 |
| |
|
|
yaroslav
|
 |
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:24
|
|
Real World Note:
Ok, I've played the turn as a NATO player, but I don't know with details what the plots of Pap were, so I haven't do too much. For example, I don't know whether Pap want to conquest Spain or not (I will do, but I'm a Spaniard and I would love to reign over Spain  ). I only had move the units to the placements I think are better for NATO and blocked some seas. I ask all players to not attack NATO, because it will be unfair: the civ has nearly a 'blank' turn
Fictional World Note:
We, the intereign NATO government PLENTY SUPPORT the USA politicy ( ), and also ask Rusian government for retire of Central/South America ()
We refer all civs to ask our leader, USA, any doubt you would have
The intereign (USA puppet) government
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
|
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
- Afghanistan has been annexed in its entirety, apparently to the chagrin of Pakistani troops apparently poised to march there after our bombers had done all the work. 
NATO:
What gives you the right to completely blockade the Baltic with no reason stated or ultimatum delivered? Both the Kattegat Strait and the Kiel Canal are blocked by NATO warships. As you almost certainly know this region is our most crucial corridor for international trade, and is important enough for us to sink your ships if you do not cease and desist, or at least attempt to negotiate!
|
Sorry, I was moving the NATO, and did it without intention... Don't blame the NATO for that. I hope you can deal with Pop the next turn
quote:
USA:
Well you should feel perfectly comfortable then since the troops are CUBAN, not Russian. They're even using Cuban-made armaments! The cities may technically fly our flag due to the inadequate Civ2 engine, but all we are doing is 'extending influence'.  Your actions in Mexico show America's complete hypocrisy.
This is an important thing to understand about this scenario: capturing a city doesn't necessarily mean militarily conquering it, but something like propping up an autonomous puppet regime, which we all know both the U.S. and the USSR did as often as we change our underwear.
If you don't want us to assist our socialist brethren in Latin America then you'd better get there first! We will not sit idly by and watch the Americans crush an entire hemisphere under the bootheels of right-wing lapdog dictators. |
We had intervined in Mexico after you conquered the city on Central America. This is our last installment: swear to not expand more in America, retire from the city and don't install misiles in Cuba. This way, we'll left Cuba untouched. If you don't retire, we'd need to intervine. Can we agree on limited war on America?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darius871
|
 |
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
We had intervined in Mexico after you conquered the city on Central America. This is our last installment: swear to not expand more in America, retire from the city and don't install misiles in Cuba. This way, we'll left Cuba untouched. If you don't retire, we'd need to intervine. Can we agree on limited war on America? |
This is wrong on SO many levels. For one it wasn't 'us', meaning the USSR, it was Cuba and Cuba alone. Castro did not even ask us for approval although we probably would have given it to him.
Secondly, for the LAST time, Cuba didn't 'conquer' any city just like you didn't 'conquer' Mexico. Genghis Khan taking China was 'conquest'; Adolf Hitler launching a blitzkrieg on France was 'conquest'. What we did in Belize was active military support of one side in a civil war, and if I hear the word 'conquer' again I'm going to puke. Not to mention that YOU have been these subversive measures in Latin America for decades. Hypocrisy!
Thirdly, the hypocrisy's even more blatant since you've been playing in our 'backyard' for years as well. Hell, you've even invaded us before! We would NEVER whine like little babies if you were to make moves in Central Asia. And we aren't whining one bit about your nuclear missiles in Europe and Turkey.
And finally, you will notice that there are NO nuclear weapons in Cuba or Honduras, and there never will be. We reached an agreement during the Cuban Missile Crisis and we will stick by it.
Honduras will not be surrendered to a capitalist puppet government, and other underground movements in Latin America could be pushed to success at any time in the future. Any attack on our allies in Latin America or Cuba will be an attack on the USSR. Period. If you want to start World War III over a pathetic patch of jungle so be it; history will remember that you were responsible!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
|
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
This is wrong on SO many levels. For one it wasn't 'us', meaning the USSR, it was Cuba and Cuba alone. Castro did not even ask us for approval although we probably would have given it to him. |
So, if Castro is independent from Rusia, Can we engage in war with Cuba without being in war with Rusia?
quote:
Secondly, for the LAST time, Cuba didn't 'conquer' any city just like you didn't 'conquer' Mexico. Genghis Khan taking China was 'conquest'; Adolf Hitler launching a blitzkrieg on France was 'conquest'. What we did in Belize was active military support of one side in a civil war, and if I hear the word 'conquer' again I'm going to puke. Not to mention that YOU have been these subversive measures in Latin America for decades. Hypocrisy!
|
Show me evidences about USA getting involved in those activites We had supported democracy in all the countries (  ) And I want to intervine in the Civil War of Honduras.... Would be that an attack on Rusia or an attack on Honduras?
quote:
Thirdly, the hypocrisy's even more blatant since you've been playing in our 'backyard' for years as well. Hell, you've even invaded us before! We would NEVER whine like little babies if you were to make moves in Central Asia. And we aren't whining one bit about your nuclear missiles in Europe and Turkey.
|
Nuclear missiles in Turkey are there to safe this country of being attacked by Rusia. We know all about the 'rusian dream' of put their foot on Istambul..
quote:
And finally, you will notice that there are NO nuclear weapons in Cuba or Honduras, and there never will be. We reached an agreement during the Cuban Missile Crisis and we will stick by it.
|
And our deal was to not attack Cuba, but now Cuba is expanding socialism in a continent that NO other power can expand on it. It is the Monroe Doctrine and backs to the 19th century, much before the USSR existed
quote:
Honduras will not be surrendered to a capitalist puppet government, and other underground movements in Latin America could be pushed to success at any time in the future. Any attack on our allies in Latin America or Cuba will be an attack on the USSR. Period. If you want to start World War III over a pathetic patch of jungle so be it; history will remember that you were responsible!!! |
If you want to start a World War III, just expand it again in America All continental america countries have signed a teatry with us and are part of OEA [Organización de Estados Americanos, American States Organization]. We will defend the rigth of OEA States to have a democratic, religious goverment and Rusia (or their puppet, Cuba) is not going to expand the socialism in America.
We offer a deal, we let the Belize revolution to stay untouched as far as Cuba doesn't expand more in the continent. In fact, any attack agaisnt any other country in America will be considered an act of war of Cuba against America, and we'll do what we would feel rigth to figth against that.
[BTW, Darius, your post sounds very angry. I hope that we can separate the PBEMs from the real life... And understand that I'm very bad with English, so my posts sound rude although I don't want that they sound so roude... I'll let time for diplomacy and I'll try to move tomorrow.]
Last edited by yaroslav on 29-01-2003 at 05:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darius871
|
|
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
So, if Castro is independent from Rusia, Can we engage in war with Cuba without being in war with Rusia? |
Cuba is an independent nation that is firmly allied to Russia, in the same way that you are allied to Japan. So the answer is no.
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
Show me evidences about USA getting involved in those activites We had supported democracy in all the countries ( ) |
BS. (Disclaimer: Note that this is not my political view even though it is apparently the view of many on this board. Just saying what the commies would probably say)
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
Nuclear missiles in Turkey are there to safe this country of being attacked by Rusia. We know all about the 'rusian dream' of put their foot on Istambul..
|
That may have been the dream of the DEAD tsar but we have other plans. 
And how ironic, our missiles in Cuba were to save this country from being attacked by the West! And yet somehow we were kind enough to remove them while you take the moral high ground.
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
And our deal was to not attack Cuba, but now Cuba is expanding socialism in a continent that NO other power can expand on it. |
So, are you saying that you will NEVER put any more Latin American nations under your 'influence'? Doubtful.
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
We will defend the rigth of OEA States to have a democratic, religious goverment |
If they DID have democratic governments then perhaps we would leave the region alone. Unfortunately very few of them are, and the remainder are oppressed by dictators that you support. We will not allow our comrades to die by their hands.
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
We offer a deal, we let the Belize revolution to stay untouched as far as Cuba doesn't expand more in the continent. In fact, any attack agaisnt any other country in America will be considered an act of war of Cuba against America, and we'll do what we would feel rigth to figth against that. |
Fine, then attack us. Communist revolutions will continue to succeed in Latin America, and they will continue to offer allegiance to us. Since most Latin American nations are in no way allied to you (in the way that Japan or Taiwan are; flying your flag that is), you have no right to attack us without being seen as the aggressor.
If you want to stop us without direct war then your only option is to get them on your side before we do. God knows you have a larger military in the region than us, so it should be a small task.
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
[BTW, Darius, your post sounds very angry. I hope that we can separate the PBEMs from the real life... And understand that I'm very bad with English, so my posts sound rude although I don't want that they sound so roude... I'll let time for diplomacy and I'll try to move tomorrow.] |
Lol, it has nothing to do with you Javier!  I'm usually a very generous person in PBEM's and real life, but for once I wanted to be uncompromising, just to see what happens. This is all in-game, don't worry.  Now play your turn!  You know I'm not going to change my mind.
Last edited by Darius871 on 29-01-2003 at 12:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
academia
|
 |
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Dec 2001
time: 01:24
|
|
GREAT NEWS!!!!
As a result of the effectivity of the russian attack in order to destroy the USA/NATO nuclear forces, I decided to do something to correct this problem; well, to make it less unfair
(CFC Iron Curtain PBEM #2)
I mean, it´s obvious that in a turn-based game (and in the case of a nuclear war) we face the problem of "the one who strikes first wins / has a considerable advantage"
Because, if you are able to destroy between 90-100% of the nuclear forces of your enemy, you can prevent a nuclear counterattack.
So, how can we solve that problem?
It´s not that hard
I added a command in the events.txt file.
It says something like this:
If "USA ICBM" destroyed by "ANYBODY"
THEN Create "USA ICBM" in "a specific location" (i´ll give you 4 or 5 possibilities)
So, in case of a soviet attack, all the ICBMs destroyed by the soviets, will "magically" appear again in the american soil. I made some tests, and no matter if the ICBM is in an airbase, submarine or carrier. IT WORKS!!!! THE ICBM APPEARS!!!!
THERE´S ONLY ONE PROBLEM!! when you place a ICBM in a city and (for example) the soviets nuke that city, the command doesn´t work. It´s the only case
Ok, I also know that if the ICBM was in the pacific ocean, it wouldn´t appear in the same location again. Sorry, but i can´t guess the location of the missile 
This is an attempt to recreate MAD. Yea, it´s not perfect, but i think it´s an interesting aproximation of the real situation
It will give you the chance to mantain the same nuclear force (quantity of nukes) that you had before the soviet / anybody attack.
In other words, You´ll have enough nukes to strike back
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
academia
|
|
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Dec 2001
time: 01:24
|
|
PART 1
Let´s see...
First of all, i´m glad to hear your comments / suggestions! That means that you´re really interested in solving this "problem"
Ok. As you may imagine, i presented this idea in every single Iron Curtain PBEM. So, i received some interesting ideas.
GREENY EXPLAINED THE PROBLEM PERFECTLY (CFC Iron Curtain #2)
In reality the nuclear responce would happen while the emeny nukes were in the air.
I was trying to find a way to recreate that in a turn based game. ok?
Tracid comment in CFC Iron Curtain #1
quote:
If you HAVE to implement this, at least do it for every civ....including those who do not have nukes at start of the game. |
Of course, i´ll do it for every civ. The US/USSR situation was just AN EXAMPLE
Yop73 comment in CFC Iron Curtain #1
quote:
Well, I for my part are not going to let this game end in a nuclear inferno. I say we all sign an anti-nuclear treaty and the one who violates it, will be attacked by all other nations |
Guys: Remember that using or not using nuclear weapons depends on you
It´s your choice: Global Nuclear War or Non-Proliferation Treaty
Conmcb25 comment in CFC Iron Curtain Pbem?
quote:
Like I said in Game 1, I vote to implement and try to do something for the powers that currently dont have Nukes but may get them in the future. This was the one feature of the game that was beginning to make me wonder about it. So I say lets do it. |
I agree with you
Emugod comment in CFC Iron Curtain Pbem?
quote:
That seems kind of unfair. If you strike first and destroy your enemies's arsenal, then you have successfully eliminated an opponents' arsenal. Regenerating it is very unrealistic. The whole point is for each player to hide his nuclear arsenal from his opponents. If they find it, then they can attack it and destroy it. You might as well make all units that are destroyed also regenerate if you do that to the nukes. But if you insist on it, how about making this only apply for MRBMs and not ICBMs? |
Well, i think this is a problem between "civ2 game style vs. reality"
In a civ2 game, you don´t have silos to "hide" your nukes. The player can find and destroy the nukes wherever they are.
In real life, as Greeny explained, NUCLEAR RESPONSE WILL HAPPEN WHILE THE ENEMY NUKES WERE IN THE AIR
Personally, i´d like to recreate that.
MRBMs or ICBMs? I think we should reach a decision about implementing the "regenerate" idea first.
Germanos comment in CFC Iron Curtain #2:
quote:
Let me first say that I destroyed the bulk of USA Nukes (both ICBM and MRBM) because I sunk many subs, and quite a few on airbases. I'm not completely sure, but I am quite confident I destroyed 3/4 of the nukes by conventional attack. If the USA would have moved his Nukes out of any danger-zone, he would still have them. I mean, some of his subs were right next to my destroyers . I see no reason why any tactic like that should be rewarded by invulnarable nukes. |
Good point in the case of the subs. The US player made a wrong choice. In real life, soviets may have sunk subs in a conventional battle.
The nukes in the air bases? that´s other story
quote:
Secondly, if you do implement this, you should make ICBM's much, MUCH more expensive. There can be no price to high for undestructable units! I for one would not build ANY MRBM's under your proposed 'solution'. I think a price in the range of a Wonder would be in place, these would be 'miracle' weapons . |
Mmm... maybe...
quote:
The Soviet closing statement therefore is: had the USA protected its nukes better, there would have been no reason for the proposed alteration of the existing game. I also find the whole concept of invulnarable units ridiculous. |
One more time, i refer to Greeny´s explanation. We aren´t talking about conventional units.
quote:
Earlier I have suggested to Academia though that all nukes at the start of the scenario should be NONE-units, so that nukes cannot be lost due to capture of their 'home'-city. That would ensure at least some MAD in case of a first strike. A few NONE-subs could carry these nukes, if necessary. |
I like this idea. Could be a nice option
|
|
| |
|
|
|
academia
|
|
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Dec 2001
time: 01:24
|
|
PART 2
Greeny comment in CFC Iron Curtain #2:
quote:
How about, to eliminate germanos' objection to indestructable units, have a new unit, called the "lauched ICBM" or something, which is created someware in the middle of enemy territory when an ICBM is destroyed. In range of the enemy cities but without enough movement to get back to home cities (so use 'em or lose 'em). Representing birds that made it into the air "during the enemy turn" before being destoyed. There could be a house rule that you cannot attack these units (no SDI back then) and they could have an insanely high defence to help enfore this. This would be a more realistic way to implement M.A.D. IMHOconsidering the limitations of a turn based nuclear warfare. |
Interesting idea, but impossible to do.
Whree should i create the units? I can´t give the AI a command like this:
USSR destroys US ICBM in a base near Miami. WHERE SHOULD I CREATE THE "LAUNCHED ICBM" unit? Near Moscow, Cuba, Kiev, Stalingrad?
By doing this, i´m forcing the US player to nuke a specific city. What if he wants to nuke other cities or even units?
quote:
I doubt this would be possible, but would there be any-way to only make the "lauched ICBM" unit appear only 50% of the time or similar? Reflecting the fact that Nuclear Silos/ NORAD or whoever might be caught unprepared and not get the birds in the air before the enemy nuke destroys them. This would be ideal as it would add a realistic first strike bonus but not eliminate the possibility or M.A.D. entirely. |
No, no way. The command in the events.txt will work 100% of the time.
Yea, another problem: What if the US might be caught unprepeared and not get the nukes in the ari before the enemy destroys them????
Very difficult to answer that; even in real life!!!
Pinkygen comment in CFC Iron Curtain #1
quote:
I like Greeny's solution too. There should be some benefit for a first strike, but their also needs to be retaliation. |
That's the point. Benefit for a first strike, but also a retaliation. THIS IS NUCLEAR WARFARE!!!!
Jim Panse comment in Apolyton´s Anyone for Iron Curtain PBEM?
quote:
due to the cause that most of the us/nato nukes were/are in silo-based and submarine-based i think that is ok. i haven´t heard of missile ramps in cities yet. therefor some kind of missile silo unit would be fine to have the missiles reappear |
That´s the point!! What should we do with missiles in silos?
ONE MORE TIME:THAT´S REAL LIFE!!!!
NO SILOS IN CIV2!!!!
quote:
i also support this idea because of the fact that he who strikes first can mostly avoid nuclear retaliation. |
Exactly
quote:
or use something like this mobile icbm launcher or silos |
Mmm... not sure.
Tanelorn comment in Apolyton´s Anyone for Iron Curtain PBEM?
quote:
For my part, I have to say I completely disagree with the infinite nuclear spawning idea. |
"infinite"? you missunderstood the idea.
It´s not infinite regeneration. Relook my first post:
If "USA ICBM" destroyed by "ANYBODY"
Only if someone destroys your ICBM!!!!
If you use the ICBM to nuke Moscow, that´s it. It´s gone!! No "regeneration in this case" ok?
quote:
If somebody doesn't want his nukes obliterated during a suprise attack (which is a valid strategy), he should scatter them beyond his enemy's reach. Put them in silos (airfields) and submarines, or cities with SDI when this comes along. |
One more time:
"civ2 gameplay vs. reality" What should we choose?
SDI? Completely unrealistic!!!! I´ll never use it.
quote:
I agree with making nukes NON units, to prevent disbanding caused by city capture- though this would be a disadvantage for SEATO, Neutrals & me. |
Another guy supporting the "NON units" idea. It could be a viable alternative, don´t you think so?
quote:
If you want a silo safe from nukes, surround it with helicopters & other air units, so that the nukes can't get to it. And give your Nuke subs air-cover. If nuclear players can nuke/be nuked with impunity there 'll be nukes on the air for trivial pretexts... |
Mmm... surround it with units? mmm... pretty difficult...
quote:
I also think that nukes should be made forbiddingly expensive to build. |
Yea. I´m considering the idea...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
|
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
Cuba is an independent nation that is firmly allied to Russia, in the same way that you are allied to Japan. So the answer is no.
|
Understand.
quote:
BS. (Disclaimer: Note that this is not my political view even though it is apparently the view of many on this board. Just saying what the commies would probably say)
|
And also I'm playing to be American, not saying the things that I actually think (that may or may not agree with that USA made)
quote:
That may have been the dream of the DEAD tsar but we have other plans.
|
We don't believe this. Turkey is menaced by USSR expansionist army...
quote:
And how ironic, our missiles in Cuba were to save this country from being attacked by the West! And yet somehow we were kind enough to remove them while you take the moral high ground.
|
What do you say we took? There would be no more misiles in Cuba!
quote:
So, are you saying that you will NEVER put any more Latin American nations under your 'influence'? Doubtful.
|
Not. What we're saying is that only us have the rigth to control America, only USA! [Monroe doctrine]
quote:
If they DID have democratic governments then perhaps we would leave the region alone. Unfortunately very few of them are, and the remainder are oppressed by dictators that you support. We will not allow our comrades to die by their hands.
|
Tell me what democracy is beneath the Castro regiment and I'll be agree
quote:
Fine, then attack us. Communist revolutions will continue to succeed in Latin America, and they will continue to offer allegiance to us. Since most Latin American nations are in no way allied to you (in the way that Japan or Taiwan are; flying your flag that is), you have no right to attack us without being seen as the aggressor.
|
I saw yesterday 13 Days, so I'll do a better thing: to block Belize and Cuba until you agree to not expand futher in America...
quote:
If you want to stop us without direct war then your only option is to get them on your side before we do. God knows you have a larger military in the region than us, so it should be a small task.
|
We're working in this sense, and also are blocking Belize and Cuba
quote:
Lol, it has nothing to do with you Javier! I'm usually a very generous person in PBEM's and real life, but for once I wanted to be uncompromising, just to see what happens. This is all in-game, don't worry. Now play your turn! You know I'm not going to change my mind. |
Ok. Sorry, but English isn't my strongets point.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2003 00:51
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
Actually I think this was discussed a while back, wasn't it? 
Attachment: 
|
