Cold War: 1965

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
84 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Cold War: 1965

Conarymor
Cold War: 1965
Scenario and Map design by Dave Ball

I designed this map to be a global view of the Cold War during a period of great uncertainty. The 1960s saw the Berlin Wall go up, Cuban Missile Crisis, the Sino-Soviet split, the Vietnam War, the Six Days War, the continued stand-off between the Koreas, tension between India and Pakistan, the end of European Colonialism (and the collapse of many successor states), and of course, the proliferation of nuclear arms. This was a tense period in our history, in which any number of small conflicts could have escalated quickly into WWIII.

Soviet Navy of the Turkish Coast US Navy in the Pacific Cuba and Guantanamo Naval Base

Scenario Details:
For the map, I started with a Mercator projection for the base and began modifying from there. I wanted to feature as many of the players as feasible without slowing down game play. I did a lot of research to try to determine political alignments in 1965. This helped me create the alliances.

Players/Alliances:
US Alliance   Soviet Alliance   Sino Alliance
United States   USSR   China
NATO   Warsaw Pact   Sino Pact
SEATO   Arab League      

As to teams, there are three alliances: USA, USSR, and China. The players for each are, USA: United States, NATO and SEATO; USSR: USSR, Warsaw Pact, Arab League; and China: China, Sino Pact. I gave the two super power alliances three players each. The United States is allied with NATO and SEATO. The Soviet Union is allied with the Warsaw Pact and the Arab League. For China, I create the Sino Pact in order to give them an Ally. They consist of Southeast Asian countries which China supported or had relations.

For the neutrals, I created four groups. One is the non-aligned neutral countries, which are per traditional TripleA scenarios. I also created three additional players, intended to be run by the AI but have no turn. The one difference is that they are aligned with one of the other alliances. This allows the US, Soviets and China to occupy them without a fight and even help defend them.

Unit List:
AA Gun Factory Infantry Artillery Tank Fighter Fighter Bomber
0/0/1 Cost:10 0/0/0 Cost:50 1/2/1 Cost:2 2/2/1 Cost:7 3/3/2 Cost:10 4/4/4 Cost:18 5/1/4 Cost:22
Radar; hits on 2 Support 2 infantry Can blitz Jet Fighter
 
Nuclear Bomber Transport Submarine Destroyer Cruiser Battleship Carrier
5/1/10 Cost: 75 0/0/2 Cost:10 2/1/1 Cost:14 2/2/2 Cost:18 3/3/2 Cost:22 4/4/2 Cost:40 0/3/2 Cost:32
Transport 1 2-hit 2-hit; cap 3

As to units, there are two new ones. First, I wanted to introduce nuclear arms into the equation. Due to limitations of the TripleA engine at current release, there was no way to do a single use missile. Instead, I opted to use Heavy Bombers. They now have long range, hit on a 5 and use 10 attack dice. However, they are very expensive in terms of game income and have a good chance of being shot down by AA Guns, which are improved. I am not sure how this will impact game balance, so I am looking for input. The second new unit is the Fighter Bomber. It attacks 4 and defends 1, but` cannot do strategic bombing.

For unit pricing, this version of the scenario uses standardized pricing for all players. In a future version, I may modify that. However, I made infantry cheaper and hardware more expensive. My thought was to give poorer nations, such as China, the ability to mass infantry with limited mechanized or air support, as would have been the case during the 1960s.

I am looking for help with testing and gathering feedback. This map is still in beta and requires much more testing and refining. All help is appreciated!

  1. Bugs or Design Flaws: Errors and anything that doesn't work right, like missing territory connections.
  2. Usability: I really struggled with this map given the small size of some crucial territories that I did not want to combine. Also, unit placement and unit color for adequate contrast.
  3. Units Power and Price: I am completely open to revising units, regarding their attack and defense, stats, price and initial distribution.
  4. Game Balance: I think this is where I need the most help. I gave the US a lead in TUV with the expectation that the Soviet preemptive strike will do some significant damage. Is it enough or too much? How does China having first move upset this balance?

Download:
Direct Download: http://triplea.ballcgi.com/download/ColdWar-1965.zip

TripleA Download: http://triplea.ballcgi.com/download/ColdWar-1965-setup.xml

To download the map directly using Triple, click the Download Maps button and copy and paste the URL above into the field labeled Select Download Site.

Current version: Beta 0.5.1
TripleA version: 1.2.x

Dave Ball
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Veqryn
Administrator
wow!
i LOVE the unit design,

i haven't played yet, but i think AA guns should cost a lot more and be in fewer locations.  

or perhaps,... divide it into 2 units: aaGuns without radar (aa gun), and aaGuns with radar (anti-missle SAMs)

have normal aaguns stay at 10 pu, and have anti-missle SAMs start at around 20-30 pu.  According to treaties, there was only anti-icbm sams at washington and moscow (and beijing for balance i guess).

(you could do this by having a dumby player for the SAMs)


other units:

i would also make carriers 0/1 instead of 0/3, and cost 2 less.

and infantry cost way too much less than artillery and tanks.

tanks costing 5x more than infantry means noone will buy them at all.
i would recommend:
infantry cost 3
artillery cost 5 (cus it supports 2)
tanks cost 6 (without mech inf tech)
tanks cost 7 (with mech inf tech)

Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Maquis
first of all i really like your map and your unit images but the map has some hughe ballancing problems.
the russian alliance is way too strong. it can take out whole europe including England in rd1 before the nato can react. And you cant even retake London.
China and his allys are way to weak, they wont win any game. they have only ~1/5 of the Production of the other alliances and cant grow very much, so they need to be stronger or just removed.
i would like to see a version for 2 players cause its allways hard to get 3 players for a game. Maybe move China to the USA alliance and his allys to the Soviets?

About the Units: The atom Bomber is way to strong vs sea units. 2 of them do 16 hits, so they can wipe our every fleet and already 10 ships cost more than 2 Bombers.
a new Factory for 50 seems much too expensiv. And a fighter for 18 is much too expensive, nobody will buy them, they will just spam inf.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Veqryn
Administrator
This post was updated on .
I have an idea on how to make a "missle" unit

reduce the attack of the h-bomber to 1,

up the dice to 6,

and put the cost at 45 or so,

on Strat Bombing, you do an average of 21 damage

however, in a battle you only do about 1 hit total

also, you may wish to consider using ww2v2 style strat bombing rules (you can mix and max rules btw), that way money just disappears from the enemy rather than having damage limited to twice the value of the territory.



Also, if you wanted to make it a 2-sides game, consider making China+allies into an AI controlled nations, which are not allowed to go outside of a specific area.  You can use a negative NO to reduce their income while keeping their territory values as high as currently.  

Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Conarymor
Thanks guys!  I appreciate the feedback on the graphics.  AAs to game balance, what I am hearing is this:

1. Need to blunt Soviet Alliance in Europe to avoid having the role over the continent and then force the US on the defensive all in the first turn.  Maybe trim back the Warsaw TUV in Europe and bolster NATO.  Or, position more Warsaw/USSR troops further back so that it takes them 1-2 turns to get in position.

2. Nuclear Bombers unbalance the game, especially against fleets.  I was wondering about this.  I am thinking it won't as big of a problem one the scramble rules are implemented.  Heres a thought... what about giving the cruiser AA Gun properties.  Will that work?  It would allow fleets to better defend themselves.  I agree that if you send one or two nuclear bombers against a fleet, you may sacrifice them, but you just sunk a whole navy.

3. Change nuclear bombers into SBR attack only by reducing attack and removing SBR damage limits.  I think I like this approach.  That way, the nuke do huge collateral damage, but cannot be deployed to support ground or sea operations.

4. AA Guns should be separated into radar and non-radar versions.  I like the idea, but I didn't think it possible.  Since radar is a tech attachment, can you still buy a non-radar version one the tech is active for the player?

5. Make China and allies an AI player.  This makes sense.  My thought on China originally was that it would be there mainly to mess with the Soviets in the early part of the game.  They were a poor nation with limited tech and manufacturing, but could raise millions of troops if needed.  I like the NO idea.  Perhaps set a limit to their expansion to India, eastern Russia, Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan.  There should be a prize if they capture Taiwan, I think.

6. Update the pricing to bring hardware prices down and infantry prices up.  Sounds good.  Maybe the China issue could be resolved be making a Chinese infantry unit that costs 2 and the rest are 3.  These units could have 1/1/1 stats making them cheap and plentiful, but easily destroyed when faced with ground hardware and air support.

Keep the feedback coming.  This is exactly what I need to refine this game into something more playable.
Dave Ball
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

muckesen
wow.this map looks fantastic.i will test it with some friends this weekend and tell you about balancing issues.wonderful job.thanks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Prussia
In reply to this post by Conarymor
To make china more infantry dependant, consider the following:

1.Give them lower-than-usual PU income.
2.Simultaneously turn on the "purchaseNoPU" option, and give them like 1 inf for every territory they occupy.

This way, China can get tons of infantry but won't have much PU to purchase other things.

Just my $.02
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Karl-591-2
In reply to this post by Conarymor
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Conarymor
Thanks Karl... I am adding the missing sea connections to my next version.
Dave Ball
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Conarymor
In reply to this post by Prussia
@Prussia...  I like the idea of the purchaseNoPU property for China, especially if I convert them to a player intended to be AI.  I am going to look into production per territories property and see how that would work with this map.  Thanks
Dave Ball
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Ajmdemen
In reply to this post by Conarymor
With these prices, artillery/tanks will never be bought at all. In NWO with tank/inf cost relation being 5/2 tank is already a luxury buy.

I would also think about copter unit that I like a lot in present Coldwar map- short range but much lower price than other airunits...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Conarymor
I like the chopper idea, especially since it was a Cold War staple.  I am also updating the pricing along the lines of what Veqryn posted above.  My plan is to post the updated version over the weekend.  Thanks for the input!
Dave Ball
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Karl-591-2
In reply to this post by Conarymor
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Conarymor
Karl... thanks for posting the error and the save.  I will look into it.

Anyone else have ideas on this error... BattleTracker.takeOver?  Not sure I know what to do with this one.

Dave
Dave Ball
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Wisconsin
In reply to this post by Karl-591-2
For the programmers who are curious about this error, but don't want to locate the code themselves, here is the code in question:

500 //Is this an allied territory
501 //Revert to original owner if it is, unless they dont own their capital
502 PlayerID terrOrigOwner;
503
504
505 terrOrigOwner = ta.getOccupiedTerrOf();
506 if (terrOrigOwner == null)
507    terrOrigOwner = origOwnerTracker.getOriginalOwner(territory);
508
509 PlayerID newOwner;
510 if (terrOrigOwner != null && data.getAllianceTracker().isAllied(terrOrigOwner, id) && (TerritoryAttachment.getCapital(terrOrigOwner, data).getOwner().equals(terrOrigOwner) || TerritoryAttachment.getCapital(terrOrigOwner, data).getOwner().equals(PlayerID.NULL_PLAYERID) || territory.equals(TerritoryAttachment.getCapital(terrOrigOwner, data))))
511    newOwner = terrOrigOwner;
512 else
513    newOwner = id;
514
515 Change takeOver = ChangeFactory.changeOwner(territory, newOwner);
526 bridge.getHistoryWriter().addChildToEvent(takeOver.toString());
527 bridge.addChange(takeOver);
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Dave Ball
Thanks... I think I know what the problem is.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Conarymor

Revisions:
I made a number of updates based on feedback received. Here is a high-level list and revised unit pricing and stats. I have also added the revised download link below.

One thing that I noticed... I renamed China powers as AI-China and AI-SinoPact. My understanding is that the "AI" prefix should work the same as "Neutral" prefix and cause the system to default to AI Player. However, it does not. Any thoughts?

Thanks, and please keep the feedback coming.

Build Notes :: Version 0.6.0
  • Added connections: SZ 119 - SZ 005, SZ 005 - SZ 123, SZ 004 - SZ 006
  • Change NuclearBomber: 2/1/10; HeavyBomber dice=6; SBR impacts PUs, not production
  • Rebalance - Increased US Alliance strength in Europe, SE Asia, and Middle East
  • Revised pricing
  • Added Helicopter Unit
  • Created capitals for the aligned neutrals
  • Revised flag images
  • Created objectives for China; China intended as AI Player
  • Renamed China and SinoPact with AI_ prefix
Unit List:
AA Gun Factory Infantry Artillery Tank Helicopter Fighter Fighter Bomber
0/0/1 Cost:10 0/0/0 Cost:24 1/2/1 Cost:3 2/2/1 Cost:5 3/2/2 Cost:7 2/3/3 Cost:8 3/3/4 Cost:12 4/1/4 Cost:15
Support 2 inf Can blitz Support 2 inf
 
Nuclear Bomber Transport Submarine Destroyer Cruiser Battleship Carrier
2/1/10 Cost: 50 0/0/2 Cost:10 2/1/2 Cost:14 2/2/2 Cost:18 3/3/2 Cost:22 4/4/2 Cost:40 0/3/3 Cost:32
SBR: 6 dice 2-hit 2-hit; cap 3

Download:
Direct Download: http://triplea.ballcgi.com/download/ColdWar-1965.zip

TripleA Download: http://triplea.ballcgi.com/download/ColdWar-1965-setup.xml

To download the map directly using Triple, click the Download Maps button and copy and paste the URL above into the field labeled Select Download Site.

Current version: Beta 0.6.0
TripleA version: 1.2.x

Dave Ball
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Karl-591-2
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Chadmiral
In reply to this post by Conarymor
Great map Dave!

Another missing sea connection SZ091 to SZ089.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cold War: 1965

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Conarymor
can you give me a 400pixel wide png picture of your map, and i will upload it to the main repository?
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
12345