Cold War 1965 - Official Thread



  • You guys are getting like off topic. My main question of why cannot paratroops during non combat is a serious question. Nato will get kicked out of mainland Europe, its a matter of time. It is frustrating that i cannot use the factory in Britain to para troops over during non-combat.

    To make the situation worse for NATO, Russia and Arab League have unlimited expansion space into neutral territories. I suggest that:
    -China AI just act as neutral towards Russia (more appropraite to call it Soviet Union) or Russia can just eat up China slowly
    -India as a seperate faction hostile to everyone but start with lots of stationary troops
    -Arab League as an independent faction hostile to all


  • Admin

    @Lord-Bevan said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

    Nato will get kicked out of mainland Europe, its a matter of time.

    Sorry for not taking a detailed look, and it's been a while, so my memory might be faulty, but doesn't UK fall to USSR round#1 or round#2? IIRC, USSR uses one nuke to hit USA, then then uses second to hit UK and purchases overwhelming force to ensure capture the next round.



  • I find that SBR to be very profitable in this map, especially by the Soviets against the Allies. The only counter is not to use the big factories, especially London or Japan. This means you must rely on smaller factories or farway factories. This means you have a lot of PU which you could invest in Nuclear bombers. This becomes a visicous cycle where both sides just bomb each other and produce little troops.

    And what happens to air intercept? This is 1965.



  • Hi all. Is this map worth a go? It looks fun but I'm a bit worried given some of the comments on this thread.

    Also, please can you confirm recommended AI setup for a 2 human game? Eg is it AI Hard for China and Sinopact, with AI Does Nothing for the USA-Neutrals and USSR-Neutrals?

    Lastly, what are the recommended Options setups please? I propose to select: all the low luck options and AlwaysOnAA, leaving the rest alone. Does that make sense?

    Thanks, Matt



  • Incidentally, why not include S Vietnam (and maybe S Korea) within the realm of territories that Sinopact can attack, for an extra bit of realism, even if it might become a side-show once captured?



  • I assume that USSR wants to Nuke eastern US to knock out 2 US nukes, then build more nukes as soon as it can?



  • Should Trucks be able to LandTransport?





  • @mattbarnes said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

    I assume that USSR wants to Nuke eastern US to knock out 2 US nukes, then build more nukes as soon as it can?

    That is definitely a bug abuse.



  • @Lord-Bevan oh, what are the nukes for then? Why should Russia not fire at US like that?


  • Moderators

    @Panther said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

    @Cernel

    I am glad that I have contacted Krieghund to discuss the change-of-control aspect in v1 when I stumbled over the eventual inconsistency through different editions, as it turned out, that in v1 ownership of the walked-in empty enemy territory is supposed to change during Conduct Combat Phase, too (except the discussed Blitz-situation, of course). That means we do actually have consistence from v1 on - it means that TripleA is wrong starting from v1, too.

    The misleading sentence in the Classic rulebook

    "Attacking Enmy-Controlled Territories - A Combat Move Without A Battle!
    During the combat move phase of your turn, you can move your units into adjacent enemy-controlled territories and take control without engaging in combat. These enemy-controlled territories are not occupied by enemy units..."

    (and emphasized by me) is supposed to be interpreted simply to call out the fact that such a move is still a combat move, even though no actual battle will result.

    Concerning the v3-Blitz-issue, Krieghund said: "Control of a blitzed territory, on the other hand, changes immediately, in the Combat Move phase. I don’t know whether the control change in the Conduct Combat phase is a programming error or it was just done that way because it was easier."

    cc: @LaFayette

    So, going back to this, to make sure, the phrase:

    During the combat move phase of your turn, you can move your units into adjacent enemy-controlled territories and take control without engaging in combat.

    doesn't mean:

    During the combat move phase of your turn, you can move your units into adjacent enemy-controlled territories and immediately take control without engaging in combat.

    and, instead, means:

    During the combat move phase of your turn, you can move your units into adjacent enemy-controlled territories and take control of each of them during the combat phase of the same turn without engaging in combat.

    Practically, Classic only gives you a specific (yet substantially useless) special rule about taking control of undefended non-blitzed territories without making a battle, but still only during the same phase in which battles are done, while Revised and anything following don't bother giving you this special rule. Thus you, instead, in Revised and anything following, make battles in these territories against nothing, skipping all steps in which you would roll the dice (since you have no targets), then taking control of each of the territories during the first round of combat.

    So, in "Classic" you have "A Combat Move Without A Battle" situation, in this case, while in "Revised" and following you, instead, still have a battle in each of such cases too, but no substantial difference between the rules sets, at the end, on this matter. So, in Revised and following, instead of saying "A Combat Move Without A Battle", we would say something like "A Combat Move With A Battle Against Nothing".

    TripleA wise, what should happen in "Classic", when I move 1 infantry into an empty enemy territory, is that the territory is conquered or liberated, without making a battle, during the "Conduct Combat" (or however it is called in the game) phase, while TripleA incorrectly have it conquered immediately as the unit moves into it, during the "Combat Move" phase.

    TripleA wise, what should happen in "Revised" and all following games, when I move 1 infantry into an empty enemy territory, is that the territory is conquered or liberated, making a battle against no enemy units, during the "Conduct Combat" (or however it is called in the game) phase, while TripleA incorrectly have it conquered immediately as the unit moves into it, during the "Combat Move" phase.

    Did I get everything right?


  • Moderators Admin

    @Cernel What you concluded makes perfect sense - in a somehow "academical consideration".

    However I am not convinced that TripleA would need different approaches here.
    In all versions the territory is conquered during Conduct Combat Phase.
    While the wording of the rules in v1 explicitly includes "without engaging in combat", this part is missing in later rulesets.

    But practically in later rulesets engagement in combat in the situations in question is more or less theoretical. What happens on the gameboard?

    When attacking an empty enemy territory during Conduct Combat Phase you maybe should but actually would not place the attacking unit onto the battleboard, search for an enemy unit with the intention to place it there for the battle, too, notice there is no enemy unit, consider the "resulting battle" as won, put your unit back to the gameboard and take ownership of the territory, Instead during the Conduct Combat Phase you would simply take ownership (place a marker on the board and adjust income). So practically "engaging in combat" or the "combat against nothing" here is maybe only a thought.



  • @mattbarnes said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

    @Lord-Bevan oh, what are the nukes for then? Why should Russia not fire at US like that?

    I am refering to the fact that the two US nukes will get destroyed. Sucide units do not die if you did not lose. At least i checked it out in NML.


  • Moderators

    @Lord-Bevan That is because the gas of no mans land doesn't suicide in defence. The property is called "Defending Suicide and Munition Units Do Not Fire" and it is absent in this game (thus defaults to false, that means they do fire).

    I have not tested, by I believe the suicide units of this game will suicide if the territory is attacked by whatever units (for example, 1 infantry attacking a territory with 100 infantries and 1 ICBM should cause the ICBM to suicide and be lost, always).


  • Moderators

    @Cernel said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

    The property is called "Defending Suicide and Munition Units Do Not Fire" and it is absent in this game (thus defaults to false, that means they do fire).

    Haven't tested right now, but I also believe that (as usual in TripleA) the property is wrongly named/descriptive. What this property does is avoiding activating the suiciding behaviour in defence, not making the suicide units unable to fire (they will fire normally, without suiciding, if they can).


  • Moderators

    @Lord-Bevan However, now that I think about it, you may be right that this is a bug. If an ICBM alone attacks a territory with an ICBM (and possibly other units), the defending ICBM has no actual targets to fire at (since suicide units can never target other suicide units, normally), thus it should not fire (for nothing), thus not suicide, in this case. Opinions on this? Is this a wrong behaviour?

    CC: @Panther



  • Are there two aspects to this? (A) what is the correct in-game mechanic and (B) what is realistic?

    One might argue that it’s realistic that nuke sites might be pre-emptively struck, or alternatively maybe one considers that the US nukes would really have been fired as soon as the USSR nukes were detected in-coming.

    Could the owner of the map indicate which approach they feel is more appropriate and/or what they think the creator intended?

    Absent this strike on Eastern US, it would leave US at a 3v1 against USSR in nukes, which may not have been the intention. In fact, I wonder if those 2 nukes are present specifically to entice the USSR pre-emotive strike?


  • Moderators

    @mattbarnes said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

    One might argue that it’s realistic that nuke sites might be pre-emptively struck

    This is not what is happening. The US nukes are not being struck. They are actively suiciding to hit enemy units that are invading the territory they are defending, except that they can target none of these units.

    or alternatively maybe one considers that the US nukes would really have been fired as soon as the USSR nukes were detected in-coming.

    This is what it is happening. Except that there is no point doing it: Suicide units cannot target other suicide units, thus the USSR nukes cannot blow up the US nukes and the US nukes cannot shot down the incoming USSR nukes, either.

    Could the owner of the map indicate which approach they feel is more appropriate and/or what they think the creator intended?

    I can hardly think the creator didn't notice such behaviour, but I would guess it is more probable he resigned to it, rather than intended it.


  • Admin

    Would be nice to loop in the OC. AFAIK this map is usually played with Kamikaze turned on, a standard opening move is to nuke the single US ICBM and send a nuclear bomber on a suicide mission to take out the other two ICBMs, leaving US with zero by their turn.



  • Hi @Cernel , yeah, I appreciate the mechanics of one suicide unit defending against the attack of the other, thus expending itself. However, my point is that it could be deemed to be representing a pre-emptive strike on the ICBM site (and surroundings) even if that's not what the mechanic is actually doing.


Log in to reply