Cold War 1965 - Official Thread
-
@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).
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
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.
-
Please can someone 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?
-
And should Trucks be able to LandTransport?
-
@Cernel said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
@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
@Cernel
I am not familiar with this game and its units., so I am not sure I understand this. So an ICBM is a nuclear weapon intended to attack an enemy territory and while doing so is removed? A defending ICBM on the other side is not intended to attack a territory but attacking units instead? Except that it can't hit the attacking ICBM so it has no valid target to fire at (in the situation in question)? And in case it had a valid target would be removed after shooting?
Is the attacking ICMB something like strategic or tactical bombing? When and how does it fire? And the defending ICMB is always a tactical weapon intendend to fire when?Don't always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start … and better check what TripleA has done.
-
I note there's a duff link between SZ10 and SZ13 if anyone has time for repairs please.
-
@mattbarnes Yeah, I would recommend setting AI-China and AI-Sinopact to Hard AI. The other neutral players probably just set to Does Nothing AI (but doesn't really matter since they don't have any phases so won't do anything no matter what).
Trucks are just used for cheap, high movement fodder units and don't have isLandTransport currently.
-
@Panther said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:
A defending ICBM on the other side is not intended to attack a territory but attacking units instead?
FWIW, a defending ICBM when attacked always suicides and is removed. It's in part meant to represent nuclear first strike. There can be a house rule whether AA fire can prevent this or not. It introduces a dynamic where producing an ICBM can in turn cause the opponent to use any they have in stockpile thereby trading them. If someone can get ahead by more than 1 ICBM then they have an advantage. Being able to place nuclear bombers (which have quite massive range of 10 IIRC) in position to be able to strike at a factory that could build a ICBM is a valuable suppression technique to trade an expensive nuclear bomber for an even more expensive ICBM, typically preventing an opponent from building one in that case (which makes kamikaze even more potent of a setting, which AFAIK is somewhat often toggled to on for this map)
-
@Panther ICBM can indeed perform bombing raids, but this is not relevant to the matter at hand. Therefore, I'll ignore such ability, from now on.
Aside from bombing raiding, the ICBM, both when offending and when defending, is a suicide unit that fires before all other units, but after AA attacks (thus doesn't fire if shot down by AA), being able to target all targetable (non-targetable are only aaGun and factories, as usual in any games before v5) enemy units except other ICBM (an ICBM can never target other ICBM). All units taken as casualties or removed because of hits from ICBM are removed from the battle before they can fire back.
Assuming using an ICBM on a territory containing one or more enemy ICBM and other targetable units, and that the territory has no aaGun units (or all AA defensive attacks miss), what should be the behaviour of defending ICBM.
-
The defending ICBM don't fire, since they have no targets, but are lost anyway for being a suicide unit involved in a battle (this appears to be the program's behaviour).
-
The defending ICBM don't fire, since they have no targets, thus they don't suicide, thus surely survive the battle (as the territory is being attacked by ICBM only, that are unable to hit defending ICBM just like defending ICBM are unable to hit offending ones).
-
The defending ICBM fire, despite having no targets, thus they suicide (while actually hitting nothing).
-
-
@Cernel @LaFayette Thank you for the explanation.
I would tend to option 2. I would understand a "suicide unit" as being a unit that "commits suicide" by taking any 'fighting action'.
In the given scenario the defending ICMB cannot take such an action (it is simply present), so there is nothing that would cause 'suicide'. -
Hi everyone. This is Dave Ball... I am the original author for Cold War: 1965. Unfortunately, due to personal commitments, I abandoned this map and Triple A years ago. However, I am pleasantly surprised to see that Redrum took it upon himself to update it to the latest version of the game engine.
I am also glad to see play testing has been done. That was one thing that I lacked early on in order to address game balance and bugs. Reading through the posts, I can see much though has gone into making the map usable. Somewhere, I have all of the original graphics files stored and notes if needed.
I will go through the posts and respond where I can. Thanks for not letting this map languish forever.
- Dave
-
@Cernel Indeed, the helicopter unit was intended to transport one Infantry unit in addition to being offensive. That being the case, perhaps the Helicopter should cost more or the Tank made 4/3/2 or slightly cheaper (or both).
-
@mattbarnes My original design was to allow China and Sino to sweep through South Korea and South Vietnam with US forces as a stop gap. The original thought, inspired by Mao's threat that he could raise an army of 100 Million, was to have China armed with a ridiculous number of infantry, but little else. Unfortunately, game mechanics would allow the AI to overwhelm any combination of forces. Thus, the machine gun unit to allow a stronger defense but waves of 1-point fodder.
Side note... I had toyed with the idea of allowing China to invade India. Not sure what that would do to game play.
-
@mattbarnes @Cernel The concept was for both sides to be able to launch nukes in response to each other, thus, ICBMs would need to survive the initial strike in order to retaliate. Think of them being in hardened underground silos.
-
@redrum @mattbarnes You are both correct. China and Sino set to AI Hard and all neutrals set to AI Does Nothing. This was to allow a territory to be neutral but allow move through to one side but not the other (without combat).
-
@DaveBall068 Welcome back! Please, rather refer to this post for an analysis of the game:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1532/cold-war-map/13I want to point out that I've never played this game. So, these are opinions from someone that never actually played the game.
I just think it's a rather major black spot that TripleA is missing a "Cold War" game listed in its "High Quality" category.
Regarding the nukes, I've the following questions:
- Is it preferred for them to be destroyable by AA fire before they can hit?
- Is it preferred that defending nukes always fire (thus are lost) when defending? If so, is it preferred that they can hit attacking (thus flying) air units too?
- Is it preferred that defending nukes are lost (for nothing) when the territory is attacked by enemy nukes only?
All the above are the game's behaviours. I'm wondering if they are actually wanted. Say, if you would not be dealing with a virtual program, or could anyway have the nukes working however you want, how would they work?
I'm also curious what made you define productions values. Some things, like Yugoslavia more productive than Italy or Australia more productive than the sum of France, Western Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg are really impossible to agree with. Some zones, like Papua, New Guinea, Solomons, Aleutians, and so on, I would imagine as non-productive. Also the fact that the United States of America are much more populous on their eastern side is hardly represented (and back then this difference was much more pronunced than nowadays).
Finally, I much prefer games with not too many units on the board, so I suggest to do what feasible to reduce the total production on the map (like possibly to about a quarter of the current total).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login