversees.) I remember in that scenario, the US had airbases (just 1 or 2) and a couple forts over in Europe. Well, what about in this scenario giving them an airbase and fort in Kuwait or, better yet, giving them the city Kuwait. A small city (Pop wise) but useful for sending in reinforcements via spaceplane (Called airlifts in Civ2 I loved that game). Give them a couple forts and airbases outside the city, so the 12 unit limit will be minimized, but only give them a few starting units there and maybe a medium fleet with some aircraft in the Indian Ocean .

btw, I think it would be nice to have techs start at moderate levels or current/modern age techs. Then make a few future techs available (Space Flight, Advanced Composites, Robotics, Fuel Cells, Global Comm, etc) but stop the techs at Fluid Breathing so that city pics will not change and to prevent players from building underwater cities. And, is there anyway to make techs more expensive? This would be good in this scenario, maybe make them 3X - 4X longer to research.

LOL, while I am dreaming, we could add in a stealth fighter that starts in an airbase in Nevada even though it would be beyond the starting tech of the US. LOL, now there will be 7 posts that this scenario is becoming to US-centric LOL. Hey, I can dream, can't I?


Timeline


[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 10, 2000).]

[OmniGod]

I started working on the background modifications today... just starting with the nations that were choosen, and making there AI atributes more realistic... just need to decide who's leading each group... two people (M and F or any combo). Then it's on to modifying and adding parts of the tech tree... as you said.. lengthing some of the time it takes to learn some techs, and maybe incorporating some of Harlan's graphics to emphasize the difference in the national alliances... but anyway... it's in it's infancy for now, keep working... new ideas... and a patch and we're in business...

Omni - mapmaker turned scenario builder

[Timeline]

quote: Originally posted by OmniGod on 12-10-2000 10:45 PM I started working on the background modifications today... just starting with the nations that were choosen, and making there AI atributes more realistic... just need to decide who's leading each group... two people (M and F or any combo). Then it's on to modifying and adding parts of the tech tree... as you said.. lengthing some of the time it takes to learn some techs, and maybe incorporating some of Harlan's graphics to emphasize the difference in the national alliances... but anyway... it's in it's infancy for now, keep working... new ideas... and a patch and we're in business... Omni - mapmaker turned scenario builder

Well, in the civ2 scenario (1990) the Leaders were:

D. Xiaoping - Chinese
Helmut Kohl - European Union
Boutros-Boutros Ghali - Third World
G. Bush - United States
Saddam Hussein - Middle East
Rajiv Gandhi - Indians


Really, who the leaders are would depend on the date the scenario starts. Perhaps Leaders for our new national breakdown for the year 1995 could be:

African Alliance: State President Nelson Mandela

Arab League: President Saddam Hussein

Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) / Australo-Asia: Austalian Prime Minister Paul Keating

China: Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin

Commonwealth of Independent States: President Boris Yeltsin

European Union: Prime Minister John Major

India: President Shankar Dayal Sharma

Latin America: President Fernando Henrique Cardoso

North America: United States President Bill Clinton


All of which are males.

Timeline


[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 11, 2000).]

[OmniGod]

Okay then... what timeline are we going for... if we started 1995 to 2050 in months then tech wise there is lots of improvement.. cause some of the techs for the modern age have already come about and the genetic are okay... but for this we might have to look at smaller tech changes to facilitate science (don't want someone to think that it's not an important aspect). Any suggestions would be nice, since I have to focus on school again... dam thing.. I put it off for 2 weeks.. Addictive little game... small motions Ellie, small motions... that's how this will develop... anyway... for now I'll change the national info and personalities... then it's on to the tech tree keep the ideas coming...

Omni

[skorpion59]

This doesn't have anything to do with being able to place cities and units in scenarios but I thought I would pass it along in case you didn't know it.

You can force 8 specific Civs in a scenario by using the 'ByNation' option and only placing Starting Locations for those 8 Civs. This will allow the player to choose any 1 of only those 8 Civs when starting a game.

[wheathin]

Just a note, Timeline:

Instead of Saddam Hussein, how about Jordan's King Hussein as Arab leader? More of a moderate - a power people might want to play or respect instead of the International Whipping Boy of Baghdad?

[Timeline]

quote: Any suggestions would be nice, since I have to focus on school again...

Okay, I understand that you are busy too . I might be able to help in scenario design - a little. Here are two things I think:

1st: It's ok if we start the game with some techs unavailable that in real life are employed - for gameplay issues. You want -all- the modern age units to be used, not just some, and by having stealth fighters available from the start no one will use the interceptor, etc.

2nd: I don't think we should have an ending/termination date on this scenario. The original didn't (oh no, here I go again ), but then again, in the original you could send a spaceship to Alpha Centuri. In this game, there will be no Gaia Controller.

I think I have tracked the tech cut-off points don’t have much time to tell you, have to go soon.

The starting techs are just a matter preference and gameplay, so I thought gameplay is more important. I think for the U.S., European Union, and Russian Federation that the following starting techs would be good:

Supersonic Flight
Global Economics
Nuclear Power
Conservation
All prerequisite technology researched (except Corporate Republic).


Of course Latin America and the African Alliance are going to have lower starting techs than the US and Russia . When I return, the tech maps for Latin America and Russia, and cut-off points for the tech tree.

Who is in favor of changing APEC to Austral-Asians? Only reason I think this is because the APEC/SAARC are really pacts that include Russia, China and the US. Also, these are economic pacts and not military ones. Now, I know that an economic pact is a much better thing to go by than just throwing in nations together who don’t work together at all (as Dom Pedro was saying), but I just think Austral-Asians is a more descriptive and specific name for this alliance.


P.S. Weathin - Okay, King Hussein it is



Timeline


[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 11, 2000).]

[Timeline]

Timeline drifts asleep at his computer and begins to dream . . .

Is there an ability to change/edit units? If so, then I think it would be logical to delete the availability of some units like the Machine Gunner and Cannon (in this scenario). The Machine Gunner is available until Hover Infantry in the game LOL!

Also I think it would be wise if we raised (maybe doubled or tripled?) the price for Artillery . This is because a human player's main tactic is to bombard an AI city until it is easily taken, this makes war and conquest a procedure, a ... formality. By making artillery harder to obtain you increase the difficult of the game and encourage more direct warfare (Tanks, Marines, etc) and less 'ranged' combat, in essence, fighting on a level field (or -more- level than before) against the computer. Another way to reduce this unit’s effectiveness on offense is to drastically cut its movement ability. This would make it easy for AIs to keep artillery in it’s cities (to blow your battleships, artillery, bombers, out of the water/dust/air) and to make it hard for -you- to park that artillery outside Baghdad .



As far as bombers, well you have the same problem of course (to easy to blow stuff away) , but the solution is different here. Increase the damage rating of the Mobile SAM unit several times (these were always too weak in the game) and give almost all players Mobile SAMs in their cities:

Arabs: 3 - 4 in each city
Africans: None - maybe one in their capital
Latin America: One in their capital
European Union: 5 in each fort (maybe 10 - 15) total
Russian Federation: Maybe 1 - 2 in each city
APEC / Austral-Asia: 1 or 2 total, maybe some in India
China: 1 - 2 in each city
North America: 8 in Kuwait, 1 or 2 in Washington/Anchorage

Land bombarding battleships? Yeah, you love those too, don’t you? hehe . How about lowering the defensive capability of these by 15 and slowing the movement too. Today, battleships have become outdated even as shore bombardiers, partly because of the long range and pin-point accuracy of guided missile systems. This should be reflected in the game (our scenario). Lets increase the effectiveness of Cruise Missiles by greatly increasing the damage rating and slightly lowering the cost.


I know, I know there is no way to tell how these changes effect the AI, that's where play testing comes in. And, look, I know I am dreaming here and that we are nowhere -close- to using or needing this info. But we have the info saved for later use and this might stimulate interest. I think it is good we are trying to work out problems early (scenario being too easy).

Opinions/Ideas?

[OmniGod]

Okay last night I was up just thinking about start units and such.... The idea of giving everyone some sort of Mobile SAM... interesting, but not very practical.. since I don't believe.. correct me if I'm wrong... that all nations of the world have them... some are content with guys with surface to air missles to actively defend... then I thought about units.. cruising through my small collection I figured that I'd add a few... this is only a short list...

Naval - 1960's +
Aircraft Carrier (6 medair, and small air)
Small Carrier (3 medair and small air)
Battleship (4 smallair)
Submarine (nuclear) (3 small air)
Submarine (diesel) (2 small air)
Cruiser (2 small air)
Destroyer (1 small air, and if I can work it out helo)
Troop Transport (4 med/small land)

Air
Various Fighter Jets - European, American, Russian (medair)
117A Stealth Fighter (largeair)
B2 Bomber (largeair)
Stealth Bomber (largeair)
Attack Helo - American, Russian (medair)
Transport Helo (medair)
Multiple Impact Warhead tiped missle (smallair)
cruise missle (smallair)
ICBM (largeair - ground based)

Land
Troop/Weapon Transport (small air, small land)
Marine
Machine Gunner (GI)
Rocket Launcher - active defense vs air
Tanks - varios American, European, Russian
Artillery
Mobile SAM - active defense vs air


That's all I can remember for now... I'd need to group them into the CTP2 categories of flanker etc.. but I figure there's the early level, modern, and future that can be incorporated... there are then the special units as well spy, lawyers etc... but that's for another day of thought... I might require a few sprite makers out there for things like the Apache Helo... but I have most of the others from CTP mods...

as for the tech tree.. I've not thought about it yet.. but I've started placing from player1 USA standpoint cities and ZOC for the scenario... thought it's better to have something than nothing... cuz I want to play this

As for changing statistics on the battleships and cruise.. why not just insert an advanced guidance missle with higher damage and range than the typical cruise missle... or even some lower ones for the cheap nations Changing the battleships I think would be counter productive since in some case where advanced missles aren't present they are a very effective weapon against land targets...

To deal with the AI not wanting to build the expensive weapons... they will if you change the strategies.txt... which I would do and have started to do when creating the new AI personalities for each of the alliance groups to that similar to the leader of the group... I'll post the changes later when they are complete for you to evaluate and comment on... it's easy to do and thus easy to adjust so that we're happy... and yep tha's what play testing is for... I love them betas...

Omni
[This message has been edited by OmniGod (edited December 12, 2000).]

[Timeline]

Okay, I had a few minutes and so I tracked down the cut-off points for the tech tree.


These advances would be unavailable:
Neural Interface
Genetics
Technocracy (maybe not, up to you, but definitely no Chaos Theory)
Unified Physics
Nano Assembly

How to address Wonders: Have all wonders (that have been discovered, of course) allocated to the nation that built them. Example: Pyramids in Cairo, Empire State building in New York, Aristotle's Lyceum in Athens, etc.


Thnx for the info Omni! I will be back later.

Keep the ideas coming!

Timeline


[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 12, 2000).]

[Timeline]

quote: Okay last night I was up just thinking about start units and such.... The idea of giving everyone some sort of Mobile SAM... interesting, but not very practical.. since I don't believe.. correct me if I'm wrong... that all nations of the world have them... some are content with guys with surface to air missles to actively defend...

Okay, I’m sorry, I don’t really understand what you are saying here. I think what you are saying is: “I don’t think it’s realistic that all nations have SAMs because they don’t have them in the real world”.

quote: some are content with guys with surface to air missles to actively defend...

Are you saying there are SAMs in the game that actively defend, -BESIDES- Mobile SAMs? If so, then please explain to me how this works.

Okay, we don’t have to give everyone Mobile SAMs, but I really think you need to increase the damage rating on them -UNLESS- this ‘Rocket Launcher’ is more powerful against air-units. As it is with Mobile SAMs, they are useless as far as I can tell. Please tell me what you think and just tell me if you don’t understand what I am saying. I sometimes find it hard to express myself online.

quote: then I thought about units.. cruising through my small collection I figured that I'd add a few... this is only a short list... Naval - 1960's + Aircraft Carrier (6 medair, and small air) Small Carrier (3 medair and small air) Battleship (4 smallair) Submarine (nuclear) (3 small air) Submarine (diesel) (2 small air) Cruiser (2 small air) Destroyer (1 small air, and if I can work it out helo) Troop Transport (4 med/small land) Air Various Fighter Jets - European, American, Russian (medair) 117A Stealth Fighter (largeair) B2 Bomber (largeair) Stealth Bomber (largeair) Attack Helo - American, Russian (medair) Transport Helo (medair) Multiple Impact Warhead tiped missle (smallair) cruise missle (smallair) ICBM (largeair - ground based) Land Troop/Weapon Transport (small air, small land) Marine Machine Gunner (GI)Rocket Launcher - active defense vs air Tanks - varios American, European, Russian Artillery Mobile SAM - active defense vs air

*Drool* . I am new to the whole CTP universe, never bought the first one. So ‘old’ units are just like new ones to me . I am feeling a bit overwhelmed (in a good way). These all sound like nice units to add. Just a few comments and questions:


Troop Transport (4 med/small land) - Can you get/make a new graphic for the Troop Transport? I think it is silly that the transports are basically civilian cruise liners. I mean, I know that in WW2 the U.S. did refit cruise liners for troop transport oversees, but, today they have specialized transports.

Destroyer (1 small air, and if I can work it out helo) - Um, why do you need a transport for a helo?? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought they had unlimited range/fuel in the game. Are you thinking of putting a limit on them and making them transportable via destroyer?

B2 Bomber (largeair)
Stealth Bomber (largeair) - Are not these the same craft?

Attack Helo - American, Russian (medair) - Whew!! I was so dissapointed when I discovered CTP2 had no attack helo!! Making new sprites for this is definitely worth it, we need an attack helicopter!! (they were in civ2!)

Troop/Weapon Transport (small air, small land) - Please tell me more about this .

Machine Gunner (GI) - Please explain this one to me more also. Aren’t machine gunners a WW2 unit??

Tanks - varios American, European, Russian
Artillery - Do you have the sprites for all this stuff (Tanks/helos/planes for different races?) If so, then all I can say is you really are a god .

quote: USA standpoint cities and ZOC for the scenario... thought it's better to have something than nothing... cuz I want to play this

I’m glad you have a ‘personal interest’ . I want to play this badly also .

quote: As for changing statistics on the battleships and cruise.. why not just insert an advanced guidance missle with higher damage and range than the typical cruise missle... or even some lower ones for the cheap nations Changing the battleships I think would be counter productive since in some case where advanced missles aren't present they are a very effective weapon against land targets...

Okay, I see what you are saying and I understand you are the modder, not me , but, all I know is if you stack 12 battleships, you can just about beat any AI fleet and destroy -any- AI city that is on the coast. You can tell the comp to build more battleships, but can you make it stack them together and protect it’s coastal cities? If so, then I see what you are saying about modding the comp and not tweaking units. If not, then I think battleships need to be toned down a little.

My proposal is Battleships will be an expensive unit that is slow moving and very powerful (same strength as they are now). They will -still- be a useful ‘weapon against land targets’, just not Mobile City Destroyers in 2 Turns. Please tell me what solution -you- see as plausible and your thoughts on this.

Timeline


[This message has been edited by Timeline (edited December 13, 2000).]

[OmniGod]

Okay a little clarification on what I've said already...

Machine Gunners (GI) - I thought about making them, name changed the standard grunt force of the army. Since there is the graphic, and I want a grunt.. then he's the candidate

Destroyer - I plan to decrease the range of a helo, thus it can't cross the ocean... which it generally can't, and since some destroyers and cruisers even have helos on board, I figured destroyer and carrier would make a good transport across vast oceans..


B2 is an early bomber and stealth is the more advanced at least that is my belief... I thought the B2 dropped the first hydrogen bomb in Japan... thus the US might have some in reserve to compliment the larger stealth..

Attack Helos... I have the Russian Hind, but need the Apache...

Tanks & Artillery... care of Harlan I believe, from CTP

Troop/Weapon Transport... why not put some missles, and troops to be moved in a truck and get them there faster rather than waiting 2 turns to go from LA to NYC (roughly two months in the scenario), why not put them in a truck and be there in 1... or something along those lines...

The troop transport, I'll check if I have any sprites for that but I believe I do.. if not there's always someone willing to make one probably...

But that's all I can say for now, I have a test tomorrow... time to study...

Omni