Is this the right forum to post it? Is anyone making a World War II Scenario? I think it would be great for Civ3!

I'm not sure if there's any threads here but I saw one on Apolyton: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28195

Hmm, that WWII mod is about a world map set in World War II.

A bit daunting wouldn't you think eh? Its much simpler sticking with the Euro-Nothern African Theatre and East Asia-Pacific Theatre separate.

Euro-N. Africa could consist of:
1.Germany
2.Soviet Union
3.France
4.Britain
5.Italy
6.United States
7.Spain
8.Finland
9.Turkey
10.Neutrals
11.Axis Allies(Small states not worth mentioning)
12.Greece
13.Yugoslavia

East Asia-Pacific could consist of:
1.Communist China
2.Nationalist China
3.Japan
4.Soviet Union
5.United States
6.British Commonwealth
7.French Indochina
8.Dutch East Indies

Whatcha think?

Oh yes! I shudder to think of the length of turn a whole world WW2 scenario would be like :crazyeyes

For Euro WW2:
What about switzerland? I guess maybe it's neutral.
Poland maybe? Just before they get split? And the dutch? If they held long enough, they could be a launching point for the allies.. just a guess..

For Pacific theatre:
Siam (modern day Thailand) did play a significant role in allowing a right of passage and building of bases (forts?) in their territory in exchange for peace and non-agression. Japan was able to launch an attack into Malaya with this help. And the portuguese still had a territory in Timor and Macau, but I guess this is really minor. However, we do have lots of slots, so why not use it? We could put Mongolia too just as a buffer between the Chinese and Soviet Union

Just my 2 cents :)

Why not just make a copy of the old Civ II WW2 scenario? Somebody should do that.

Originally posted by Mig1
Why not just make a copy of the old Civ II WW2 scenario? Somebody should do that.

Well, we probably would want to tweak it well enough to take advantage of what Civ III have to offer. I mean, as soon as they improve on the game editor so we can actually make a scenario. Hopefully, it will be at least as good as the editor in Civ II- CiC, if not better. :)

Communist China didn't come into existence until 1948 and then didn't really become a power until 1954, about the time they invaded Tibet. So they could not well exist during the WWII conflict.

Originally posted by Scipio Africanu
Communist China didn't come into existence until 1948 and then didn't really become a power until 1954, about the time they invaded Tibet. So they could not well exist during the WWII conflict.

China was not united during the war against Japan. There was an uneasy peace between the communists and nationalists. After 1941, the communists fought Japan independently. In this Civ 3 game, it would be much nore interesting to see a fragmented China against the powerful Japanese military than a make believe united China.

Mfauzi:

Having Poland may be a good idea, but it depends on how early the scenario wants to start.

I forgot about Siam, they did have double dealings didn't they, eh? Working with the Japanese... but not directly...

Originally posted by Anielewicz


China was not united during the war against Japan. There was an uneasy peace between the communists and nationalists. After 1941, the communists fought Japan independently. In this Civ 3 game, it would be much nore interesting to see a fragmented China against the powerful Japanese military than a make believe united China.

Mfauzi:

Having Poland may be a good idea, but it depends on how early the scenario wants to start.

I forgot about Siam, they did have double dealings didn't they, eh? Working with the Japanese... but not directly...

I guess China still had a civil war at that time. It was only after a turn of events (something about Chiang Kai-sheik getting kidnapped and convinced into allying with the communist against Japan) that both factions defended against Japan. However, I haven't really read up much on that. I thought the communist only started attacking the nationalists after the war or something. But China was divided, that's for sure.

Yeah, siam really didn't want to be the "bad guy" but all they want is peace, so they chose not to get in the way.

These are the countries I find interesting:

1.Germany
2.Soviet Union
3.France
4.Britain
5.Italy
6.United States
7.Spain
8.Finland
9.Turkey
10.Greece
11.Yugoslavia
12.Switzerland
13.Dutch(as mfauzi said in his post it might be a good idea-there are 16 countries possible so if you have more counties the more interesting scerario-even id they would lost there country in a few turns, but there is always a possiblity that they could depend someway)
14.Poland(ok this one is a must the scenario should begin when the axis attack Poland- it is a BIG country and even if it will lost almost every city it can move all units to one city and defend it(rebels would also be a good idea- they could also move to one city) Afcourse the german would crush poland easily but how about the allies would send Poland some units, Poland would be able to defend for some time and then sign a peace treaty) When either soviet union or the axis would be loosing Poland could counter attack and regain a city or two) My point is that if there is more countires the better I would like to play Poland for example(it woud be a HARD game but everything is possible)
15 and 16 hmm dont know really but i think that there should be countries here as well

OK thats all for now btw is there anyone from here planning to make such a scenario?

the Netherlands and Belgium and Luxembourg could be Made as 1 civ called BENELUX ,aldo i dont know if Luxembourg existed (apologise for ignorance) and was canada still under GB? oh Ireland could have some strategic value...
oh and some other lands: Bulgary, Hungary , Slovakia , Romania , oh heck here is a link to a ww2 info site there are also good info on Tanks of 8 different nations, :mad: what are u doing here? GET THERE! ;)
http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/index.htm :enlighten

Regardless of the fragmentation of China before the beginning of conflicts by the time the War in Europe had begun China was united in defense against the japanese. Remember the Japanese invaded China many years before the Invasion of the West Front by Germany, so unless you were gonna begin the game in 1938 China should be one nation.

Alturiak,

1. Luxemburg did exist in world war two.
2. Ireland would probably be classified as a neutral, since it was independant at that time but Britain did pressure it into helping, and Winston Churchill seemed rather cross with the Irish leader.
3.Hungary would be included in the minor Axis, as would Finland,Slovakia,Romania (joined only after the monarchy abdicating defiantly and after losing a lot of territory to Soviets,Hungery and Bulgaria),Bulgaria and the two imposed puppet states, Greater Croatia and Serbia (rest of Yugoslavia petitioned off)

mfauzi

Chiang Kai-sheik was kidnapped by one of his generals who forced an alliance to save China from Chiang's stubburness. The general was later expelled from the position.

I think you will have to include Denmark and Norway (could be put as one country) as they were still around.
Greece will have to be independant.

ok what about:

1.Germany
2.Soviet Union
3.France
4.Britain
5.Italy
6.United States
7.Spain
8.Turkey
9.Greece
10.Yugoslavia
11.Switzerland
12.Poland
13.Netherlands and Belgium and Luxembourg as one country
14. Denmark and Norway as one country
15. Finland, Hungary,Slovakia,Romania as one country minor axis
16.Ireland or bulgaria

here is my list, if you have any comments post here

Neutral countries like Ireland and Switzerland could be fused together.Even Portugal and Spain could be fused with them!
With power restrictions of course, we wouldn't want them ruling Europe instead!

I would make Germany-Austria-Denmark all one civ.

Originally posted by mfauzi


I guess China still had a civil war at that time. It was only after a turn of events (something about Chiang Kai-sheik getting kidnapped and convinced into allying with the communist against Japan) that both factions defended against Japan. However, I haven't really read up much on that. I thought the communist only started attacking the nationalists after the war or something. But China was divided, that's for sure.

Yeah, siam really didn't want to be the "bad guy" but all they want is peace, so they chose not to get in the way.

Sorry but it was the Nationalists who were backstabbers(damn Chaing Kai-Shek).

Originally posted by Anielewicz


Sorry but it was the Nationalists who were backstabbers(damn Chaing Kai-Shek).

Hmm.. I don't really know much about modern China's history.. will stay neutral in this issue... it's only been a decade since my country normalized the relationship with China

Originally posted by Anielewicz


Sorry but it was the Nationalists who were backstabbers(damn Chaing Kai-Shek).

The original concept by Sun-Yit-San after the revolution is all chinese should work together regardless or their idealogy. It was documented in one of his letter...."a government should represent the idea of the people.......once a government stop representing the idea of the people, its no longer a government .....". In fact, people like Mao are part of the Koa Ming Dang (Nationalist Party) when Dr Sun is still alive (As evidenced by a photo taken during one of the early party gathering). And that is also the reason why Dr Sun's wife continue to work with the communist rather than the backstabbing Chiang after Dr Sun's dead. Of course at that time Chiang is much influenced by the capitalist of US:p

So for the shake of the WWII scenario, I did prefer to have 2 chinese Civ (communist and nationalist) with their cities mixed together, MPP and right of passage. And of course the communist will have right of passage with Russia while Nationalist will have right of passage with US. Can't let the chinese have any MPP with other nation to simulate that no one come to help china when Japanese invaded.

Also, it would be good to have a few town in china to be controlled by the european power such as France, English (this is to represent the International rental arrangement back then). Of course they don't rent the whole city but I guess thats the only way to simulate a present of small foreign army in china.:king:

Hmm.. oh.. so I see now why so many people support the communist government at that time. I wonder what would have happened if mao was influenced by democracy though.. But maybe he was influenced by communism due to the "people having equal status" issue

But I guess China will be a pretty split up nation especially since the Japanese took whole portions of it in 1938-1945, but still had gaps in the Empire, leaving some Chinese cities still not in Japanese control

Anyway, the news now is that the first patch will be released on Friday or the weekend, and I'm hoping it had scenario capabilities or at least, will be the leading to it eventually (well, they can't totally leave the scenarios out, can they?)

Mao is classic case of starting out with good intentions (but a naive view of human nature), only to be corrupted by power and eventually become an autocratic tyrant. "Same old story," as I said to Suharto and Mahathir.

Dark Sheer is right: 2 civs, who are 'annoyed' with each other but nonetheless have MPPs. As far as Right of passage and the european presence, it starts tocome unplayable. Maybe a better way of doing it would be to give the foreign powers ROP and trade agreements with the KMT (Nationalists) areas (flying tigers and all) but not The CCP. And if the game starts with the Japanese already in Manchuria, the citizens of their cities should be loyal to either the CCP or the KMT.

It would be interesting then, as an alternative history unfolds, to see if/how the europeans intervene in a civil war.

Just make sure Taiwan is on the map!

;)

i am im making one with a few new units the civs will be

1. germany : includes all axis nations in europe (for military strategy reasons including operation barbarossa
2. British Empire
3.USA
4.france
6. Benelux (belgium, and the netherlands as one country)
7.Norway
8.Soviet Union
9.Japan
10. China (united for strategic reasons)
11.Australia
12.Brazil (for flavor)
13. Spain

Originally posted by mfauzi
Hmm.. oh.. so I see now why so many people support the communist government at that time. I wonder what would have happened if mao was influenced by democracy though.. But maybe he was influenced by communism due to the "people having equal status" issue

But I guess China will be a pretty split up nation especially since the Japanese took whole portions of it in 1938-1945, but still had gaps in the Empire, leaving some Chinese cities still not in Japanese control

Anyway, the news now is that the first patch will be released on Friday or the weekend, and I'm hoping it had scenario capabilities or at least, will be the leading to it eventually (well, they can't totally leave the scenarios out, can they?)

America actually had supported the communists a great deal, and could've gone farther if it was not for the incompetent of an american ambassador the US had. Who would know how much China would've changed from American influence...

Yeah I hope the patch also makes it better for scenario creating.

Actually, it has, to an extent. China has a free market and somewhat capitalist system

I'm talking about China changing way before they opened up.

Now are we just going to continue to discuss and discuss without something fruitful. Lets don't be the NATO (No Action, Talk Only:D ) and starts come up with something workable for this scenario.

I would suggest anyone who is interested in making this scenario come alive starts to contribute something to this thread and whoever started this thread can then detach the files and put it up on the first post. Or alternatively, I can post them up on my domain server and it will just be a download link on this forum:D

Things that I would suggest to work on:

1) Picture of the WWII leaders like Chiang (Chinese Nationalist), Yamamoto (Japanese), Churchil (England) so someone can work on the leader files.

2) A tech tree for the WWII era

3) Some good source of WWII photo for those fighters, bombers and tanks so someone can work on the flc

4) Ideas on units. This I believe is crucial as we are talking about WWII and thus we can practically remove tons of original units and create some new ones (Zero for Japanese, Spitfire for the English, Hellcat for the American, Stukka, Me202 for the Germans etc)

I believe to make a WWII scenario with Civ3 is a big project (considering all the flc for the units alone:eek: ) and if we want to make a good one then a small team will need to come together to make it works. Anyone got anything to comment ? Or better still, start contributing??:D

Great idea. It is about time someone made a worldwar II mod for civ3.

In the european part of the map, you might want to put a lot of detail into the eastern front(wich was the bigger front). Also if you want to, i can help you to contribute to some of the tech tree.
There are other people avalible on the net that could give you more information(check out the guys on the forum at www.skalman.nu).

These pages might be of some help also:
the Axis Biographical research at http://www.geocities.com/~orion47/

The history net at
http://history.about.com/

you could also ripoff some of the graphics from the old "panzer general" game..
http://panzergeneral.net/

And the main site for any modern war history:
www.skalman.nu

Regards
/Kastchei

i'd like to offer some assistance... not that good at graphical work, but i can program a bit (if a scripting language comes out), and designing units/stats/tech trees etc. We need as much pplz as we can get i guess

perhaps it might also be a good idea to check at apolyton, so they won't work on the same as us seperately (although it would allow for some competition :D

we might also need (a lot of) new improvements, and perhaps wonders. Also a lot of improvements might need to be scrapped, or made unbuildable, for example, a city like paris might have a temple and a cathedral, but if the germans conquer it, they are not going to build a temple there to make the french happy (and neither are the french gonna do it when they get paris back :)

also, no one is gonna build things like hoover's dam, and the seti project when in a wartime

in place of that there would have to come something different to replace these things though.

also, new wonders would have to be designed (and the manhattan project would have to be a small wonder :) )


<edit>

i don't think it will be a very big tech tree though... most of the developments are too small to allow any new buildings or units ingame, IMO

</edit>

well... let's begin with a few units :)

standard riflemen for every civ

(better) paratroopers for the US, UK

u-boot for the germans, bigger range and attack perhaps

a landing vehicle of some sort which allows every unit in it to land like a marine but with an attack penalty(when they did landings at omaha etc these beaches were being heavily guarded, but they broke through eventually)

spitfires for the UK

zeros for the Japanese

stuka divebomber for the germans (not so good attack and defence, but a great bombard value)

some kind of jet fighter for the germans, i believe this one was just not produced because of problems with the factories and hitler stopped funding the program. Should be available with some kind of late game tech)

better defence infantry for the japanese

V2 missiles (immobile, can only be built at a city which has a certain improvement)


tiger tank for the germans (better attack, defence)

shermans for the US (worse stats, but a lot cheaper)

ss stormtroopers for germany

commandos for the UK (and US perhaps)

better (faster movement perhaps) tanks for the russians

better naval units for the UK

b-52 bombers



some kind of coastal fortress that can be built on any coastal tile, not just in a city

resistance in a city which has been captured, which the original owner can control (like when a city is taken over, a spy is automatically planted in it, which you can use for info gathering, sabotage, and such)

railroad should be removed. we have train stations for that (read below txt). They are too much of an advantage for the germans (who can defend with all their units on both sides of their area at once) and for the USSR, who can move all units they produce to their front lines at once


train stations should replace airports. Most transport was done by trains there, and this also solves the problem that railroad is too much of an advantage for a nation which is under attack.
The only problem i see is that you might not be able to let a train station work like a airport, but only on the same continent


no or hardly no cultural takeovers. Not logical in such a short timeframe, and not logical if a large german city revolts cos they just love the english so much :lol:

submarines have a bombardment abilty (they also have that in my mod, and it works great), but can only target ships

destroyers can see subs

fighters can see subs


bombardment can kill ships (sea, air AND land units. the land bombardment units would represent the coastal defence, which they also used artillery for a lot.


now my inspiration has run dry for the moment, so someone else may continue on these ideas

<edit>

btw, what do you think is better??? a whole earth scenario, or 2
(europe and pacific) seperate ones??

with one big you get a more realistic game, the bigger picture, with countries needing to defend their colonies and supply lines, cos what if the germans managed to keep blocking the supply lines from the US to the UK with their subs, perhaps they would have won the war then.

The problem is that you get a less detailed map, and less detailed battles and such. the ardennes will for example be only 2 or 3 terrain squares, and the channel will be 1 or 2 coastal squares, which doesn't really allow for a naval superiority there (and also abuse, like the germans dumping 1 battleship and 2 destroyers in the channel, and effectively blocking the english fleet



buildings/wonders/improvements/misc:

forced labor camps: increase production, decrease happyness ??

manhattan project, allows only the civ who built it to build nukes (small wonder)



nukes (should be an air unit, more like a bomber converted to carry nukes, still a one shot item, but at least now you can intercept it with AirSup (which is logical IMO ). Should be pretty expensive.

something like theatre, cinema, to keep the pplz at home happy (which happened a lot in the us, especially during the early years of the war, even though the US was involved (sort of))

should leaders spawn during the war, or should we just give every civ a few leaders to start with, and they have to do it with that. The last option seems more logical, since we are going to do a pretty realistic scenario, and to keep it a bit balanced

leaders can only create armies, they can't rush wonders (this should be obvious).


different defence bonuses and penalties for different units and different terrain (did you know btw that you can give a negative defence penalty to terrains?? can be pretty useful)

what i mean is that infantry defending vs tanks on a plain should in favor of the tank, but infantry defending vs tanks in a mountain should be very much in the favor to the infantry. If it was tank vs tank in the mountains they should both have about the same chances though (simply stated, tanks get a penalty in certain terrain (and a bonus in others) , and infantry get bonuses and penalties in certain terrain. You'd have to do this for every unit.

also, perhaps, certain units should get bonuses vs other specifical units, destroyers or subhunters getting an attack and defence bonus vs subs, fighters a HUGE bonus vs subs, infantry getting a penalty vs fighters, etc etc.


allow (certain) units to shoot back at air units when they are attacked

allow fighters to escort bombers, so that when a fighter intercepts a bomber, it starts combat with a fighter, if it survived it starts a fight with the next fighter, until there are no fighters available, then it can attack the bomber (or perhaps it just attacks a random unit every time so that it's not certain that it will never attack the bomber, it's just that every fighter added to the escort will lower that chance)

this would require you to group air units, should not be really hard (i hope :) )

allow leaders to form armies from ships

let units in armies keep their specific abilities (like seeing subs, carry units, blitz, etc) except a few (like paradrop, treat all units like roads(for obvious reasons) The abilities do NOT apply to the entire army then, but only to the unit. So if you have an army of 2 tigers and one infantry, the army would have blitz (but only when the tanks would be attacking) and when the army was attacked by a fighter, the infantry could shoot back at the fighter (presuming infantry has AA capabilities, would possibly another unit, but just to make it clear)

</edit>

There is an exelent site with Axis units from the Heer, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine at http://home.inreach.com/rickylaw/dictatorship/index.html . I strongly recomend it.

for submarines(or U-boats) there is http://uboat.net/

also if not mentioned before, there is http://www.achtungpanzer.com/

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ has some sovjet tank information.

http://www.warlinks.com/
has a british focus on the war.

and if i ahve not said this before:
DO NOT concentrate on the Allies vs Axis war. the Western front was the less important front of the war. The outcome of the war was decided by the outcome of the eastern front.
Popular movies often portray the western front and forget about the eastern(when infact 90% of all axis losses were on the east front). Please do not do the same misstake. :(

hope this will be a great scenario.

Regards.

Here is some idea for the tech tree:

I would agree that everyone starts with Infantry. However, since we are eliminating lots of older units, I was thinking of giving the major power their unique units. If we are talking about infantry, perhaps we should consider the SS unit, perhaps even some Panzergrenadiers;)

As to the tech tree, I was thinking like engine upgrades, armor upgrades (US starts with say Thunderbolt [losing touch on WWII hardware, haven't played a decent WWII game in a while:p ] and with better enjine they get say Hellcat). As to better armor, it means a better tank (example: german upgrade from Panzer I/II to a Tiger, British from a Matilda to a Churchil:D ) Also, rocketry is a must for the tech and Tactical Missle change to V2 :king:

And we definitely must split the war into two theater as even a 256x256 world map is too small a full scale WWII scenario. With the theater split into two we will get a giant size map of Europe/North Africa and Japan/China/South East Asia:D

For a full scenario the year should begin at 1937, just before Japan invade China. The best is if we can make a turn = 1 week rather than a year:cool:

yeah, if 1 turn= 1 year, then the whole war would last 6 turns... although this would be nice for the pplz who like quick games, it would be over a bit fast :D


now that's blitzkrieg.. how to conquer the world and lose it again in 6 turns :D :D :D

The turns should go month by month... If it is possible, else what is the point in WWII scenarios, even worse - some of the modern wars like the gulf war!

If possible ?? Winter months should perhaps not produce so much food from grasslands etc?

thxs for redirecting the whole thread

its great everyone putting forth their ideas

Hmm.. wouldn't using UUs cause a golden age everytime the unit won? Imagine Germany going into golden age everytime one of their panzers win!

BTW, I hope it's possible to put it on a month-by-month basis for the turns, otherwise we'll just start from 1, then it's turn 1,2,3... but it wouldn't be as interesting though..

And I think it's better to split the map into 2 theatres.. you can have even more cities and the map will even be more detailed. Hope we can use much less corruption though, don't think it would be a positive effect if there's too much corruption :)

And culture still might be a good use.. like for example Italy's revolt during WWII

I was playing WWII scenarios both Euro-africa and Asia-america
and I liked them. They were not complicated, there was no or few new units but anyways they were ok. I think it is important to make the scenarios playable, It will be very hard to make it very realistic and playable at one time. Playing WWII scenario I was having fun for example playing as spain and defending from axis hehe, when you will make the scenarios too realistic it wouldnt be possible because as spain I started will nearly no army. So make the scenario fun to play unless you want to make it very realistic but there should be 2 WWII scenarios then 1 for realism and other just to play and defeat german as spain :lol:
I was emailed today that there is a new patch, will it be able to make scenarios with it?

Those scenarios euro-africa and asia-america were CivII scenarios i diditn mention heh

I think it'd be more fun to have a world map World War II (despite the waiting...and waiting...and waiting...). I mean, it certainly does make diplomacy more complicated which is always fun, and we difinitely have the national slots for it. We should use the ability.

I think seperate Europe and pacific scenarios would be the only way to go, a world map war woulden't get very detailed... It would also be great if each nation had specific looking units, so that a russian infanterist didn't look the same as an english etc. It would also be great with lots of units, I mean different tanks, ships etc. I would also think that some of german units should be better than most of the others, the disadvantage of the germans should be the numbers, the allies should realy outnumber the axis. For the russians I would love it if the infantry was very cheap. But it should be so that allies could use eachothers territory and cities, so that US forces can have units in british cities etc.

I would also like it if the scenario starts when germany allready have occupied norway, denmark, poland etc. (1941?). Germany was at its peak, and it would be a hard challenge to winning the game with the axis powers. That way it would be more open slots to all the neutral countries, Spain could perhaps be a bit positive towards germany, as could sweden, perhaps even turkey?

US should have a large fleet at the start of the game, so that they have a chance of a big influence at the start of the scenario, would be realy dull if we had to build lot's of transports before getting troops across. Perhaps US could hold Iceland aswell, I believe they had troops stationed there during the war?

BTW The euro scenario should perhaps include africa aswell, so that if a european country like France, Britain etc falls, it would still have cities (colonies) left.

--- I realy miss those scenarios from CIV II, especially WWI and WWII or even the american civil war... Shame they took that away from us, in my opinion the best of civilization II was the scenarios, have never liked "fake" maps.

Anybody who has played civ 3 using the World map and full civs will know just how long one turn takes. Seperate scenarios would be quicker. I thought Iceland was overun by the British to prevent the Nazi's from using it as an invasion post....

Alright folks, wish me luck with Flicster and Animation Shop:p

I will try to work on the zero fighter for the next few days. Since this is my first attempt I will try to mess with the files here and there to see what result will I get :D

I have manage to find a mock-up for zero at the Tamiya modelling site (see image attached). The question is what was the color of the plane? I know some Japanese fighters are green while some are white if I remember correctly, whats the color of zero?? Any input will be great.

Blackadder : yes, iceland was occupied by british troops after germany overun denmark and norway in 1940 and U.S. took over the defence in 1941 till the end of the war I think.

1940 is probably the best starting date or at least start with polland occupied (and split between russia and germany), baltic states occupied and winter war over.

I too think that two separate scenarios would be better than whole world war in one scenario, there can be only 16 countries in scenario anyway at one time.

Also most of the countries should have own contry specifig units (is there limit to number of unit/improvement/wonder types in game/scenario?), but many normal unit types should be available for all (basic infantry, light armour, basic fighter, basic bomber etc.).

War exaustion should be eliminated and replaced by something else (german unability to build its best infantry etc units in later part of the war and so on)

There are plenty of problems tought :
Editor lacks most things needed for scenario creation
(no event creation, placement of units, cities etc.)

Airwar cant be simulated effectively with the new air war system (no doc fights between fighters, no fighter escords, no sinking of ships with bombers. ground and sea units unability to damage aircrafts, etc. [is it true there's no airfields either?!])

note that I dont have the game yet and will not waste my money on it until bugs are fixed and game includes scenario editor with ALL PROMISSED and needed features/functions.

Oops, miss the image :blush:

the navy Zeros were white and the ground attack air force zeros were dark olive.

The Japanese Army Air Force never had Zekes. They flew Oscars. Which were no where neer as good as the Zero (Zeke).

It might have had something to do with land-based naval fighter squadrons vs. carrier based naval fighter squadrons(?). And why white disapeared towards the end of the war (no more carriers).

My opinion is that at least 3 scenarios have to be made:

1. Eastern front - starting in June 1941, optimized for the Soviets, played on an Eastern Europe/Western USSR map (like Red Front)
2. General WWII European Theatre, starting in Spring 1940, optimized for Germany, played on a Europe/Middle East/Northern Africa map
3. Pacific Theatre - optimized for USA, played on an Asia-Pacific/USA map, starting in Dec 1941

It is very hard to make scenarios which are optimized for all players, so the best bet is to have separate scenarios for each of the major players, set in the theatre in which the given country was involved the most.

For a scenario to be interesting there needs to be some continuous action going on - that is why WWII scenarios in Civ2 designed to be played by Britain tend to be boring - you just sit on the island for 5 years, engaging in a couple of fully event-driven campaigns which do not decide anything.

The three scenario possibilities for scenarios outlined above would ensure constant action the outcome of which is fully determined by the human player.

The problem with limited theatres is that no represcussions are echoed into the next theatre (i.e. Japan launches devastating attack on U.S.A. would have an effect on north Africa and Europe). I always hate complicated wars where you have c1 at war with c3 and c5, which c4 is at war with c1 and c3, and c2 is at war with c5 and c4. Yech!

Hmm.. If the scripting is anything like Civ2 (I haven't fiddled with it yet), then it would be possible to lay down down some time periods, where you say "Now it's December 1941, Japan declare war on these nations and vice versa". Of course, you need to calculate which round it will be and so on.

I still remember the evening I spent 5 hours typing up an events.txt for one of the popular WW2 Mods for Civ2, meaning that I was almost able to make the entire WW2 unfold on its own, all owning to my events.txt telling each nation what to do in each turn :D

I played in CivII WWII scenario as Britain and it was interesting, and there should be a scenario in which the game will be interesting when you choose diffrent countries, not just for axis but for every country(neutrals also). So dont make diffrent scenarios for diffrent countries make it the same way as in civII.

In order to make a scenario challenging, the AI has to be 'helped' - so for example in Red Front, the Germans were made much stronger than they really were, so that the Soviet (human player) side has a very big challenge.

Similarly, in scenarios where the human player is supposed to be Axis, the allies are made much more powerful than they were, again to make the game more challenging for the human players.

This was done because the AI does not 'know' that it supposed to fight a fierce war, and so if not for extensive help through events and otherwise, the scenario would suck.

So with Civ2 AI it was hard to make a scenario optimised for all nations, since the AI player had to be helped.

Since we don't have any scenario-building tools in Civ3, it is hard to tell how the Civ3 AI will behave in a scenario. From standard games I can say that the AI is more willing to fight large wars with large forces than in Civ2.

So we just have to wait until scenario tools for Civ3 are shipped...

Other than the obvious already stated here... some of the lesser nations in a WW2 scenario should be: Switzerland, Poland, Spain (involved in its own civil war), Egypt (just because of the Suez canal), Austrailia (for the Pacific Theather) and the Phillipines, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Argentina (which harbors the Nazi's who want to get away yet remains "neutral"..
just my 2 centavos
:D

some terrain improvement ideas:

minefields-
only visable to the player who built them.
when enemy enters mined square they get affected as if they had been bombarded by a cannon.
probably hard to do on a map covering several countries/continents. Only viable on small scale maps.

airfields-
bring back the good old airfields. otherwise its not possible for nations like the US to use other countries, such as the UK, as stations for air units.

railroads-
is it possible to make railroads less effective rather than scrapping them altogether?
maybe they only give units a 6fold move increase rather than infinite.

Also...
i reckon a single theatre would be ideal, but is far too hard to implement without each turn taking an eternity. Therefore i think two theatres is the best option.

How big maps are actually possible? If it is a WHOLE WORLD scenario it has to be huge.... I prefer a european and a pacific and I would want them to be huge too, as huge as possible.

But this is supposed to be a war scenario, what about making settlers realy expensive, that way perhaps it's not that reasonable to just burn cities to the ground, if the AI understand that though.

If at all possible, it should be impossible to burn cities with size 3 and above to the ground, it is a terrible act of war to kill so many civilians.

If someone is doing a whole world scenario, some countries should belong to others, like only just one AXIS force + japan, Australia, South Africa, Canada etc. should just be Britain. Then start the game late so that some countries are allready fallen into the Axis hands.

the germans (and the russian to a lesser extent) burned down enough cities...

For a WW2 scenario, why have settlers at all? Workers are perfect. It's just too bad custom Combat Engineer units would fail to be used correctly by the A.I.

Originally posted by KloePoek
the germans (and the russian to a lesser extent) burned down enough cities...

true but they did not kill the population so in game terms that would probably be described by selling all improvements.

If there wont be any settlers then no city should be destroyable as there's no way to rebuild em..

Perhaps the settlers should just be realy expensive? Agree with the post above me, "scorched earth" tactic was not about killing millions of civilians as you do in the game. This is perhaps the feuture I dislike most in Civ III, the constant burning down when AI captures a city

You also got to remember some of the population decline is when the citizens flee away from the city itself from invaders.

true but they did not kill the population so in game terms that would probably be described by selling all improvements.

I hope you were refering to just the Russians. Many towns did vanish as did 20 million people. Hitler often claimed that he would raze Leningrad to the ground, along with Moscow (IIRC).

The other point I want to make is why would you even want Settlers in a WW2 scenarion? Any city you make will be terribly unproductive and bare. And to make them extra expensive on top of that? Again, I don't think there's any need for them.

And to Dark Sheer, good luck with the Zero. THAT might just look frickin' nice!:viking:

Originally posted by Toni1


true but they did not kill the population so in game terms that would probably be described by selling all improvements.

If there wont be any settlers then no city should be destroyable as there's no way to rebuild em..


hmmm... naah, not really... they just burned down a LOT of cities and villages in russia they conquered, esp deep in the mainland, because they were of no value for them

Just felt like I had to say this:

Denmark was in no way connected with Germany/Austria. We were invaded by them.

perhaps it should be set that only cities below a certain size,
e.g 8, can be burned down.
This would mean that you wouldnt have to manage little worthless cities which do nothing except add to your corruption levels.

I'm making a WW2 MOD right now.

And in just a couple of days (maybe tomorrow), will there be a Scenario for it. With cities placed correctly, units placed etc.

You can play the Version 2.0 of my mod now if you like.

Get it here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18078

I haven't read through all of this thread.
Just, in case no-one else has said it, you just can't make a real WW2 mod right now, because the editing tools don't exist.
There's no tool that lets you set up every city right where it would be nice, put in all the techs you want, add just the right improvements to each city, etc, unless you feel like playing as every civ there is with a saved-game editor, every turn, until you build up the world the way you want it. It would take you a lot of hours just to get cities in the right places.

Until we get the kind of tools we got for Civ2, I don't see how this all can really happen.

---

err, just read GreyFox.
I guess so.
Please new-topic a bit of info for us on how you did it, maybe? thanks.