its been planned for a while and there are still a few problems in it im sure
but for the most part it works pretty well.....

kept me entertained for a while anyway.....

enjoy....

any criticisms, improvements or comments are appreciated...

cheers

Downloaded and looked around a bit, but didn't play much yet. Looks really good. The complete lack of railways, or even roads is a major problem for the Soviets. You should at least give some roads between some of the cities. Also I don't see France as much of a problem. Not much point in them. Also found that the Americans are more than willing to give up their cities. Most of these things i've mentioned aren't actually problems though. Thank you for making this scenario, I have been waiting months for a WWII scenario.

possibilities of a succesful cold war scenario on the way....

cheers for the comments!

Brilliant! I cannot wait to go home, download it, and start playing it. Any possibility of posting a screen shot or two?

hope these are good enough.....

just took a quick few as i am a wee bit busy at the mo

also sorry if there a bit small but the filesizes are doing me out of good sized screen shots! :mad:

they should give you all the details etc that your looking for hopefully.....

It looks fantastic, congratulations on a job well-done.

Looks good. I've been waiting for a WWII scenario since a few days after the game came out. And, since WWII: Small, Fast, and Beautiful for IV isn't coming out anytime soon, this will be a very welcome new mod. :goodjob:

I'll post later after I play for awhile and tell you what I think

Okay, I'll just post comments as I go through the game.
You have a great scenario here, with a fantastic and detailed map. Please take the following comments as suggestions and not criticism, and keep in mind that many of these are opinion-based, so I understand if you don't agree with me on those.

I'm playing as Mussolini, Chieftan Difficulty, Quick Gamespeed

- I noticed you don't have any custom leaders. I could easily make a few static ones. Should I make those and then send them to you? You'd then have to make it into a true mod, but I don't think that would be a problem.
- The first turn, for me at least, was very long and was really just a series of fortifications and automations. My suggestion would be to have all those infantry that are in the cities already fortified (or at least one fortified per city). Also, I would suggest just having all workers preset to automated, considering all essential resources are already available at the start of the game.
- On the second turn, Hitler converted to Christianity, which is incredibly historically inaccurate. Hitler was very resistant to religion because a God would take away from people's fait in their Fuhrer. Is there a way to make Hitler resistant to religion in the scenario?
- Free France was destroyed by Hitler on the third turn. I'm not entirely sure if you should make Free France stronger in defence, or just remove them.
- I know that some of these edits may not be possible due to a number of factors, I just wanted to point everything out so you know what could be improved. Btw, I know I've been sounding very critical, but I really am having fun with the scenario :D.
- I'd strongly suggest new flags. I have both an Italian and a German flag that I think would be great for the scenario. I can post them later if you'd like.

- I'm taking up a lot of forum space here, so this will be my last comment. For America, the leader is FDR. There is an FDR leaderhead prepackaged with the game. So, why are you using Washington? But anyway, I just wanted to say that this really is a fun scenario, and is a much needed first Civ IV WWII scenario. Great work!

Looks cool i'll try and play it tomorrow or wednesday

cheers....the additions will be greatly appreciated

glad yall like it

cold war scenario on the way

- On the second turn, Hitler converted to Christianity, which is incredibly historically inaccurate. Hitler was very resistant to religion because a God would take away from people's fait in their Fuhrer. Is there a way to make Hitler resistant to religion in the scenario?

Ummm, hate to break it to you, but from the historical accounts I read, Hitler received vital political support from conservative Christian Germans early on that helped him take control of Germany.

Hitler's own words: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

There are no small countries (civs) in your scenario :(

Ummm, hate to break it to you, but from the historical accounts I read, Hitler received vital political support from conservative Christian Germans early on that helped him take control of Germany.

Hitler's own words: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Yeah. Hitler, like Mussolini, made a Concordat(sp?) with the Pope. Christianity would be the state religion, as long as the Vatican gave its support to their regimes. Something like that anyway.

Been playing as the Soviets a bit and have encountered difficulties. The complete lack of any roads is a major problem. You have no resources, so cannot build any tanks or planes. Even if you did though, the fact that all the cities except from Moscow is level 1, and most have no workers in them, means that you can't build anything in you cities anyway.

Basicly all I am asking for it a new version would be roads between at least some of the cities, with roads to resources as well. Also if some of the other cities were larger and had land improvements already.

There are British, Fascist Italian and Nazi flags in the Desert War scenario, simply copy them to games root and hex-edit the scenario.

already tried the above for the flags and it didnt want to work

will take comments into cosideration and ammend accordingly for version 2

Hmm, I will soon try it myself.

Ummm, hate to break it to you, but from the historical accounts I read, Hitler received vital political support from conservative Christian Germans early on that helped him take control of Germany.

Hitler's own words: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

If you think Hitler was Christian or that Nazi Germany was a christian state you better keep reading...

Thank you for making this scenario gerbilmuncher!

Keep tweaking it!

We desperately need a WW2 Mod, and this is a great start. I want to see from Normandy all the way through to Berlin. Good stuff!

John

that Nazi Germany was a christian state...

What is a christian state?

For the religion piece. Germany and the Soviet Union never had a "state religion" but did use religion to gain power and control. Hitler through the Pope to gain "acceptance" from a large population of christians and Stalin through the Orthodox church to manipulate religion for his liking. You can argue either way, pending point of view.

I will give the mod a try later today (hopefully). I am very curious to see if there are specific units for each nation. There is so much that could be done, for example:

- English fighters (Spitfires): though not technologically better, they had better pilots, suggest an extra promotion.
- Russian tanks (T-39,42, etc): better armor and more firepower than the Panzer (till the Tiger came along), suggest increased strength by one or two.
- Russia by '42 outproduced the Germans but otherwise very limited, suggest slowing Russian productivity till factories are built and mines constructed in the Urals.
- Russian infantry: mass produced but very ill equiped, suggest lowering construction cost but either lowering strength or limiting features.
- Panzers: best mobile tanks in the war (overall) and much better experience, you can go many ways with this one.
- US bombers: overall much stonger and with a higher payload than any other country, you can go many ways with this one too.

These are but some ideas. Probably too early to throw those out, but I'm a WWII buff, couldn't help myself.

Good ideas, although I think you meant Panther instead of Panzer. Panzer is simply the German word for tank. The Panther was the Pz V (roman numeral 5) and was arguably the best tank of the war, and more than a match for any T34 except the T34/85 with the 85mm gun. The 76mm gun simply could not penetrate the Panther's frontal armor reliably, whereas the Panther could pop any tank in the Soviet arsenol, including the IS2 and IS3 Stalin tanks (which were the heaviest Russian tanks). The T34 was also an excellent tank in general, and more mobile than German heavy tanks due in part to the Christie suspension.

If you intend to make custom armor units, the most common German armor unit should be the Pz IV, with the Panther being better but more expensive and taking longer to produce. For the Russians, the T34 is the best choice. American Shermans should have less strength, but possibly one higher movement and should be the cheapest MBT to produce. As for German Tigers, the early Tiger suffered from severe mechanical problems. It had the heaviest armor, but the Sovs managed to defeat Tigers in their first outing at Kursk by driving literally right up to them and firing point-blank. The later King Tiger, which came too late to see action in Russian, had the heaviest armor of all, as well as mounting the superb 88mm gun, and was the final step of German tank evolution in WW2 (well, the Panther 2 and the Maus would have been even more advanced, but they never made it to production before Berlin fell).

Making Russian infantry cost less but have less strength is a good idea IMO and a good way to model the superior raw manpower of the Soviet army.

Does anyone remember "Storm Over Europe" from CIV III? That scenario had the most complete listing of WWII units I have ever seen in any game (a close second is El Justo's "The Cold War").

Please excuse my ignorance, but what happens to be the issue with producing units for CIV IV? I recognize that re-skining a unit is relatively simple, but why has it been such slow going on new units?

And by the way, this scenario has a lot of potential and I can't wait till version 1.2.

unfortunately i am a bit too un educated to create all of these custom units, flags etc.....if you want to make them yourself and send them to me ill do my best to include them in version 2....cheers

Please excuse my ignorance, but what happens to be the issue with producing units for CIV IV? I recognize that re-skining a unit is relatively simple, but why has it been such slow going on new units?



I have been wondering about that myself. I have not seen a single
new mech, aircraft or warship unit that was not just a re-skin job.
(I have seen some infantry-type units).
Painting meatballs on a Spitfire doesn't make it a Zero!

Civ 4 has a very long way to go to achive the modding possibilties
of Civ 3.

This scenario so far as lots of potential to be a great scenario. Lots of work to be done yet though.

Speaking of Storm Over Europe, were you ever able to actually play that scenario? It was impressive, but just too big to be fun, unless all that mattered was having access to a complete inventory of all warring parties in WW2.

Civ4 holds the potential, due to events and moddablity, to really make a WW2 scenario entertaining to play. When the SDK is released in a few days (weeks) I expect to see an explosion of mods.

The WW2 scenario "ww2, small fast and beautiful" is off to a good start too, with unique units and promotions already. You two may want to compare notes.

I'd like to see a WW2 scenario start in 1933, when Hitler comes to power, since its arguable that the war was inevitible at that point.

Dear Wotan,

I did manage to play "Storm Over Europe", it was incredible and incredibly difficult. I got to some point in 1941 before it up and crashed for good.

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is the "SDK"?

If the scenario was to start in 1933, how could someone script events like Italy invading Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War, Anschluss with Austria, remilitarization of the Rhineland, and the annexation of the Czech part of what was once Czechoslovakia? If those events could be played out, then the scenario would be truly amazing. But, you do have a good point. Starting in 1933 gives time to arm and attempt diplomacy to prolong the outbreak of war.

If you think Hitler was Christian or that Nazi Germany was a christian state you better keep reading...

I did and it was, apparantly you missed it because, like raping choir boys, its just something swept under the rug and not talked about because, my goodness, pointing out the vile, evil actions of the church is heresy. I don't know what you are smoking to think Christianity is peaceful or just. Torture Jews over and over again in the Inquisition, and again when Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic and many historians agree that is where he got his extreme anti-semitism.

Settle down.

I think you've got me all wrong. I'm an agnostic, and was not defending the church. It just doesn't seem accurate to me that Nazi Germany should adopt Christianity as it's religion in this scenario. I own and have read quite a bit of WW2 history, and no historian I can recall has characterized Hitler as being influenced much by Christianity, or much of anything else other than megalomania, let alone adopting a missionary attitude of spreading Christianity throughout the world.

In Civ, the main function of religion is to be propulgated around the globe to increase the happiness of your population. When I look at Nazi Germany, that's not what I see. Hitler may have claimed Christianity, but his practice of it was certainly a perversion of it, not a typical example IMO.

Good ideas, although I think you meant Panther instead of Panzer. Panzer is simply the German word for tank. The Panther was the Pz V (roman numeral 5) and was arguably the best tank of the war, and more than a match for any T34 except the T34/85 with the 85mm gun. The 76mm gun simply could not penetrate the Panther's frontal armor reliably, whereas the Panther could pop any tank in the Soviet arsenol, including the IS2 and IS3 Stalin tanks (which were the heaviest Russian tanks). The T34 was also an excellent tank in general, and more mobile than German heavy tanks due in part to the Christie suspension.

If you intend to make custom armor units, the most common German armor unit should be the Pz IV, with the Panther being better but more expensive and taking longer to produce. For the Russians, the T34 is the best choice. American Shermans should have less strength, but possibly one higher movement and should be the cheapest MBT to produce. As for German Tigers, the early Tiger suffered from severe mechanical problems. It had the heaviest armor, but the Sovs managed to defeat Tigers in their first outing at Kursk by driving literally right up to them and firing point-blank. The later King Tiger, which came too late to see action in Russian, had the heaviest armor of all, as well as mounting the superb 88mm gun, and was the final step of German tank evolution in WW2 (well, the Panther 2 and the Maus would have been even more advanced, but they never made it to production before Berlin fell).

Making Russian infantry cost less but have less strength is a good idea IMO and a good way to model the superior raw manpower of the Soviet army.

In terms of production, once the PZV was being made, it was actually being produced in greater numbers than the PZIV. The only advantage the PZIV had was that it was being built earlier in the war, though of course some of the earlier stuff wouldn't be used in battles anyway. It certainly took more material to make a PZV but they were actually out-pacing PZIV production in the same years. Some of the PZIV factories had probably been re-tooled to switch to PZV instead. So, on a tank-for-tank basis I can't disagree, necessarily, that the PZIV was easier to produce, I can just tell you it wasn't produced as much. IOW, the Panther didn't fall into the 'rare' category and once getting produced had the heaviest total for tank production each year. The only thing out-stripping it's production was the assault gun class (not a tank technically).

What about religion - Stalin tried only to destroy orthodoxal church, because it was against bolsheviks' power and christian ideology was a rival of bolsheviks' one.

But your mod is great one, really. I would recommend you to make 'communism' an official religion for the U.S.S.R. and 'fascism' for Hitler's Germany

SDK = Software Developer Kit. Its supposed to be released any day now... it will allow folks to create new meshes for new units and alter the games programming. Hopefully it will also include all the info needed to create events more easily, and allow developers to create programs to easily mod.

As for the various civs religions, since all religions act the same in the generic game, who cares. Civics options are more important since they already do something. But perhaps religions in this mod could substitue for ideology, since Fascism and Bolshevism were dedicated to the other's destruction.

SDK = Software Developer Kit. Its supposed to be released any day now... it will allow folks to create new meshes for new units and alter the games programming. Hopefully it will also include all the info needed to create events more easily, and allow developers to create programs to easily mod.

Not to mention adding new models, hopefully.

Painting meatballs on a Spitfire doesn't make it a Zero

Until SDK comes out all that can be done is reskinning. You are right though.

Kushan

great start! Looking foward to more custom units

- Free France was destroyed by Hitler on the third turn. I'm not entirely sure if you should make Free France stronger in defence, or just remove them.


- I'm taking up a lot of forum space here, so this will be my last comment. For America, the leader is FDR. There is an FDR leaderhead prepackaged with the game. So, why are you using Washington? But anyway, I just wanted to say that this really is a fun scenario, and is a much needed first Civ IV WWII scenario. Great work!

I dont often comment (as you can probably tell) as much as id like because of work and if I can post on here, then Iam not working hard enough according to management! However as this scenario kept me up till 2 am and I had to be up at 6am that shows how fantastic this scenario is.

HOWEVER I must agree with RMM on the France bit, I wanted to liberate the cities to give back to Du Galle but realised on about the 3rd or 4th go the Panzer brigade bumsmacked the whole civ..... So as a little bit of a tweak I made Cyprus I cant remember the city name French so its kind of like government in exile, that way the French survive at least for now, I've restarted so Iam not far in but hopefully my plan'll work, anyone else use this tactic and tell me how it goes!

Plus the other thing I wanted to say was how do you change leaderheads? I want FDR for america and Napoleon for the French......

Im making Cold War too, but i dont know where to post it. I also have some Modding questions. :confused:

1. How can I change the starting year... Ive founded that if I use edit city or edit unit mode there is possibility to change starting year. It didn´t work.
2. How to slow down? It´s almays goes 1 year/turn and no can do. =(
3. How can I make civilizations, units and stuff? I just can´t unpack those folders.

Thanks for good scenario! :crazyeye:

there was a guide for modding about somewhere....

best way to change the dates etc is through windows notepad in my experience
although if you mess something up it can really bite you in the ass....

pretty sure theres a downloadable guide on the forums here somewhere....very helpful.....

cant find it at the mo......

good luck with your scenario.....will prob continue working on my own for now

what is the size of this map?

s the Panther could pop any tank in the Soviet arsenol, including the IS2 and IS3 Stalin tanks (which were the heaviest Russian tanks).
Are you serious ? The Panther couldnt stand up to an IS2 or 3. One was a medium tank, the other was a super heavy tank that could take an 88 and not work up a sweat.

movement and should be the cheapest MBT to produce.
None of the tanks in WW2 were "mbt," Shermans, and T-34's were medium tanks.

Noticed that some cities in Norway was misplaced. ALL Norway cities should be on the left side of the moutains (and conected to the atlantic) not on the right side, there is sweden.
And by the way, why not add some Neutral nations like Sweden, Portugal, Swechiz, Turkey, Iceland and Irland.

Cyprus, Gibraltar and Middle East was controled by England.
Marocko, Alger and Tunis was kotrolled by France

noted and corrected for vrsn 2

anyone no how to make new civs for the neutral countries specified bove?

You could just make them ''barbarian'' states, with one or two cities. Switzerland for instance could have the city ''Bern'' somewhere in the mountains. Germany didn't invade them during the war.

The Irish Free State should be neutral, and not part of great britain.

Also I don't think that your geography in the British Isles is quite correct, the Isle of Man is too far north, and Ireland is a bit oddly shaped. I know that it can be a lot to keep track of though.

As above a lot of neutral countries haven't been implemented.

Maybe you could put all the neutral countries mentioned into one civ? Didn't they do that in the Civ 2 version of the scenario?

*Edit

Your scenario is by and all pretty good though! It's nice to see that you added cities like Douglas & John O' Groats!

Are you serious ? The Panther couldnt stand up to an IS2 or 3. One was a medium tank, the other was a super heavy tank that could take an 88 and not work up a sweat.


None of the tanks in WW2 were "mbt," Shermans, and T-34's were medium tanks.

Reread the quote you just made of him. He said a Panther could 'pop' those tanks, not stand up to them. IOW, it's gun was superior enough to go through most if not all the points of any given Soviet tank. BTW, the Panther didn't have an 88, it had a high-velocity 75L70 (which was actually better than the Tiger 88L56, but inferior to the King Tiger 88L71).

He didnt said the Panther had an 88, he just said that a IS 2 could fight one easily, as a comparision.

The Panther tank was designed specifically as a tank killer, hence the longer barrel (better rifling for range and accuracy). The Tiger was more of an 'all-purpose' tank, unfortunetely because of it's maintenance problems it became a very large 'bunker'.

I mentioned Panzer in the beginning in a reference to the whole. We can pick at each variant to our hearts delight but unfortunately that will do no good for the Civ IV.

None of the tanks in WW2 were "mbt," Shermans, and T-34's were medium tanks.

That is incorrect. All nations had main battle tanks. It may happen to be medium or assault tanks, depending on the countries strategy. The Pz III was Germany's early MBT, then it was Pz IV, T-34's to the T-42, it all depends on the country and year.

I played the scenario but was unable to reload after saving the game. Will continue to troubleshoot cause I really see much potential.

I have never seen a thread related to a ww2 scenario where the discussion didn't stray from creating a playable and enjoyable scenario to a debate over military hardware.

Once you've blathered on a while on the strengthes and weaknesses of every tank that saw the light of day during the late 30s and 40's, you'll need to move onto the debate "Iowa vs. Bismarck". That should take up a couple more pages of posts.... and then, we can get to "Hitler: Boxers or Briefs" :mischief: .

Meanwhile, how is this scenario progressing?

Definately briefs I'd say. Three sizes too small.

I have never seen a thread related to a ww2 scenario where the discussion didn't stray from creating a playable and enjoyable scenario to a debate over military hardware.
Once you've blathered on a while on the strengthes and weaknesses of every tank that saw the light of day during the late 30s and 40's, you'll need to move onto the debate "Iowa vs. Bismarck". That should take up a couple more pages of posts.... and then, we can get to "Hitler: Boxers or Briefs" :mischief: .


And it shall be called Wotan's Law, and it shall be good. ;)

He didnt said the Panther had an 88, he just said that a IS 2 could fight one easily, as a comparision.

The shell size and barrel calibre were merely background information. It was an attempt to confirm what the earlier poster said and infuse more data.

Actually, he said that the IS2 could "take an 88" and not work up a sweat. Actually it couldn't take an 88, not of the King Tiger variety anyway. The way he states it though, since he was talking about the Panther earlier, leads one to believe that the Panther had an 88, though of course he may had meant that the 88 was generally considered a superior gun to the Panther's 75. Indeed, there were plans for a future Panther, I think it was to be called Panther II if you can believe that (it doens't sound like German naming conventions of the 40's to me) and it would have had the King Tiger's 88L71 gun on it, which if that were the case the IS2 would be in more trouble than with the usual Panther 75.

I have never seen a thread related to a ww2 scenario where the discussion didn't stray from creating a playable and enjoyable scenario to a debate over military hardware.

Once you've blathered on a while on the strengthes and weaknesses of every tank that saw the light of day during the late 30s and 40's, you'll need to move onto the debate "Iowa vs. Bismarck". That should take up a couple more pages of posts.... and then, we can get to "Hitler: Boxers or Briefs" :mischief: .

Meanwhile, how is this scenario progressing?

Well some of us can't very much enjoy a game referring to WWII if it has all the accuracy of checkers (I personally have no idea if it is the case with this scenrio or not, but I shall be trying it later today. I personally don't expect too much, as most people just aren't into WWII that much, and to be serious about it would take more time than most people have. How serious can a CIV4 WWII game be anyway?). Some of this sort of thing you see, isn't so much that people demand this sort of accuracy in every WWII game, as of course the creator can call it WWII and have really nothing linked to WWII in it, apart from a few graphics, if he wants, but that some of it is just people clarifying misconceptions, which, in the long run, often goes just as far to get that scenario or the next one down the line into something more closely resembling WWII. Besides, some of us just like WWII.

I've played a bit of this scenario now, from the German side and at least in their case I've noticed some mistakes.

1. Despite England having 18 fighters and 24 bombers, Germany has NO fighters and 8 bombers. This is in Jan '41. This is a sizeable error because Germany is totally incapable of aerial defense, and only can use bombers out of range of enemy fighters (basically it's own territory) so any ground offensives such as in the USSR are impossible.

2. Though I only played the first two turns, I can see Germany probably has no hope of holding the East, as the USSR attacks and I must have seen 30 USSR tanks already. I'm not sure if the entire German army has that many. Germany also has very few infantry units and some of the cities are completely unmanned, but it matters little, as one USSR tank will take out a single infantry anyway.

3. Another problem is that Germany has no oil, yet she has oil units such as tanks and bombers. At first glance it looks as though the only hope for Germany to build any units it historically built is the hope that they can be gifted oil from Italy (which the Italians aren't even working on [no derrick built] - I sent some workers down there to try to get it operational). There's absolutely no hope of Germany getting oil from anywhere else as things stand, since Germany's force is too small and cannot build any more oil dependant units. Germany will lose a "minimum" of half it's tanks defending against the USSR attack, which of course means it will be on primitive units before the historical date of Operation Barbarossa even started.

So, in summary, the two largest problems with Germany is no fighters and no oil.

Besides, some of us just like WWII.

I'm there with you. I was overly snarky, maybe it was the coffee...maybe I was just rude. I commented because I do want to see a good Civ4 WW2 Europe scenario. I applaude accuracy in these scenarios, but I'm more interested in options such as promotions and technologies, so the scenario becomes more open to "what if" instead of simply replaying WW2 exactly as it happened. I'm much more interested in events and choices than I am about the gun sizes of various armored units.

Again I point back to the amazing Storm Over Europe scenario for Civ3. Unbelievable detail, every unit represented, and unplayable because of its size. So I don't want to see a WW2 scenario get bogged down in arguements over which unit should have more of this or that. One thing I liked about the Small, Fast and Beautiful WW2 scenario was the relative simplicity. That would be even more useful here, since promotions allow you to customize units more than you could in Civ3.

I'm there with you. I was overly snarky, maybe it was the coffee...maybe I was just rude. I commented because I do want to see a good Civ4 WW2 Europe scenario. I applaude accuracy in these scenarios, but I'm more interested in options such as promotions and technologies, so the scenario becomes more open to "what if" instead of simply replaying WW2 exactly as it happened. I'm much more interested in events and choices than I am about the gun sizes of various armored units.

Again I point back to the amazing Storm Over Europe scenario for Civ3. Unbelievable detail, every unit represented, and unplayable because of its size. So I don't want to see a WW2 scenario get bogged down in arguements over which unit should have more of this or that. One thing I liked about the Small, Fast and Beautiful WW2 scenario was the relative simplicity. That would be even more useful here, since promotions allow you to customize units more than you could in Civ3.

I don't know wotan321. At this point anyway, it's pretty simple when the Germans don't even have fighters and can't build them to boot. Must just be an oversight. I also recall the Germans commenced Operation Barbarossa with 180 divisions. Naturally the author isn't attempting this, and naturally each unit isn't supposed to represent a division, to say nothing of this being six months before the USSR was invaded. We need not get super accuracy and the author can do as he pleases, but we suggest in case he really is interested in makng it a bit more realistic. I'm not entirely sure my earlier take was completely accurate, nonetheless, if Germany has nothing like the sort of force you would envision for the time (or anybody else for that matter) which cannot be made up to par with the 6/22/41 Germans, because you don't have any oil, and then the USSR is attacking with very strong force to boot, that's quite a far leap from WWII. In fact it's much closer to 1/45 than 1/41.

Yeah, I know people start getting demanding a lot of times when people start making scenarios, but whether there's misunderstandings of whether the people are demanding, or suggesting, the simple fact of the matter is that it's just as stupid to pretend that there's nothing wrong with it although from some nation's perpectives it could be still enjoyable. Enjoyable in a fantasy way only though (such as WWII in 1/41 with Germany having NO oil and no fighters). A WWII where Germany can't even hold it's borders when it's at the height of it's power is quite a fundamental oversight. I suppose, in my case, I could go in and alter the forces a bit and add oil to Germany, but it does make me wonder just how massive that gets once you begin. I've only seen Germany for pete's sake. What if the other nations are much the same way? This way if everybody is playing random nations they can report the 'fundamental' flaws and it can be corrected with the most ease. It's not greatly historic, but at the same time it's not WWII with a nation being very inaccurately represented.

And one last thing, though we properly fear, that an engine like this cannot handle both historic accuracy and the common feel to CIV4, we in essence are the testors. Without giving the author feedback many of the scenarios are what they are claimed to be by virtue of using very spacious imagination indeed. As you said, you've seen better. Now, I can't recall if I played that CIV3 one you mentioned, but there was some problem with it for me, so I stopped playing it. I can't recall if it was lack of historic accuracy or lack of the ability to have it function like CIV3 does that drove me away (some scenarios drove me away either by their not loading properly or by the map being excessively busy). I personally think that with a CIV game, despite a scenario taking on something of the historic hue, that it's a bit ridiculous that people would bother to create units complete with proper divisional names. The reason I think that is because it's not anymore historic by it's use. I know that sounds strange to hear, but the fact of the matter is that divisions don't discentigrate as so many of our units do and none of the CIV games are adept at having somebody create every single division, or brigade, or any military unit, as they were in life, and then still have a CIV game out of it. CIV would work against such a desire, whereas such a desire for the precise amount of units would take away from CIV. That's why I like generic units, and frankly I don't much care for historic timelines either in the case of programmed events. I tend to care more if the game starts off with it's units with their relative power being accurate. The rest is pretty much fantasy and the CIV engine. But, as you can see, that's my problem with this game as it stands, as germany has a great weakness (and other nations may too). If there's any nations you cannot afford to get wrong (at the start only, as the CIV engine can change things drastically based on decisons ingame) in 1/41 it's Germany, the USSR, and Great Britain. The USA was so weak in 1/41 that getting them nothing more than a token force starting off, wouldn't be too inaccurate. We're just talking 'fundamental' things here, no great accuracy. You can't have fundamental flaws in a historic scenario, at least not at that start, and still call that even slightly historic. You might as well just start them all off even with one city if you have something as fundamentally flawed as the aggressor relugated to being a cowering wimp.

I'm sure if the author wants to make this more historic, he will gladly spot these flaws I mentioned, most notably the lack of fighters and the inability to build anything worthwhile (no oil), and correct them. That would make it at least taste a bit like WWII. If not, the game may be just as fun, just not very WWIIish. Unfortunately for me, I didn't load the game becaue I expected something more resembling a random setup than WWII. There's games you load ofr randomness, there's games you load for some flavor of history. It would be just as disappointing for the random game desire to see you've loaded the revolutionary war by mistake. Thanks.

thanks, great idea :)

I...

Plus the other thing I wanted to say was how do you change leaderheads? I want FDR for america and Napoleon for the French......

I gave a thougth to that one, Beirut and Damascus can be created as they belonged to the "Free" France, such a way Free France can be played before the certain took over of Vichy.

I enhanced the scenario rearranging Soviet Union that needs a strong geographic revision, and giving some roads, the result was overwhelming strength of the Soviets.

I would vote to give Iceland to USA, to give USA more activity in the game, and probably to create Sweden.

For the rest the lack of units doesn't make me feel very happy, but I understand that is the limitation of the game, if you put more units there will be no trreasure capable to support them.

I'm there with you. I was overly snarky, maybe it was the coffee...maybe I was just rude. I commented because I do want to see a good Civ4 WW2 Europe scenario. I applaude accuracy in these scenarios, but I'm more interested in options such as promotions and technologies, so the scenario becomes more open to "what if" instead of simply replaying WW2 exactly as it happened. I'm much more interested in events and choices than I am about the gun sizes of various armored units.

Again I point back to the amazing Storm Over Europe scenario for Civ3. Unbelievable detail, every unit represented, and unplayable because of its size. So I don't want to see a WW2 scenario get bogged down in arguements over which unit should have more of this or that. One thing I liked about the Small, Fast and Beautiful WW2 scenario was the relative simplicity. That would be even more useful here, since promotions allow you to customize units more than you could in Civ3.

I learnt Paasky is redoing this scenario, could you give me the link?

My thanks for coming up with such a detailed scenario. However, there are some unhistorical things about it.

1. The United States did not enter the war until December of 1941, whereas in the scenario they are already in the war in January.

2. Germany did not invade the Soviet Union until June of 1941. They did not reach the Caucasus until 1942.

3. The Free French forces did not control any territory in 1941 in Europe or North Africa. The Vichy government was loyal to the Germans and controlled southern France, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Syria.

4. Italy never occupied Morocco, Algeria, or most of the other places they hold in the scenario. Italy only occupied Libya and Albania. The Germans invaded Greece in April 1941 when the Greeks beat back the Italian invasion.

5. The only oil squares I could see on the map were in Arabia. However, there is oil throughout north Africa and Russia.

I don't want to be too negative--this must have taken a lot of work. I just think more attention to history would make it even better. I suggest starting at Wikipedia's article on World War II.

sonderkammer: You missed one oil, which is under control of Italy. I think it's in the Bucharest area. Of course Bucharest isn't Italian territory. Germany probably wouldn't have gone to war with the USSR if they didn't have acess to the Ploesti oilfields, which might be what the Bucharest deposit is supposed to be. If that is supposed to be Ploesti, Ploesti was Romanian which the Germans were using. I don't think one could consider it Italian at all. When placing the resources, it may not seem important, but that one oil not being in German hands causes a major problem when playing the game. If Italy is stocked on about a par with Germany, which shouldn't be the case anyway, having that oil would make Italy the fascist power instead.

I learnt Paasky is redoing this scenario, could you give me the link?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137154

He seems to have done a good bit of work on it... but progress has slowed.... It may have a lot of good pieces to incorporate into this scenario. Again, I suspect the upcoming SDK will re-ignite creative fires around here.

I downloaded this scenario, but for the life of me I don't see the map that goes with it, I am able to swtich over into the mod...but no map...lol I know i'm missing something where did I make a wrong turn?

alright, i just saw this post and am eager to try this scenario out.

Before i do, i love WW2, i like historical accuracy, but in Civ 4, i want light on the accuracy, heavy on the fun. If i was looking for hardcore WW2 what if scenarios to every exact effect, there's already a game out there, hearts of iron 2.

As for indivudal units, more important then the types of tanks(thoguh i do love variations) is the paper rock scissors tactic. Infantry shouldn't be bowled over by tanks. Yes in open fields, tanks were amazing against infantry, but when the infantry was entrenched, it was no easy task. I've been trying to figure out if i could possibly make a ww2 scenario. If i did, the units would look like this.

Infantry-huge bonus when defending rough terrain/cities/bonus vs anti tank guns.
Mechanized infantry-huge bonus vs infantry(by mechanized i mean the more mobile infantry divisions that were supported with light armor and armored transports, frequently what was used to help break cities).
Tanks-great vs mechanized infantry
Antitankguns-Great vs tanks


Artillery would stay the same effecivetly(great for stack damage and bombard but not to great on their own).

thats my opinion on how to more effectively represent units. I don't want tanks to be the 'howitzer' unit from civ 2, i want them to have weaknesses other then other tanks. WW2 might have been the first truly armored war, but infantry was still a huge part of almost every successful operation of the war.

feel free to make any changes to the scenario but re-posting your "new scenario "
here would be appreciated as help :)

I've made some minor changes
(specifically giving germany romania, free france algiers, vichy to the germans, and some other minor changes like roads for russia, british jerusalem and more oil)
when I bring my usb drive to school on monday, I can upload it. Its very minor changes, but its made it a little better and playable for me.
btw: I think the date system is a little off. I've invaded all of france with USA by august 1941. But its great someone actually made a working scenario of wwii. Its been long enough. Now we just all need to work at it and I think we can have a great mod and scenarios.:nuke:

This scenaio is fine. It just can´t inspire me enough, (must be that it has no nukes or chariots/samurais :p) the ww2 theme is boring, but I must admit that this scenario has been done great. Thx and good night.:sleep:

Why havent this scenario been made in the the Desert war Mod!?
In that Mod all the ww2 units have been premade.
This would create a much bigger WWII feeling.
The scenario has been made very thural but neither me or my pc can cope with a huge map.
Any chance of seeing this scenario on a standard or small map?

Who is engaged in the script? New units will be?

PS: I apologize for my English:)

I have a suggestion to include this scenario into my mod.

The Panther was not a killer like the PzKw VII or the Josef Stalin II, but it
had a powerful 75mm, and had many innovations...If built primarily, it was
the one tank that was closest to a war-winning design for the 3rd Reich.

But as in all things, the Germans were doomed by their inability to match
the British, Russian and American manufacturing power, which produced
machines which were not in parity individually, but could be churned out
in terrifying numbers...

For example, the Allies replaced the losses of D-Day within only two weeks.
The Soviets reached Warsaw from Western Russia within the same timescale...

There is no way the Germans could have matched such production, even
with excellent war-machines like the Panther and Me262....Luckily for us.

.

Hmm, I tested it and think that scenario is not finished. I found the following:
Improvements are not made anywhere except Britain
The same with cities; only capitals population made
Locations of some Soviet cities are wrong
Resources are not placed in the USSR

I may have a crack at creating my Dictator CIV2 scenario on CIV4...

The Scenario tool is not too hard to master...

:)

Paasky is working on a much more indepth mod and scenario for WW2 Europe, it is in Beta at the moment:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137154

This scenario is geographically and socially aweful
1. Britain is the worse shape ever, along with ireland
2. last time i looked carlisle was NOT in cornwall.
3. Derry is in the wrong place
4. Isle of man? what the hell. Its huge
5. you left out major cities of the war, mid europe and france are basically empty. Along with Italy.
6. What happened to East Anglia?
7. At the time of the war the UK has the worlds most powerful navy in the world, and what do i get, a few measely destroyers while my pal adolf starts of with 20 u boats in the channel.
8. granted america has to have a few cities, but c'mon
9. america has the largest army i've ever seen, enough tanks to circle the planet. Get it sorted out.
10. all the cities start off crap. Not even granaries or forges
11. what the hell happened to turkey?
12. Monaco? last time i looked they weren't a major player in the war. May i reccomend marseilles instead?
13. greece seriously needs changing
14. its nice to know our nordic friends of iceland are represented
15. American empire? little biased if you ask me

there are more. see if you can find them, this scenario needs some serious fixing. is the guy who made this american or something? because i cant think of any one else who has such a vast lack of european knowledge and american bias.

A little bit of history. The Germans had PK I's in production and use at the start (1939) of the war. They also took over the Czech production of an armored vehicle (number escapes me now) that was fast but lightly armored (although more than a match for the very poor PK I's). The German crews were superb in the beginning and then, later in the war, when the German tanks were better, the crews were NOT as well trained due to attrition. Thus, the early panzers would (historically) be numerically weaker (i.e. lower combat value) but have lots of experience. The later units would not have such bonuses, so I would highly recommend that the axis NOT be given the Agressive trait (if they have been).

As for the American army, well...it didn't exist. The US had to do a massive conscription and training system before they had deployable units. Sorry, but even though FDR was able to outfox the isolationists in instituting the draft before Dec. 7, 1941, he still could get congress to appropriate much money for equipment. Some the the poor bastards learning artillery were using logs! America should be seriously short on troops to start with.

As for Russian lack of resources, I suppose that is to force the allies to send some of theirs (thus the Germans could try to interrupt the convoys). Unfortunately, the game still does not lend itself to supply lines and such so I have no suggestion on how to deal with it.

When I made the pbem WWII CivIII game, I found that the [I]best[I] means of limiting the axis powers was by limiting their troop quantities via high maintenance cost per unit (giving very generous per-city support). Thus, the Germans had to attack and gain cities in order to support their burgeoning military (very historically accurate, btw).

I have not tried the scenario yet (sorry) but thought these comments might be of use.

rcoutme: As for the American army, well...it didn't exist. The US had to do a massive conscription and training system before they had deployable units. Sorry, but even though FDR was able to outfox the isolationists in instituting the draft before Dec. 7, 1941, he still could get congress to appropriate much money for equipment. Some the the poor bastards learning artillery were using logs! America should be seriously short on troops to start with.

Yes, I've seen some US 'training' films of men with a machine gun and the thing was just a wooden mockup, completely unable to fire. Those men trained by pivoting around as though they were firing. Quite hilarious and it gave Hitler fits of laughter when he saw it. Even worse was the US Army getting covered trucks and draping large clothes over them with the words "tank" on them. And people seem to think the US Army was fit and ready even before Pearl Harbor. Naw, it took quite a bit of revving up the ol' engine.

In response to those linking Christianity and Fascism together...

"Religion is a kind of mental disease."
-Benito Mussolini

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianty's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them."
-Adolf Hitler (July 11, 1941)

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society."
-Adolf Hitler (October 19, 1941)

of course the french arn't much of a problem, its world war two!

nazi colaborators .-. OUI OUI, WE SURRENDER!

Well you're joking but.....I feel I have to say....France had an army of 5 million and it was considered to be the most powerful in the world....but it was horribly outdated by the Germans and the Generals fought a WW1 style war..........

I did and it was, apparantly you missed it because, like raping choir boys, its just something swept under the rug and not talked about because, my goodness, pointing out the vile, evil actions of the church is heresy. I don't know what you are smoking to think Christianity is peaceful or just. Torture Jews over and over again in the Inquisition, and again when Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic and many historians agree that is where he got his extreme anti-semitism.

"Christianity and National Socialism are irreconcilable"-Martin Bormann, public address in 1941



Hitler played up support early from anyone who would give it to him, but his sincerity and honesty to any of those groups, and their understanding of his true intentions and actions (Hitler was one of history's greatest pathological liars), not to mention pure intimidation and terror tactics used by the Nazis later on to keep them in line, hardly shows that the vast faith of Christianity in any way supported or gave rise to Adolf Hitler, or that Hitler sincerely believed in Christian ideals.

Instead of people just googling for famous quotes or running off to Wikipedia, do some real research and reading on such a deep and important subject before spouting inflammatory and biased opinions.

Here's a little something to read: (taken DIRECTLY from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany By William L Shirer, p. 329-332

".....in May, 1936, it addressed a courteous but firm memorandum to Hitler protesting against the anti-Christian tendencies of the regime, denouncing the government's anti-Semitism and demanding an end to state interference in Churches, Frick, the Nazi Minister of the Interior, responded with ruthless action. Hundreds of church pastors were arrested, one of the signers of the memorandum, was murdered in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, the funds of the church were confiscated and it was forbidden to make collections.

"What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the "National Reich Church" drawn up during the way by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who among his other offices held that of the 'Fuehrer's Delegate for the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction for the National Socialist Party'. A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials:

1) The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
5) The National Church is determind to exterminate irrevocably the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
7) The National Reich Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
13) The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...
14) The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fueherer's Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents. It not only contains the greatest but embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation
18. The National Church will clear awar from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of Saints.
19. On the altars there must be nothing but MEIN KAMPF (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
30) On the day of its foundation, the Christian cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.

Could a Moderator come in and close this thread?
This scenario is not so great, and this discussion is getting OT

If you think Hitler was Christian or that Nazi Germany was a christian state you better keep reading...

Don't get too upset. Remember, "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of Light..."

i am new at this, i can only download the map after being told the scenario is invalid the scenario starts at ancient times

I did and it was, apparantly you missed it because, like raping choir boys, its just something swept under the rug and not talked about because, my goodness, pointing out the vile, evil actions of the church is heresy. I don't know what you are smoking to think Christianity is peaceful or just. Torture Jews over and over again in the Inquisition, and again when Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic and many historians agree that is where he got his extreme anti-semitism.

If Hitler was a Christian, I am the Emperor of China!!
What Hitler said in public and in private were two completely different things. Hitler has clearly stated his contempt for Christianity - and therefore we are forced to conclude that his "pious" speech was to get the backing of the churches.
Sadly, it is correct that a lot of clergy in Germany backed Hitler up, but that:

1: Does not mean that Hitler himself was a Christian. Yes, he was baptized into the Catholic church, but you don't become a Christian from being baptized anymore than you become a professor just by walking into a university.

2: Does not mean that Nazi-Germany was a Christian country.
Christianity and Nazism are as incompatible as arsenic and the human body. He that is one of these two cannot be the other.

I am sick and tired of ignorants claiming that the Christian churches bears the blame for all evil in this world....try actually LEARNING, instead of just blabbing out prejudices...

JFDK

I've been looking for a WW2 scenario for awhile this one looks great thx.:goodjob:

yup, looks like a fine mod.

Looks interesting, but scanning through the first two pages...

How about some basic information about it? After, I can't even tell if I can play this mod with my civilization 4 vanilla, or what nations I could choose to be...

Interesting mod, and good work....but I must say that accuracy wise this thing is waaaayyy off.

Free france did not control vichy in 1941 --- that was vichy france, an axis puppet state. Likewise, most of the north-western colonies were subsequently under vichy france's control ---which brings me to the next point, italy has waaay more things than it should. It holds all of western vichy colonies in africa, holds the balkans (even tho much was occupied by Germany and/or the axis allies hungary/romania etc...)...and free france is just . .. .. .. .ed in this game, lol.

You also oculd use a lot more nations in the game. Adding hungary/bulgaria/finland/vichy france, while giving free france what they really controlled (middle eastern area of israel, africa south of northwestern region), as well as re-allocation of spots for other countries.

Otherwise, its great XD

Interesting mod, and good work....but I must say that accuracy wise this thing is waaaayyy off.

Free france did not control vichy in 1941 --- that was vichy france, an axis puppet state. Likewise, most of the north-western colonies were subsequently under vichy france's control ---which brings me to the next point, italy has waaay more things than it should. It holds all of western vichy colonies in africa, holds the balkans (even tho much was occupied by Germany and/or the axis allies hungary/romania etc...)...and free france is just . .. .. .. .ed in this game, lol.

You also oculd use a lot more nations in the game. Adding hungary/bulgaria/finland/vichy france, while giving free france what they really controlled (middle eastern area of israel, africa south of northwestern region), as well as re-allocation of spots for other countries.

Otherwise, its great XD

its a great scenario. i played as america in noble. really fun, but hitler sent a lot of troops to norway because he thougth the final battle would be there and when i conquered it there was almost no troops stationed there