Soviet Steel - Join In The Construction! - Page 11

Jimmywax · June 3, 2003, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
Looking for a good B52 unit too.

The best one I can think of is Bebro's

fairline · June 3, 2003, 16:15

There's this one by BeBro:

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 16:30

Fairline, you are a knight of the sky!

Thanks a lot, dude!

rmsharpe · June 3, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
rmsharpe raises a valid point, do we ned engineers?
Or would you prefer me to add a new military unit?

Actually, I was wondering why the Soviets, Chinese, etc. didn't have access to this unit.

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 16:49

NOTE: Except where specifically, noted, "NATO" refers to the European nations. I'm not biased, but it's shorter.

Curt, I would remove all of the NATO "Regular Infantry" units as they cannot build them, are useless, and really too strong for a major player. There also seems to be no difference between the Me109TL and the Meteor.

On a related note, perhaps you could change the adjective for the Europeans, Americans, etc. It's really eye-candy, I know, but seeing "American NATO NATO Infantry" gets redundant after a while. The same holds true for the WARPAC nations, you could simply call the Russians "Russian" or better yet, "Soviet" and the USS could be called "Allied."

I should have said this sooner, but Turkey probably belongs in the Euro-NATO group.

On a less important note, Santa Domingo is misspelt. It should be Santo Domingo. Independent should be spelt with an "e," no A's.

Vienna should not be a Communist city, but rather a Neutral one.

Algiers and Tunis should be Independent (Angry at France after Algierian war and not members of the French Community).

The US airbase located at (150, 60) is always asked to withdraw by the Independents in Basra. It should be moved to the south-west one hex, at (129, 61).

Belfast should be moved south-east one square to (108, 26) and made into a NATO city, it being the capital of Northern Ireland. If you want it to be a part of the Republic of Ireland, however, rename it Dublin and move it to (108, 28) or (107, 27).

Nairobi should be a NATO city (British colony not free until 1960) with a Rebel uprising (the Mau Mau rebellion).

Freetown should be at (109, 77) and Monrovia should be around (112, 80). I'd make Freetown a NATO city and Monrovia an American or Neutral city. Sierra Leone, the nation for whom Freetown is the capital, became independent only in 1961. No revolution need be in place, it was a self-governing territory of the British government.

Bamako should probably be located one square to the south-west at (113, 71) and the river it is on should run one further hex to the south-west, to (113, 73). While Mali became independent only in 1957, it can stay as Neutral if NATO gets Freetown or Monrovia.

Dakar should be two hexes to the south, at (108, 68). It is fine as an Independent city.

Casablanca should be at (111, 55). It could be a NATO city about to be conquered by Rebels, having become independent in 1956 after extreme native resentment.

Agadez is a small city in Niger, and thus should be (along with Niamey) belonging to the same country. I have no idea whatsoever as to where it should be. Niamey, on the other hand, should be further north and west, probably at (117, 71), which should be thus changed from desert in plain.

The lake at (118, 70) should likely be moved to (120, 70) or (120, 72).

Khartoum should be a NATO city being taken by Rebel forces, as there was great opposition to British rule in the 1950's leading up to full independence in 1955. Or, it should be a flat out Independent city. It should also be moved one hex south, to (124, 72), while Port Sudan should be moved one hex north to (127, 69).

Have you considered giving Australia to NATO? While not a full-fledged member, it participated in Korea and Vietnam. Saigon should probably be a US city, as no European nations were actively involved (to my knowledge).

Aukland (should be "Auckland") should be renamed "Christchurch" and moved to (19, 115) or "Wellington" and moved to (21, 107).

I apologize for the length and timing of this more thorough review, but I had nothing to do this afternoon.

EDIT: If you give Australia to NATO, then give Quebec to the Neutrals.

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 16:53

FOR THE FULL VERSION OF THE SCENARIO:

I am going to implement the Canberra as a Euro NATO bomber, attainable for mass-production later, although some units may already exist on the game map...

'Royal Navy' tech will become 'NATO Medium Bomber' and be researchable after the advances gained after the BAC lightning tech.

The new heavy bomber boy will be the B52 Stratofortress,
now with 'US Heavy Bomber', buildable after the sabre is researched.
I plan to make it the USA's heaviest hitter in the game, but rather expensive...

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 17:17

I assume we are looking at the updated version?

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Curt, I would remove all of the NATO "Regular Infantry" units as they cannot build them, are useless, and really too strong for a major player. There also seems to be no difference between the Me109TL and the Meteor.

About the Regulars.
I might remove several of them, but the are useful for enforcing some borders.

I might give the Me109TL a slight edge...

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor On a related note, perhaps you could change the adjective for the Europeans, Americans, etc. It's really eye-candy, I know, but seeing "American NATO NATO Infantry" gets redundant after a while. The same holds true for the WARPAC nations, you could simply call the Russians "Russian" or better yet, "Soviet" and the USS could be called "Allied."

I will fix this before the final release...

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor I should have said this sooner, but Turkey probably belongs in the Euro-NATO group.

It makes them a bit isolated...

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor On a less important note, Santa Domingo is misspelt. It should be Santo Domingo. Independent should be spelt with an "e," no A's.

Ack!
That typo keeps coming back to haunt me!
I promise to eliminate it totally!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Vienna should not be a Communist city, but rather a Neutral one.

In this timeline I have deemed that Stalin was given controll of it in the chaos of 1944...

It's worth liberating!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Algiers and Tunis should be Independent (Angry at France after Algierian war and not members of the French Community).

That is one for the final fix!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor The US airbase located at (150, 60) is always asked to withdraw by the Independents in Basra. It should be moved to the south-west one hex, at (129, 61).

Then tell the Independents where to get off!
I put it there on purpose, to give the player a standoff situation...

But if you feel it is ruining gameplay, I can move it...

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Belfast should be moved south-east one square to (108, 26) and made into a NATO city, it being the capital of Northern Ireland. If you want it to be a part of the Republic of Ireland, however, rename it Dublin and move it to (108, 28) or (107, 27).

This city is another problem area for NATO.
Part of the game is to make cities like Belfast behave..

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Nairobi should be a NATO city (British colony not free until 1960) with a Rebel uprising (the Mau Mau rebellion).

I'll see to that!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Freetown should be at (109, 77) and Monrovia should be around (112, 80). I'd make Freetown a NATO city and Monrovia an American or Neutral city. Sierra Leone, the nation for whom Freetown is the capital, became independent only in 1961. No revolution need be in place, it was a self-governing territory of the British government.

I'll check this out...

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Bamako should probably be located one square to the south-west at (113, 71) and the river it is on should run one further hex to the south-west, to (113, 73). While Mali became independent only in 1957, it can stay as Neutral if NATO gets Freetown or Monrovia.

I can fix the cities, but the river is unfixable at this stage, sorry!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Dakar should be two hexes to the south, at (108, 68). It is fine as an Independent city.

No sweat, I see to it!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Casablanca should be at (111, 55). It could be a NATO city about to be conquered by Rebels, having become independent in 1956 after extreme native resentment.

Sounds good! I'll fix it!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Agadez is a small city in Niger, and thus should be (along with Niamey) belonging to the same country. I have no idea whatsoever as to where it should be. Niamey, on the other hand, should be further north and west, probably at (117, 71), which should be thus changed from desert in plain.

You got it, IC!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor The lake at (118, 70) should likely be moved to (120, 70) or (120, 72).

I move cities, thus, lakes pose no trouble!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Khartoum should be a NATO city being taken by Rebel forces, as there was great opposition to British rule in the 1950's leading up to full independence in 1955. Or, it should be a flat out Independent city. It should also be moved one hex south, to (124, 72), while Port Sudan should be moved one hex north to (127, 69).

I will implement this one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Have you considered giving Australia to NATO? While not a full-fledged member, it participated in Korea and Vietnam. Saigon should probably be a US city, as no European nations were actively involved (to my knowledge).

I am worried about making Euro-NATO a bit too powerful...
This is why I made Australia neutral...
Giving the whole Oz territory may tip the coldwar balance a tad much....

Saigon shall be handed to the USA, however.

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor Aukland (should be "Auckland") should be renamed "Christchurch" and moved to (19, 115) or "Wellington" and moved to (21, 107).

Wellington it is...!

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor I apologize for the length and timing of this more thorough review, but I had nothing to do this afternoon.

Your comments are of huge help in getting this baby whipped into shape.

Sov-Steel will ooze quality after all these edits...

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor EDIT: If you give Australia to NATO, then give Quebec to the Neutrals.

Is that a fair swap?

I will think over the Australian question...

jim panse · June 3, 2003, 17:25

Curt, Algeria and Tunesia were not independent in 1950, please reconsider this!

And Vienna should be ... I do not know, Austria was occupied by all 4 major allied powers till 1955.

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 17:41

If you WANT a confrontation, then a confrontation you shall have!

I have no problems with the Regular infantry, but in any and all Euro cities (and being built by them, no less) seems a little unfair, not to mention irritating. As for Australia, that's alright, but how about a transport in Hong Kong so those Royal Marines can get around?

With regards to Ireland, whether or not it comes into the Western Sphere, Belfast should be NATO, Dublin should be Independent.

I don't like Quebec as a NATO city, leave the Western Hemisphere policing to the US. We never screw that sort of thing up.

NATO has enough holdings in Asia, and if some of my suggestions are taken, in Africa. BTW, I love having that NATO transport off South Africa.

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 17:44

Also, Israeli infantry need to become more "special," as they are worse than but cost the same as GI Infantry. Maybe a "Mossad" unit for the US, event created and only in Israel?

Dr Kellogg · June 3, 2003, 18:09

Regarding the ownership of certain cities, don't forget this is alternative history!

Paul Hanson · June 3, 2003, 18:18

Some more suggestions:

Alma-Alta = Alma-Ata

Novogorod = Novgorod

Khantanga = Khatanga

Crete = Iraklion (the capital of Crete)

Banghazi = Benghazi

Don't hold me to all of them, but I think that's how they all ought to be spelt. Someone do correct me if I'm wrong.

Also:

Vancouver should be moved to 48,34

Either the Fw250 should be cheaper or the Lightning more expensive, because they are both currently the same price but the Lightning is marginally better (it can see two spaces whereas the Fw250 cannot).

Missle = Missile

EZRhino · June 3, 2003, 19:06

Considering the timeframe of this scenario, it would probably be better for Saigon to be a Euro Nato city, as it was still French colonial property in 1950. Perhaps you can have some American "advisors" fortified around the city. If the engineer slot is still open I think more naval units are in order. Personally I would like to see the Germans get the type XXI Rocket sub. But thats just me...

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 19:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
If you WANT a confrontation, then a confrontation you shall have!

I have no problems with the Regular infantry, but in any and all Euro cities (and being built by them, no less) seems a little unfair, not to mention irritating. As for Australia, that's alright, but how about a transport in Hong Kong so those Royal Marines can get around?

With regards to Ireland, whether or not it comes into the Western Sphere, Belfast should be NATO, Dublin should be Independent.

I don't like Quebec as a NATO city, leave the Western Hemisphere policing to the US. We never screw that sort of thing up.

NATO has enough holdings in Asia, and if some of my suggestions are taken, in Africa. BTW, I love having that NATO transport off South Africa.

The evil luftwaffe skull is always ready for confrontation!

Only kidding.

Iron Chancellor, You shall be glad to know that I have implemented ALL of your suggestions!

That's because they are sound!

I do take a huge interest in feedback from you guys as it helps make the scenario rock!

Belfast is set to switch to NATO, it's as close to simulating the terror-trouble as I can get.

In this alternate world, certain trouble spots are there to solve....

Your wishes are my command!

1. The regular infantry has been exorcised from the Euro Cities...

2. Quebec will become a neutral city!

3. The transport off Hong Kong will be added, ASAP!

4. The B52 units looks awesome in-game and huge,
A super blast late-game weapon for the USAF!

5. Fairline's excellent Canberra has been added, as a new NATO bomber for the RAF! It arrives when to research it later on...

6. Africa now is a hotbed of intrique, it should provide a good backdrop to the Euro-struggle.

In fact, the way the map is now, the whole world kind of seethes with warfare! I love it!

And I am sure you all will too, so many conflicts and hotspots to tackle.
And the baleful USSR behind it all...
This scenario is nearing it's full potential now!

I think we are close to release quality!

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
Also, Israeli infantry need to become more "special," as they are worse than but cost the same as GI Infantry. Maybe a "Mossad" unit for the US, event created and only in Israel?

This rocks!

I will implement something along those lines.

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
Some more suggestions:

Alma-Alta = Alma-Ata

Novogorod = Novgorod

Khantanga = Khatanga

Crete = Iraklion (the capital of Crete)

Banghazi = Benghazi

Don't hold me to all of them, but I think that's how they all ought to be spelt. Someone do correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll have a looksee....

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hanson Vancouver should be moved to 48,34

I'll take a look at that!

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hanson Either the Fw250 should be cheaper or the Lightning more expensive, because they are both currently the same price but the Lightning is marginally better (it can see two spaces whereas the Fw250 cannot).

That issue is now fixed, costs and abilities of the planes are more sensible...

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hanson Missle = Missile

Ack! Typo damage!

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by EZRhino
Considering the timeframe of this scenario, it would probably be better for Saigon to be a Euro Nato city, as it was still French colonial property in 1950. Perhaps you can have some American "advisors" fortified around the city. If the engineer slot is still open I think more naval units are in order. Personally I would like to see the Germans get the type XXI Rocket sub. But thats just me...

Once all the cities are fully ordered, I plan to use the engineer slot for something better...

I am a fan of U-Boots too, and your suggestion is interesting!

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 19:33

@Paul Hanson
@Iron Chancellor

All edit/tweak suggestions implemented!

My next task is to try out this 'Mossad' unit!

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 19:34

I didn't mean to sound offended, I was referring to the confrontation in the Middle East between the US military and the Independents. But I'll still fight if you want one.

I really ought to use quotes.

Thanks for your support and your scenario. But I in turn must thank the fine folks responsible for Encarta.

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 19:50

And with regards to "something better" might this be like the civilians of Andrew P. Livings' "Crises of the New World?"

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 20:20

I've found an error in your events file. The "Anybody" triggers on the "UnitKilled" events only work for the first attacker/defender. Example: The Rebel WARPAC General in Tibet is killed by Neutral fighters. The event for killed WARPAC Generals is triggered. It can happen again and again, and the Neutrals will receive another 1000 gold while another general is created.

IF, however, the NATO forces then kill a Soviet WARPAC General, or even a Rebel WARPAC General (As it goes both ways), there will be no pop-up, no cash given, and no new General created.

curtsibling · June 3, 2003, 21:16

Would you suggest making it:
'Attacker: USA' And 'Attacker: European Free states' to reverse this trend?

Is it a case of making individual events entries for all eventualities?

BTW
I like the idea of the civilians...
And the Mossad are implemented, they work fine!

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 22:04

Cool. Yes, I think that you have to make individual events, but that isn't so bad if you limit it to the US and NATO killing only Russian generals. When you come down to it, Barbarians, even Chinese communists, do not need generals. Of course, the next step is adding events for Russians killing US and NATO generals, which is not a big issue.

Civilians are just an idea, but its hard to imagine them as anything other than eye candy.

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 22:30

On a completely unrelated note, I can't help but feel that China's starting population should be increased. If you so desire, you could turn the "Engineer" slot into a "Peasant farmer"/"Forced Labor" slot and give a few to the Chinese to give them some help against the military might of the USSR and the uber-techs of the Western Allies. But maybe that'll be something for the PBEM version...

Iron Chancellor · June 3, 2003, 22:32

Or not necessarily the engineer slot, as that might be "too" powerful, but some sort of settler

EDIT: Rather than post yet another reply, let me further add here that the Chinese really are no better off than the Neutrals or Independents as they have no way of achieving success. They are limited the Engineers, ships, Chinese and Motor Infantry, and possibly (I haven't checked) Nukes and Missiles, which is pretty hollow. Could a "US-China Aid Tech" be in order, giving China the ability to build some tanks and planes?

POST-EDIT-SCRIPT: Or maybe the ability to build some caravan units?

Paul Hanson · June 4, 2003, 03:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
POST-EDIT-SCRIPT: Or maybe the ability to build some caravan units?

Just what I was about to suggest. It would be nice to have some sort of trade unit to represent the gradual building of the global community, and to make getting money slightly easier.

curtsibling · June 4, 2003, 04:22

The only slot available now is the 1st settler slot.

It is currently occupied by a engineer...
I think too, that China needs an advantage...

The trouble I have with trade units, is that the AI is insane, and builds a billion of them, when they should be making tanks/planes/troops.

So how to make China sexy with one unit...?
Perhaps a peasant/revolutionary/farmer guy?
Or a tank or plane...

It is a riddle, but one I must solve soon.

curtsibling · June 4, 2003, 04:32

I have had an idea...
The tech that provides the rocket launcher/sherman/150mmm arty, is called US-Arms-Deal.

I could make an event that awards this tech to China, when they get 'research effort' or some not too far off tech.

Meaning China is going to have it tough for a while, but you may be able to kick butt later...

Now all we have to do is give them an air craft of some type...

Maybe the same method, only with the MIG15...

Perhaps the 'Military Upgrade I' for the Arms-deal tech...
And the 'Military Upgrade II' for the Mig tech...

What do y'all think?

And how about the enigineer being a Chinese-only 'people's army' settler, that can fight?

Bossy20000 · June 4, 2003, 05:18

While checking the events.txt, I noticed a typo: German veterans come to the fore => should be force I think (triggers for European Free States when they get tech 25)

A very good scenario!!!!!

Bossy20000 · June 4, 2003, 05:24

I noticed also some other things. The Soviets have 9 Carriers and their allies 1. The US only has 8 and their allies none (where are the British and German carriers?) I didn't know the Russians had so many carriers. You could give them some less, or give at least carriers to NATO, to have a better balance.

I also noticed the Panther tank has a NATO shield, and not a German. Was this intended and have the Germans shared this technology with their NATO Allies, because their other panzer has a German shield.