16-02-2005 01:03									#1
	Cold War PBEM - tracker thread Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Cold War scenario, starting in 1961.

This is the tracker thread for this game setup.

Players:

• NATO - Moonbars
  
• Warsaw Pact - Modo
  
• China - Beta Xi Jiang
  
• SEATO - Shogun Gunner
  
• India - Mickeyj
  
• Persia / Pakistan - AI
  
• Arab League - AI
  
• Scandinavia - AI

Last edited by Modo44 on 28-08-2005 at 00:47

	18-02-2005 09:30									#2
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

* Shogun Gunner bows deeply to the other world leaders.

	23-02-2005 07:38									#3
	Got spare money?

* Shogun Gunner glances around an empty room....

	26-02-2005 23:51									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

March 1961 to MODO.

	26-02-2005 23:51									#5
	Got spare money?

Can everybody please post their E-Mails?

James@McQuiggan.demon.co.uk

	26-02-2005 23:59									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Thanks for starting the game.

As to posting the e-mails, I kind of prefer not to. PMs work, and they are not open to spambots.

	27-02-2005 02:31									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

For me, use fakeoutmichaeldnelsonnospamATSIGNmsnfoolingspamDOTcom

Beat that you dirty email spammers

	27-02-2005 03:47									#8
	Support Apolyton

No hostilities to report.

Game set to Emperor level.

March 1961 to Chariman Beta Xi Jiang.

	27-02-2005 21:25									#9
	Support Apolyton

The Chinese Foreign Affairs Aithorities announce that teh save has been sent to Shogun Gunner of SEATO.

Chairman Beta must now rest after playing that turn.

	27-02-2005 21:26									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner * Shogun Gunner glances around an empty room....

A room is never empty ...

	02-03-2005 19:50									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sooo, did Beta send it? Did Shogun Gunner receive and play it? In other words: where is the save?!

	02-03-2005 20:44									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hey Modo. Yes Beta sent this to me on Monday and I haven't had time to go through my TURN 1. I'll try tonight.

	02-03-2005 23:39									#13
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think I was rude. Sorry.

	02-03-2005 23:46									#14
	Put an end to popups!

Modo, not at all. It is the job of the game starter to keep things moving. Absolutely no offense was taken, so no need to apologize.

You, Moonbars and Beta all indicated that it would take more than just a few minutes for the first turn. I just haven't had that much time free at home this week. Ironically, I can find a minute or two to post at work (like right now), but absolutely no time at home due to family stuff!!!

	03-03-2005 00:11									#15
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, you do need to set builds and move units in absolutely all cities. Took me half an hour, and I had it all planned earlier. I imagine it will be worse if you see the scenario for the first time. Take your time.

Oh, and familiy always comes first anyway.

	03-03-2005 01:28									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Thanks Modo. I'm going to make it happen tonight. I do think this has the potential to be the best PBEM scenario I've played -- I the time period.

	03-03-2005 06:44									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Okay...whew. Turn 1 done.

March 1961 save to Mickeyj of the Indian Union

	03-03-2005 16:31									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

This looks like it could be pretty awesome, glad i've only got a minor role - moonbars must take ages to play his turn.

May 1961 to moonbars.

	03-03-2005 16:41									#19
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Aah and of course thanks Modo

	03-03-2005 20:06									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I forgot to post a few questions/issues that I was pondering last night.

Submarine bug

I think we all have submarines prowling around -- especially NATO and Warsaw Pact. When playing civ3, your battleships and cruisers can't see the opposing players subs and if you move onto the same tile as an opposing player's sub (even your allies), this becomes an automatic declaration of war. For the life of me, I don't understand why Firaxis never fixed this -- it really hurts modern naval strategy.

The net effect to my playing strategy is to not rely on submarines in peacetime as it could create a nasty little diplomatic situation that I'm not ready for. Giving up the subs hidden scouting ability is a real shame.

In some ways this makes sense historically per the Red October and other submarine incidents between NATO and Soviet Union... even the Kursk comes to mind as a recent example. However, I thought now would be the appropriate time to bring this issue up before it happens. Will open warfare just be a risk to utilizing your sub force in peacetime?

Think about the consequences -- trade and diplomatic deals get immediately cancelled. The AI could get drawn in to these situations as well --- and they are far less reasonable Any thoughts?

	03-03-2005 20:14									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

Settlers and Razing

In your opening thread, Modo, you mentioned that there would be a fight for resources. I assume you intended to disable settlers and the "fight for resources" would be colonies. That's actually a nice touch.

However, another issue we should discuss now, and not later, is the policy of razing cities. This has been a sore point in other PBEMs I have been involved with. Some people are very against allowing the razing of cities since the ability to resettle does not exist.

I have no firm opinion on this, and will play either way the group wishes, but I think it's important that we all agree now about this policy.

	03-03-2005 20:19									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Battle Reports

This may not really require a seperate post, but let's try to put short, but useful battle reports in the thread. With so many units and cities for everyone -- the amount of data is more than the typical PBEM.

I think just a short blurb per battle works. For example,

At City A,
Tank attacks Infantry, kills infantry, 1 HP loss for tank
Tank attacks Infantry, tank destroyed, 2 HP loss for infantry

I mean if folks want to do more...then that much better. I realize this could extend the game a bit as people really need to carve out time to play their turns, however, it will be more fun if we keep each other informed to the battles since there's no mechanism in Civ3 to review past action. It's a real shortcoming of Civ3 PBEM functionality...I hope it's fixed in cIV.

	03-03-2005 22:08									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, better bring it up now, than later.


Subs
Well, I have hidden mine under other ships for now - just in case. I would agree to peace after any sinlge incident, treating it as a small crisis - things that were happening all the time. Of course for me fighting a phony war is not an issue, so in any case it would be the democratic coutries that suffer (WW). If these incidents get reported ASAP, then we can deal with them while still having some useful scouting data.


Razing settlements
Not metros, nor cities - only towns. Fact is, nothing (short of a Nuke) can effectively obliterate a modern metro, or a city. I would allow razing towns, as those can be torn down with conventional means. Remember, that 2-3 Nukes can bring down most metros to town status...


Battle reports
That detailed battle reports might get too tedious when applied to large land battles. Plus, the info is a bit too good, even for a modern battlefield. Remember, that if you do a battle, it all happens quickly and often simultaneously. How about something like this:

Attack [city name]. 3 Bombers: 1 shot down, 1 miss, 2 HP taken. 5 Artillery: 1 miss, 6 HP taken. 10 Tanks: 1 lost, 6 retreated, 3 won. [enemy name] losses: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 2 Artillery (captured). [city name] captured.

Obviously you can give a location instead of a city name, and you only say it was captured if that really happened. Basically, no info on HP losses or promotions of the attacker is given, as that kind of knowledge is hard to get on the battlefield (until Satellites, at least). Note that we might leave out the info on how many arties fired and bomber runs were done. If they miss the target (which means it was a long distance off, considering the Civ3 scale), the enemy should have a hard time learning about them. So, the even simpler report would look like this:

Attack [city name]. Bombers: 1 shot down, 2 HP taken. Artillery: 6 HP taken. 10 Tanks: 1 lost, 6 retreated, 3 won. [enemy name] losses: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 2 Artillery (captured). [city name] captured.

For ship to ship battles, a 1 by 1 report should be ok, except if the battle is really massive.

Last edited by Modo44 on 03-03-2005 at 22:26

	04-03-2005 00:50									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Subs -- agree

Razing -- disagree. No razing a city once you control a city to avoid it's capture. If a city is razed because your conventional army attacked the city, that's a different matter and would be okay (of course). Basically, no purposeful razing.

Battle reports -- agree The simple report seems appropriate.

	04-03-2005 01:18									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner Basically, no purposeful razing.

No industrial or modern army ever obliterted a city in a battle. Villages - definately, towns - some, but nothing bigger. The heaviest damage was always due to continuous bombing (artillery or planes - you name it), taking time to make, and even then often leaving a large population and some basic infrastructure. Tell me, how could you raze a city not on purpose?

	04-03-2005 01:26									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I realize that I didn't think this through when I typed the earlier post -- as all of our cities, towns, etc are already established with culture points and expanded boundaries. This means they won't be "auto-razed" when an enemy captures the city -- even if they are 1 pop point, correct?

What I mean by "no razing" would be - Once a city is captured and under your control, no left mouse click on the city and "Abandon City". (self razing, whatever the term is)

	04-03-2005 01:51									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yes, all established cities have culture (for all civs, so that borders will expand somewhat when you capture them). They will not auto-raze.

I accept the razing of towns (including abandoning, I think) to make a nuclear war (if it ever happens) even more furious. Many cities could end up as towns then, at least for a while. It will probably mean little to nothing in case of a conventional war, as there are mostly metros around.

	04-03-2005 02:37									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, if we are permitting abandoning of towns, I can live with that. It does make the defense a bit more rigid as an attacker has far more incentive to dissolve a city due to corruption issues, immiment recapture, spite and you can't afford to permit the attacker a foothold on your territory for even one turn.

As stated earlier, if we all know that ahead of time, we can all adjust our strategy to fit. Thanks Modo

Last edited by Shogun Gunner on 04-03-2005 at 02:42

	04-03-2005 03:02									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Bringing a place to town status (6 or less population) after capturing it takes long enough to allow a counter-attack, but it can be done quite quickly if you have to (i.e. forced moving of the population). I think this adds some strategy to any conquest, unlike free disbanding of all settlements or no disbanding at all.

As to abandoning far-away cities, I think that is suicide. Dropping the income and the naval/air base is only worth it if the defense cost is too high. All the more strategy.

	06-03-2005 16:11									#30
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

EDIT: save to Beta.

The Warsaw Pact wishes to announce two major treaties we have agreed on. We now have a Mutual Protection Pact with China. We now have a Mutual Protection Pact with the Arab League (the AI came to me, and I accepted a straight MPP+ROP).

Last edited by Modo44 on 07-03-2005 at 14:33