After playing with Germany here are my suggestions:
- Tanks should cost a lot more to build, at least x 1.5 and probably even double then infantry.
- Factories and other buildings should cost more as well. An infantry unit cost more to produce then a factory.
- Machine guns ? Where did the machine gun go man. It was the main defensive weapon. One entrenched machine gun can kill up to hundreds of soldiers. I had absolutely no trouble conquering cities, didn't even have to use bombers to soften up the defense, no need.
- The ability to build a fortification in a city and or on land without destroying an improvement. Something like the Maginot line. Bunkers, trenches, natural obstacles played a big role in defense and slowing down an enemy offensive.

That's it for now.

I have to compliment you on the city positioning, demographics, choice of countries (still Id rather have Yugoslavia then west balkan), bombing mechanism and overall on the whole scenario. Well done mate.

Just a question, but what difficulty did you play on? :)

Germany is one of the easiest nations to play. I'd suggest trying Italy, or even France! For a tough fight, you could even have a go at Prince level China. ;)

As for machine guns, the infantry sub-machine gun was the predominant MG of WW2. You're thinking of WW1 where stationary MG's were the norm.

Well, I aint much of a player. I played on Prince with Germany but I do have great sense for realism. Even for the Germans it took more then a Panzer division to capture a city. Talking about artilery bombardment, Air bombing, close air support.

The stationary heavy machine guns were definitely used in WW2. In Bunkers, trenches, concealed and mounted on the windows of houses, rooftops, dug in hills, they are useful almost anywhere, whenever you defending, you're rather gonna be stationary equiped with a high-powered heavy machine gun that fires with the enemy coming towards you.

Well, I aint much of a player. I played on Prince with Germany but I do have great sense for realism. Even for the Germans it took more then a Panzer division to capture a city. Talking about artilery bombardment, Air bombing, close air support.

The stationary heavy machine guns were definitely used in WW2. In Bunkers, trenches, concealed and mounted on the windows of houses, rooftops, dug in hills, they are useful almost anywhere, whenever you defending, you're rather gonna be stationary equiped with a high-powered heavy machine gun that fires with the enemy coming towards you.

wow, i imagine germany was pretty easy to win as. I played twice as russia, however, and got historically stomped! :spank:

Yeah, Germany was easy, the only invasion i didn't manage to do in time was Norway cause they are in a remote place and its hard to get to them when 20 british cruisers roam around your waters.

On with the suggestions;

So far
-Tanks have to cost more to produce then infantry, common sense
-Heavy Machine gun unit to be added
-ability to build bunkers, trenches, fortifications
New
-How the hell is Soviet infantry more powerful then German ? ridicilous
The Soviets had major trouble in the Winter war vs Finland, that tells you how strong it was. The Soviet infantry only got better after operation Barbarosa, so that would mean advanced infantry in this scenario. And still they would be about equal with German infantry.
-Bitter winter does not affect a large enough and important enough area. It doesnt even affect the Moscow region, which is where it played out the most against the germans.

Well I haven't had a chance to play much but I started a 1936 run with germany.

It is a different game from civ4 so I have to disagree with adding a machine gun unit. Mainly because this is a divisional level game. I'm not sure what the creator intended but right now from a zoomed out and historical point of view this is divisional. And there were no divisional MG units.

A couple of things you could give infantry a city defense bonus as they could defeat tanks in the city but were easily overrun in the open fields. You could expand this even more by giving armor a penalty in forest etc etc....

Another thing you could do is to simulate mg support in a infantry division is make a mg a promotion and it adds defense against infantry.

Just my two cents, again I haven't played far yet but I do disagree (right now) on a divisional level mg unit.

yeah, and the civ4 machine gun units can defeat tanks, and those caliber bullets cannot pierce WW2 armor.

Well its all on how you look at the units in the game. The MG unit in Civ4 could just represent a MG supported infantry division... but then again a MG supported infantry division could still attack where in civ4 they can only defend....

Well it could be some sort of defense division mainly equipped with heavy machine guns. They did play a vital role in defending im sure you will all agree.

Also about the tank thing, I agree, basically only planes and tanks could really take care of these concealed MGs. So to represent that, Tanks can have a bonus vs Machine guns. That balances the fighting I reckon and its hist. accurate.

Anti-Tank infantry, PanzerFaust > Tank
Tank Destroyer, anti tank artilery (if its added in the future) > Tank
Tank > Infantry
Tank > Machine gun
Machine gun > Infantry
Infantry > units such as anti tank infantry, anti tank artilery, paratroopers.

P.S. Just noticed we've started couple of posts with 'Well'. Interesting =)

Vidimce,

Interesting suggestions, I like the idea of more unit types. I've got some questions though.

I think you'd have to implement atk/def str ratings similar to FfH2 to make some of those units work.

For instance the tank destroyers were lightly armored and fast, so it really mattered who shot first with those and from where. I'd envision something like this. Something like atk 33 def 18 spd 4. Also the tank destroyers were horribly vulnerable to infantry, how would you account for that?

On the Machine Gun, are you talking about an emplacement, or having an infantry unit with machine guns? AFAIK there weren't many MG units in WWII that were mobile, individual units used to attack. There were lots of different units that had some machine guns attached to them, but I think that's already reflected by the power of the current infantry units. The only individual MG units I could think of would be of the pillbox/dug in defenses variety.
The other thing to consider is directionality. All the units in RtW at the macro level could realistically fight in any direction. This is not true of a machine gun emplacement/pillbox. There's no good way to figure that into the Civ 4 engine that I know of, and that's the limiting factor on a machine gun. How would you factor in that MG vs infantry with the MG facing vs MG vs infantry where the infantry is behind or flanking? What might be interesting would be a MG unit that could only be built in cities and defend or could only be paradroped to a tile, but that can't move or attack. Not that that's really accurate either, but could be more balanced. Sorta like player created maginot fortifications.

I think the Bazooka/PanzerFaust is a tricky unit also. 1 PF vs 1 Tank, I'd still favor the tank, and attack defend is vastly different too. Could you not consider the +25% vs armor upgrade for infantry the same as having a bazooka?

My first suggestion would be two types of infantry units. I'm not sure I like that infantry can move as fast as the tank units.

Infantry with less hammer cost, less str, and more def bonus with a movement of 1.

Mechanized infantry, same stats as current advanced+ infantry. And change the graphic to that of a WWII truck in the middle with 1 infantry man on either side.

The tank destroyers were effective vs armor, that's why they are called Tank Destroyers. And yes they were vulnerable against infantry which balances things even better. To account for that a Tank Destroyer would be considered an 'artilery' unit.
So infantry will have a bonus vs artilery which I think is accurate.

1000 infantry men against 50 artilery, Who's gonna win, infantry of coarse.

The machine gun Im refering to is the stationary heavy machine gun used in bunkers, trenches, dug in. And yes it would not be able to attack, purely defensive. It will be able to move of coarse, and if Dale adds the ability to build bunkers, placing a machine gun there would prove very useful indeed.

I don't think the bazooka is that powerful, it will be able to destroy earlier light tanks but will have trouble against later medium and heavy tanks.

Anyway, I dont think Dale gives a . .. .. .. . about our suggestions, hes doing his own thing. -.-

The tank destroyers were effective vs armor, that's why they are called Tank Destroyers. And yes they were vulnerable against infantry which balances things even better. To account for that a Tank Destroyer would be considered an 'artilery' unit.
So infantry will have a bonus vs artilery which I think is accurate.

1000 infantry men against 50 artilery, Who's gonna win, infantry of coarse.

The machine gun Im refering to is the stationary heavy machine gun used in bunkers, trenches, dug in. And yes it would not be able to attack, purely defensive. It will be able to move of coarse, and if Dale adds the ability to build bunkers, placing a machine gun there would prove very useful indeed.

I don't think the bazooka is that powerful, it will be able to destroy earlier light tanks but will have trouble against later medium and heavy tanks.

Anyway, I dont think Dale gives a . .. .. .. . about our suggestions, hes doing his own thing. -.-

Not true, I read all suggestions and consider each of them.

I'm not going to be adding any new units for add-on pack 1. There's already 146. ;) But I'm open for convincing for add-on pack 2.

As for bunkers, workers can build forts, with defense bonuses for any unit stationed in them. That can account for emplaced guns (MG & heavy) without the need to confuse things more with new units.

The Maginot Forts are a specific unit that has one purpose. To represent the massive fortifications that France erected on the border after WW1. They do NOT represent the pillboxes, dug-in troops or even the Atlantic Wall.

i think one of the greatest things for addon pack 1 will be some more individual graphics for the units (definately for the major nations)

I've played lots of WW2 scenarios in the Civ series of games, and one mistake that is often made is to add too many units. I think its a trait of WW2 buffs to want to see their boundless fascination with detail reflected in the game...

Unique units for each civ is great, but every version of every tank, plane and ship used in the war is not great. It clutters up the menus while adding nothing to the fun of actual play. Besides, promotions will alter art in BtS, so let that represent all bazillion versions of the Ju-88 developed during the war. I probably will be the lone voice in saying this, because the people crazy about history are here asking for every unit conceptualized, while the folks interested in fun gameplay are off playing. Yes, some tweaking is legit, but you have to draw the line somewhere and EVERYONE will move the line to suit their preference. There are certain units and buildings I'd like to see, but I will add them myself.

I started on the 1936 Europe Open style and I have a few questions.

1. Are there random events? I have played quite a while and no events have occurred?
2. Are there quests? This would be a great mod for quests. FDR could develop some economic programs, von Papen could send some scientists to Tibet, stuff like that.
3. Are there Wonders to build?
4. Will there be corporations to build?
5. Does the UN or League of Nations ever show up?

Absolutely love this mod, thanks for all the hard work, and I am looking forward to its continued evolution. The many facets of BtS have yet to be explored.

Its not like we are asking for every single different version of military units there was in ww2.

The basic ones are already there, light, medium, heavy tanks, I aint asking more.
Planes as well, Infantry also.
Tank Destroyers are missing, there even is a Tank Destroyer Tech in the game but not the unit.
About Heavy machine gun, id like to see em, but I aint that bothered if they dont show up.
Im not sure if the anti tank infantry is present, if it isnt i think it should be there as some opposition to armor.

That's about all the units I, ( or we) ask for so far. And of coarse unique graphics for existing ones, which Dale is already fixing with Add on 1.

At least for me, unique graphics for units in ww2 adds a lot to the flavour and amount of fun Im having.

Amount of diff unit graphics x scenario = lot of fun hehe

The one thing i hate most is that tanks cost less to produce then infantry. Its killing the game for me.
Just do tanks, u can build em faster and they are stronger too, plus after some experience they have the 25% vs gunpowder unit promotion. The only use of Infantry right now is defending cause they can get defensive bonuses, but Tanks kill em anyway. Dale you fixing this ?

I have just started playing the Pacific scenario as Japan. I've finished both china and its ally (can't remember the name). I snatched myself with difficulty as it was quite captivating. Well done guys it is sure fun to play.

However, I actually had some comments, fortunately vidimce has already mentioned them. In particular, I find his suggestions for balancing units against each other quite useful.

In my short experience with the scenario, I didn't need anything but bombers, and tanks to take the whole china in less than a year. Infantry were useless in taking cities so I used them to garrison captured cities so my tanks can move on.

Anyway, wonderful scenario, I actually beginning to like the units buttons. Turn flipping speed is amazing. Sound effects for bombarding cities are so realistic. I am looking forward to completing this scenario and moving to Europe, and I am waiting eagerly for your add on pack(s) (hopefully many)!

How's the Pacific? I played a little as a small civ to get a feel of how the events would unfold. I saw that the AI Japan is mowing down the AI China. I'm guessing that even with inferior units, the higher production is helping Japan zerg China? It seems counterintuitive as Japan is the less populous country.

I'm liking the suggestions about more unique units. I'm thinking the U.S. should have better marines/sea units and just normal infantry. And I don't think China's units in this period should be as good as other nations. Perhaps to make room for more unique units, you can take out the unique units that just have the same stats as the basic ones. There seemed to be quite a few of them when I browsed through.

a agree, USA is not tough enough. coming in so late in the war, they should have a bit more punch (my opinion is only to the europe map, however)

This is a very good mod. I noticed a few things bad about it though. One thing is that Poland who I'm using dosn't have access to horses.
Also the cavalry should have alot higher then 2 movement. I ended up worldbuilding movement on. And a few suggestions would be to add anti tank supported infantry, And to make the Russian infantry worse the late game.

i think that the early infantry should either be stronger, or should at least be consistant in strength between nations.

(7 str infantry as opposed to 10 str infantry may look good on paper, but was very ugly in game terms)

The infantry definitely need to be better against tanks. I had a combat 4 improved infantry with a 60 percent city bonus killed by a combat 1 panzer iv.

As of add-on pack 1, the rock-paper-scissors is infantry-AT-tank. :)

PzIV is also a bit overpowered. I'll be weakening that one.

After playing with the aop1 the computer seem to use mainly tank, anti tank, infantry, and artillery in that order. Which works as designed but is unfortunately not very historically accurate.

I'm wondering in the city screen would it be possible to change the color of the circles indicating which tiles are being worked on? They are almost impossible to see in Russian cities during the winter.

Also when playing with random events would it be possible to have the text boxes give the date that the event occurred during the game as opposed to when the event occurred in real life?

What this scenario needs.... POWs. Refugees and POWs were a real problem in WW2.

There needs to be a percentage of defeated units that turn into costly POWs. And when a city is captured, a number of POWs are created depending on the culture percentage and city population.

You can then upgrade the POW (at a stiff cost) to a militia. If you disband the POW unit, you get a huge War Weariness hit or negative relations with other Civs or both.

I like the mod a lot now.

Suggestions:
-Production tweaks. I was with USSR having conquered half of Poland, Baltics and 2 Finnish cities and was 4th in Production (GDP). Germany had more then twice my GDP and made it almost impossible to contend with. Which is not true, UK, Germany, USSR had about similar production outputs. USA was the first of coarse. There is GDP information from 1939, Ill post it once I find it.
Also Cheaper costs for USSR ? The Soviets were able to pump out a lot, very fast, and cheaply.
- Defensive Fortifications of some sort, maybe a bunker thing with 40 strength but can't attack and it costs a lot to build.
- Make it possible to produce Medium Tanks after Heavy Tanks is researched. Medium Tanks were still used, in fact Panzer 4s were built until the very end of the war. The reason I want them to be buildable is because of their movement range of 4 which is very useful on that map for fast attacks.
- Armored vehicles ? Like the German SDK cars, for fast attacks again.
- American infantry, Why does it look like the Great General lol. Turn off, I dont even wanna play as America simply bcs of that.
- Playing with USSR Im getting all the heat, being attacked from Finland, West Balkan, Italy and Germany. America doesnt seem to be doing much, and UK is pretty passive too. Script in some offensives maybe. Normandy landings something like that, get them Americans more involved.

I like the Tank costs, now it looks realistic, 2-3 armored divisions to 10-15 infantry divisions. :) Tho the T-34 and Sherman tanks should have lower costs as they were massively produced. 50 000 tanks were produced by USSR during the war, while Germany had only about 5000 - 10000.

One suggestion for getting more historical invasions: desired areas. In case you're not familiar with this concept, used in Rhye's and Fall, it basically sets for each civilization some 'desired areas' which, given the choice, it will attempt to capture in preference to another area.

I think this would give some more realism to the mod, and make it more likely that Germany will launch larger and better invasions of Norway and Russia, as well as France and Britain. Of course, they may lose, but at least they try ;)

What this scenario needs.... POWs. Refugees and POWs were a real problem in WW2.

There needs to be a percentage of defeated units that turn into costly POWs. And when a city is captured, a number of POWs are created depending on the culture percentage and city population.

You can then upgrade the POW (at a stiff cost) to a militia. If you disband the POW unit, you get a huge War Weariness hit or negative relations with other Civs or both.

POWs should be represented, but not as a militia - in reality, they were used as a cheap labour source. Possibly a small chance that defeated enemy units are turned into a 'POW' unit, which is used like a worker but is half as fast at construction (due to their reluctance and lack of engineer training).

I like the mod a lot now.

- Playing with USSR Im getting all the heat, being attacked from Finland, West Balkan, Italy and Germany. America doesnt seem to be doing much, and UK is pretty passive too. Script in some offensives maybe. Normandy landings something like that, get them Americans more involved.


The desired areas idea should hopefully increase aggression from the AI (e.g. if America was set to desire northern France)

Is there any chance of having a mix of both open-play and historic events? Thus, events and, if they ever end up in RtW, 'quests' can still happen, but nothing is absolute; Vichy France can still end up if Germany takes key parts of France, America might enter the war prematurely or post-Pearl Harbour and Russia could go on a little bit of a campaign against Turkey (instead of the Winter War) if they felt it might be beneficial. I probably got my wording a bit mixed up and confusing though.

Also, um, mentioned it a few times but are 'English Infantry' still called 'English Infantry'? Even though a fair number of them are from other Commonwealth nations?

I also think the poster who said PoW could act, essentially, as 'slaves' in other mods, has the right idea. To it, though, I'd add that if PoWs or other forced labour have nothing to guard them (some infantry, for instance), could they not disband themselves in an 'escape' attempt? Further more, there should be a small chance if you intercept or shootdown a plane squadron, there should still be a chance you may end up with PoWs (after all, Stalag Luft existed for members of the air force, if I recall correctly)

PoW's, camps, whatever, will NEVER be in RtW.

Sorry to stand on a soapbox, but I find the thought of this sickening. I know some people still suffering from the effects of being in a jap PoW camp.

PoW's, camps, whatever, will NEVER be in RtW.

Thanks for saying that Dale. Its good to know where the lines are. I am sure this is a discussion you and Firaxis had, deciding how realistic this game should be. Legally and ethically you have to draw the line somewhere, and I am satisfied with where you have drawn it.

Its a difficult job designing and being responsible for a game about war and killing. It is especially hard to approach a recent event like WW2, when the wounds from that horrible time are still sore, and we live in a world directly shaped by the conflict.

^^^ Hit the nail on the head. Thanks for understanding. :)

I'd vote against including MGs as a unit. The mod has many historical units that could be added but MGs is just not one of them. Considering the scale one unit represents roughly something between a division and a corps, machine gun unit on a level higher than a battalion never existed.

PoW's, camps, whatever, will NEVER be in RtW.

Sorry if I hit a nerve, I didn't mean to cause any upset.

Dale, first i want to congratulate you to this great mod!

However i think that inflation needs to be toned down.
Today i started a '39 game as UK on deity, only to notice that i was having a budget deficit of over 1000!

Even with 0 research and having all my cities producing wealth i was still losing 67 g per turn.

Because of an inflation rate of almost 300%, units are disbanding every turn, while my industry is cripled.

Shocked, i tried some other states, discovering that France is running ~ 50 g per turn deficit with 0 research, while USSR and Italy can at least research at 10% without losing money.

Germany starts out great, and can research at 50%, but with Poland, Norway, the Netherlands and France conquered all Research has to be built to keep your coffers from draining.


Edit:Update!

By researching in these forums i found out how to change inflation.
I changed "iInflationOffset" to 3 times its (negative) value for all gamespeeds, allowing RtW to start out on 64% inflation rate. Yay!

Click here for more details on how to do this. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137636&postcount=#17)

Edit 2:

Works on your saved games as well.

I don't like how such a groundbreaking historic simulation is at the hands of someone with such obvious bias and desire to forget history.

If this indeed is a groundbreaking historic simulation, so it is actually because it was and still is in these very hands. This mod is the work of someone who volunteered to donate his time, effort, and above all knowledge and creativity for free and for the sole purpose of making others enjoy their time.

To include this or that feature is by any means up to his judgment. Something that we should learn to respect whether we agree with him on this or that point or not.

I don't like how such a groundbreaking historic simulation is at the hands of someone with such obvious bias and desire to forget history.

Let's look at a couple of your ideas shall we?

POW's:
I fail to see how POW's can be implemented in a fun and positive way into RtW. What do they do? What are they for? Are they supposed to be "supported units" that suck maintenance? That makes them a negative and a drain on your economy. Also, they would become a micro-management nightmare for the likes of Germany and USSR.

Poison gas:
Missiles are already in the game. Artillery bombardments are already in the game. Are they supposed to be a separate unit? What sort of unit (land/air/sea)? What is their purpose if the two modes of delivering poison gas are already implemented in RtW?

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
Winston Churchill

Sometimes it is still important to add things that disgust you, so that others can share in your disgust from them, and learn.

However saying that, it is your mod, and the point is this is your opinion and prespective on something. Everyone should take option 2 if that is their wish.

I changed my post to something more constructive. ;)

Too late Dale, I got it all delivered to my mail box. I just think option #3 was a little harsh though it is a good advice in general. However I like your constructive post more.

By the way, while I respect your opinion and your right to shape the mod eventually in the way that agrees with your principals, I for myself has nothing against introducing PoWs into the mod in some way or another. It would complicate things for Germany in particular, but I think Germany actually need things to get a little complicated for it.

Still I am not reopening the subject as you made it clear enough that your decision is final. I just liked to state my opinion which doesn't mean by any way that I disgust the atrocities practiced in PoWs camps during WWII any less than you. I disgust targeting civilians or blind bombardment of cities as well. Still I see them all as facts of war that is in itself the source of many evils.

I just fail to see how adding POW's to the mod would add to the gameplay. Yes it's realistic, but as I see it it can only add more micro-management which I'm sure we all agree is a drain on the fun factor.

That's the key, balance fun with history. I will not lower fun just to increase history.

If there's a way to add POW's in a fun and creative way, without adding masses of micro-management, then I'll listen to the idea.

Also note, I am not dismissing all ideas presented with only my goals in mind. Quite a number of ideas given by other fans of the mod have made it in (with even more still being added), even though I personally may not agree. However, they do increase the fun factor whilst maintaining or increasing the history aspect. But to have the comment of nemt's thrown in my face that I'm biased and wish to forget history was an insult to me.

I have to balance not only fun and history, but also political correctness, sympathies and humanity factors as well. Just to give you some examples with the POW concept in mind:
Is "disbanding" POW units in a city renamed Treblinka an insult to the families who lost family members there?
Is "fortifying" POW units in Warsaw insulting to families who were caught in the ghetto?
Is the Japanese player who "disbands" Chinese POW's doing so in repetition of the genocide practiced during the war?

You should get my point.

The old South American Inca/Maya scenario in one of the earlier xpacks had human sacrifice, and some special building for doing the deed. Should we adapt that here, have death camps, etc?

In my humble opinion, nope.

If you want to mod that in at home, or POWs, then do so. But Dale is responsible for creating a mod that is historical, fun, and not offensive. I think we stretch far enough when we make "War-games", making killing and bombing and starving and all that into a game. No, I am no saint, and YES, I did suggest POWs earlier in a post, but I thought about it, and have read many discussions on the ethics required to make games, and I was wrong. I may put POWs in my mod at home, but I don't think Dale should here. If a bunch of players want to work together to adapt this Mod to be more realistic, then they need to get together to do it. But that isn't Dale's job, not the one he signed on with Firaxis to do.

good points dale :)

I never suggested POWs be put in the game, I just said your flat out opposition to anything slightly offensive and brazen america/uk boosting are disappointing. That being said, I don't see why having a POW Camp city improvement couldn't be done in an effective way.

and making the great artists camp songs instead of actual artists? That's just weak.

If I want to pay reverence to victims of the camps (camps which had little or nothing to do with the actual war), I'll visit a memorial - in the mod, I'd really just prefer history.

My apologies about the POW's. I did think it was yourself who suggested it. What affects do you see a POW camp providing? +production, -happiness maybe?

I would like to ask where (except for the opening video) there is US/UK boosting in the mod? If those teams are out of balance then they need to be balanced. But unless you tell me where the in-balance is, I can't fix it. :)

Great artist songs, it's just a name.

As for my opposition to anything "slightly offensive":
"Asian Holocaust" - more horrific than Nazi Holocaust, yet easier to forget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
"Burma Railway" - A number of my family members died building this for the Japanese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Railway
"Kokoda Trail" - My wife's Pa was a medic on the trail, and tells stories of how the Japanese treated the Papuans and the conditions left after the Japanese were beaten back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_Campaign
This is all aside from the usual Nazi stuff.

So NEVER ridicule my opposition of "slightly offensive" stuff. My family members died to ensure I wouldn't suffer under those "slightly offensive" conditions. I WILL respect them for it.

Hi, Dale!

I would suggest to make also marines and paratroopers stronger during gameplay, just like with the infantry they could get strength 20 with better technologies, because in my opinion these 2 are really interesting units, which become kind of useless in the late-game!

Otherwise, really good mod!

and what of all the horrors unleashed on the world by the allies, Dale?

Did you forget about your good friends the Soviets? They had a great track record with POWs and death camps, didn't they?



Please keep your personal bias and politics out of the game, it makes it much less enjoyable.


EDIT: To clarify, I love Road to War, I think it's the best scenario/mod for Civ 4, I just wish Dale wouldn't let his personal thoughts hold it back from being even better.

and what of all the horrors unleashed on the world by the allies, Dale?

Did you forget about your good friends the Soviets? They had a great track record with POWs and death camps, didn't they?

Let's not go down this path. There's enough discussion in the general forum as to the horrors of the war. ;)

And just an FYI, Australia never allied with USSR, or were friendly with them during the war. The connection was through the Commonwealth.

Please keep your personal bias and politics out of the game, it makes it much less enjoyable.

And feel free to keep your comments about them to yourself. Aside from voicing my personal opinion, I have also voiced my game designer opinion. I fail to see any gameplay benefit from adding certain suggestions, and no one has yet shown a way it will add to the game without detracting from anything else already in it.

EDIT: To clarify, I love Road to War, I think it's the best scenario/mod for Civ 4, I just wish Dale wouldn't let his personal thoughts hold it back from being even better.

Here's the funny thing. The entire mod is my personal opinion. It's my opinion on how WW2 should be represented in Civ4. ;)

Let's pretend slave/pow labor played no part in wartime production, and the nazis were the only war criminals.

Facists already get the "Forced Labour" civic which allows whipping of citizens.

So Canadian and Scottish soldiers will still be labeled as 'English Infantry' then?
And there can be no event-based game that doesn't have set deadlines to war?

and what of all the horrors unleashed on the world by the allies, Dale?

Did you forget about your good friends the Soviets? They had a great track record with POWs and death camps, didn't they?



Please keep your personal bias and politics out of the game, it makes it much less enjoyable.


EDIT: To clarify, I love Road to War, I think it's the best scenario/mod for Civ 4, I just wish Dale wouldn't let his personal thoughts hold it back from being even better.

I'd just like to point out that the Western Allies alliance with the Soviet Union was more out of trying to defeat Hitler than of any real friendship - even before WWII, there was widespread fear of the spread of communism, and Hitler's anti-communist stance was one of the reasons why it took so long for the Allies to stand up to him.

As for the mod, nemt, at the end of the day if you don't like Dale's decisions you can always change the mod yourself.

And Dale, I apologise for any offense I may have caused in the suggestion of PoWs - I can assure you I meant none.

So Canadian and Scottish soldiers will still be labeled as 'English Infantry' then?
And there can be no event-based game that doesn't have set deadlines to war?

This reminds me of the England/Britain debate eternally circulating through the RFC forum...

It probably would be better to lable the troops 'British', but the only word that would cover all possibilities would be 'Commonwealth'.

As for the events, the best way to work that would probably be open play with the AI having programmed aggression against historical targets (e.g. the Soviet Union would be programmed to desire Poland, the Baltic states, East Balkans and Finland, and possibly also Germany). But I can't think of any way to incorporate dates into that, though it could be possible.

And there can be no event-based game that doesn't have set deadlines to war?

There are three modes of play in the mod. One with historic events at their proper time. Second with historic events at somewhat random time. The third is an open play mode without historic events at all.

I am not sure if you are already aware of that. If so you may tell us what exactly you mean by "no event-based game".

It probably would be better to lable the troops 'British', but the only word that would cover all possibilities would be 'Commonwealth'.

That's what I've been trying to say. I don't think this is quite the same thing as the RFC complaint; calling England 'Britain' in the beginning doesn't make sense, since the regions were not united but calling Britain 'England' would be like calling Western Europe 'France' or the United States 'New York'.
However, here the nation is called the UK - not England, not Scotland, not Canada, not any one of the countries specifically, but the UK and it represents the Commonwealth and it's armies. This is like the calling Britain 'England' issue - when the Civ represents more then one region, it feels unfair to ignore the contributions made by the other regions, which is why I opt for Commonwealth Infantry (and preferably 'Early Commonwealth Infantry' as opposed to 'Commonwealth early infantry' - the lack of capitalization of the titles and order just seems odd to me).

As for the events, the best way to work that would probably be open play with the AI having programmed aggression against historical targets (e.g. the Soviet Union would be programmed to desire Poland, the Baltic states, East Balkans and Finland, and possibly also Germany). But I can't think of any way to incorporate dates into that, though it could be possible.

Again, this pretty much hit the nail on the head. What I had hoped to see was no definitive times (I'm reasonably happy with the start date being scripted, but what if I'm ready to go before then? Scripted end-dates, on the other hand, even if it lies at a 'random date around the time' irritate me) but to keep events such as the spawn of Vichy France and further events (and quests) if they are added into the game. With certain civs being at odds with each other and wanting their land, it pushes things in the direction they went but isn't too forceful, giving a bit more control over your own destiny.
In the case of the Soviet Union wanting German land, would it be possible to attach it to an event? 'Molotov-Ribbentrop pact broken' at a set time, major diplomatic penalties between Soviets and Germans, Soviets want German land, Germans want Soviet land? Would that work?

Other suggestions would be perhaps adding a few additional items on the tech tree - buildings and bonuses unlocked for research? For instance, Medical Service might provide an NHS national wonder or give a health bonus and Household Goods might give a happiness bonus, increase happiness for Goods Factories, make Goods Factories produce some kind of economic bonus, or something? I've just never liked to see an 'empty tech'. Just a thought.

Other suggestions would be perhaps adding a few additional items on the tech tree - buildings and bonuses unlocked for research? For instance, Medical Service might provide an NHS national wonder or give a health bonus and Household Goods might give a happiness bonus, increase happiness for Goods Factories, make Goods Factories produce some kind of economic bonus, or something? I've just never liked to see an 'empty tech'. Just a thought.

That would be a good idea - since these technologies in reality did lead to greater prosperity, and since this scenario does extend into the early Cold War (note the lasting until 1951 and the Cold War Awareness tech) then it would be appropriate to have one or two civilian wonders. Possibly a national wonder available to all nations like the 'National Health Service' wonder you suggested, giving something like +1 health and +1 happiness in all cities (the NHS in reality made people a lot happier as well as healthy). Some other oppurtunities for civilian development would be good as well - not so big as to detract from the main, war part of the mod, but as an added feature.

This could be a nice add-on to RTW:
the Partisan Mod for BTS. Of course with a few tweaks.


You can’t build this Unit but after you have researched rifling you will get a certain amount of Partisan Units when the enemy captures one of your cities. The same works with enemy cities if the AI has the rifling tech.
The amount of Partisans in the city radius depends on the size of the captured city, if the original city owner has the Nationhood Civic (= more Partisans) and for balancing issues if the new owner is stronger or weaker than the former owner (a weaker former owner will also get more Partisans).
Partisans prefer to “spawn” on tiles with higher defence like hills, forest/jungle and forts if they are not occupied by enemy units, but it's still random.
When a Partisan Unit spawn it will automatically damage up to five random enemy units within its range (range = 1; damage per enemy unit = 15-30% but they can’t kill enemies with this attack).

To quell further questions about these two topics: ;)

1. "English" infantry now "Commonwealth" infantry.
2. All BTS events converted to RtW (means some won't trigger due to obsolescence).

Just a couple of comments on some suggestions made. Civ4 is not a game of fine detail, in fact the designers tried hard to clean up as much of the unnecessary detail and micromanagement as possible! Let's not go adding these back into the game:

* Machine guns: The Pinch promotion could be considered to represent MGs (and other anti-infantry support like mortars, snipers, and so on). If you want extra MGs, upgrade your units with Pinch ;)

* POWs: Totally aside from whether such a thing would be appropriate to model in a game (as opposed to a historical simulation), cities already go through a long period of disorder after being taken. You could consider this to include the integration of POWs and refugees.

Nice work Dale, reminds me a lot of Hearts of Iron, probably my favorite WW2 game ;)

Dale, I just want to thank you again for making this great mode and to say that you made the right decision to draw the line at PoW camps. The forced labor civic is there for people who want that option. And the ability for Germany to conquer the world should be enough for any neo-nazi on these forums. Giving these neo-nazis an opportunity to send their PoWs to a city called Auschwitz and disband them there would be a little exessive.

PS As for the atrocities committed during WWII, only the Nazis ran the extermination camps with the purpose of killing as many people as they can as effectively as they can. The prison camps in Siberia were terrible places, but their pupose wasn't genoside, and far more people survivied those camps than nazi camps.

Thanks guys. :)

I second Zevis's opinion, though I hope there aren't any neo-nazis on the forums. And he's right about the Siberian camps, too - the deaths there were more a result of neglect than purposeful killing.

The partisan mod would be a great addition, though - it would simulate civilian resistance very well.

According to the UN, whilst the Soviet Gulags are horiffic for the number of deaths, they differ from the Nazi camps in that they were prisons. Their purpose was to hold prisoners who broke the law as opposed to the Nazi camps who's purpose was the extinction of unwanteds.

Now let's not get into a discussion on the terminology "broke the law" and the interpretation taken by the Soviets eh? ;)

Suggestion: Countries should be able to be liberated. Right now once you conquer every city of country, it ceases to exist. It's destroyed which shouldnt be so. It should be the way it is in the original BtS. On top of that a partisan mod would fit in perfectly. While a country is occupied, some random partisans can start appearing from time to time.

Some ideas for the partisan unit specs:

Strength: Around 10-12 (eager to fight but untrained)
Movement: 2
Starts with guerilla 1 and woodsman 1 (good at fighting in rough terrain)

Suggestion: Countries should be able to be liberated. Right now once you conquer every city of country, it ceases to exist. It's destroyed which shouldnt be so. It should be the way it is in the original BtS. On top of that a partisan mod would fit in perfectly. While a country is occupied, some random partisans can start appearing from time to time.

Yeah, it'd be good to activate the 'Require complete kills' option, to allow the liberation of countries (e.g. France, Poland, West Balkans).

I'm new, but would just like to put some input (btw great job on the mod, I love it and I could care less about the minor issues that I have read in this post).

On the subject of partisan unit as a resistance unit. I think that it really can't be a infantry, but more like a spy in that most resistance wasn't military battalions forming up and taking on the enemy in straight up battles, but more in the lines of harassing infrastructure and guerrilla attacks could have specific mission like destroy infrastructure (in a certain amount of turns, start revolt in a city and weaken unit like 1 or 2 strength).

Also a feature like a government in exile could be a cool idea and triggered if X% of original cities are lost and that the capital has been captured. Could work like a Mongolian camp (from I believe the warlord scenario) spawning a unit every once in a while (only infantry and maybe light tanks). The Gov.-in-exile unit would go to the nearest alive ally's capital. Would give a reason for the French to evacuate at Dunkirk to fight another day instead of fighting to the last man in the last French city.

Also add a new civic for exiled govs so that they can have a lot of free units so don't go broke.

Of course this would probably way to hard to implement in anyway, but its just my 2 cents.

I'm new, but would just like to put some input (btw great job on the mod, I love it and I could care less about the minor issues that I have read in this post).

On the subject of partisan unit as a resistance unit. I think that it really can't be a infantry, but more like a spy in that most resistance wasn't military battalions forming up and taking on the enemy in straight up battles, but more in the lines of harassing infrastructure and guerrilla attacks could have specific mission like destroy infrastructure (in a certain amount of turns, start revolt in a city and weaken unit like 1 or 2 strength).

Also a feature like a government in exile could be a cool idea and triggered if X% of original cities are lost and that the capital has been captured. Could work like a Mongolian camp (from I believe the warlord scenario) spawning a unit every once in a while (only infantry and maybe light tanks). The Gov.-in-exile unit would go to the nearest alive ally's capital. Would give a reason for the French to evacuate at Dunkirk to fight another day instead of fighting to the last man in the last French city.

Also add a new civic for exiled govs so that they can have a lot of free units so don't go broke.

Of course this would probably way to hard to implement in anyway, but its just my 2 cents.

It'd be hard to work, but pretty decent if it could - I like the idea of Polish exiles fighting on through WWII. The camp would be a great way to work that.

The spies idea for resistance would also be good - possibly a mixture of partisans and spies?

According to the UN, whilst the Soviet Gulags are horiffic for the number of deaths, they differ from the Nazi camps in that they were prisons. Their purpose was to hold prisoners who broke the law as opposed to the Nazi camps who's purpose was the extinction of unwanteds.

Now let's not get into a discussion on the terminology "broke the law" and the interpretation taken by the Soviets eh? ;)

This is the UN that had the Soviet Union as a permanent leading member, right? I want to make sure I'm thinking of the same UN you are.

Now let's not get into a discussion on the terminology "broke the law" and the interpretation taken by the Soviets eh?

^ You even quoted it, come on.

This is the UN that had the Soviet Union as a permanent leading member, right? I want to make sure I'm thinking of the same UN you are.

Your attitude is getting quite annoying.
We should discuss of a game.

It doesn't matter if I personally don't agree with the American oriented point of view: Dale created a great mod, and I thank him for this.
War criminal behaviour is not represented, as it could offend not the opinions, but the entire life of people who suffered because of it.

This forum is for discussing the mod Road to War, not for discussing the merits of one ideology versus another.

Thanks. :)

yeah feel free to come to my "political debate" thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=185945). you can yell all ya want there (but you gotta deal with me ;) )

(but you gotta deal with me ;) )

:lol: :goodjob:

Not sure that i am even in the right thread but anyway. I am curious as to why when playing one of the historical game modes that all the events for the axis/russians are included but not the allies. I have played historical as russia and england several times. And i do not understand why the russians invade various countries as per historical timelines yet there are no historical timelines for the allies. I play as russia. And i invade poland finland etc. but i dont understand why england/ the usa do not invade north africa itlaly and even western europe on the given dates. What i run in to is a situation were as russia i follow all my historical events but then in time i am overun by italian german vichy french and balkans forces because the us and england do not follow historical events and invade when they should.I love this scenario but i honestly think this needs to be addressed. You have done a fine job with the scenario but as far as the historical aspects i think the allies invasions need to be added. As i said in my experience russia is left to alone even well after the date when the us/british should have invaded north africa itlay and france

e

@Saragon
Dale already tried to tweaked the ai, so the support from the allies in the next beta could be improved. Even though the russians are not balanced yet, the only civic who goes to war against the axis without joining the allies. Also the government settings have high inflation and WW results. With every raid they become weaker and with the expanding border the are in close touch with all axis forces.

The problem with current historic events is that they are somewhat limited to Declaration of War. i.e it is not exactly the event of Germany invading Poland or the USSR invading Fenland. It is just the two countries declaring war on the respective countries. In case of the Allies at the time of the historic invasion of western Europe, northern Africa, or Italy, they already at war with the Axis countries so the kind of events needed is different.

I don't know how Dale is intending to improve the AI and I am sure he has got some good ideas there. In my opinion additional events can be added for these historic invasions where the Allies are given some troops at the right time and place. Now such events should have some conditions besides time. For instance if England is already invaded by Germany there is no point in triggering the event of Normandy invasion. If the player is controlling an Ally country he shouldn't receive troops but he would be informed to cooperate in the mutual military action. For instance if England is human, and US is AI then England is informed that a couple of turns later the plans for invading western Europe would be implemented. The US will receive an appropriate number of units at the time and place while England (Human player) should act to assist the invasion.

I just wanting to make some more suggestions:

Ships anti-air capabilities seems a little weak considering that in like one turn a sizable fleet can be crushed by a couple of bombers with like 1 being intercepted and losing half its health then have a few enemy ships come in and kill my bigger ships. Is there someway to be able to stack the anti-air capabilities of your destroyer and cruisers (reduce interception chance individually, but have like a 15% chance increase exponentially so each ship does less to increase the interception chance. 1st would be 15% chance then the next would be 15% of the remaining chance and so on) or at least make them immune to collateral damage so bombers would be less effective against ships. It would give fleets a little more of the ability to cruise without having to flee to heal.

Another suggestion would be to give countries who lack oil to be able to produce a limited number of that certain unit instead none.

Dale:

I posted this else where, but not sure if you saw it -- If you did, but did not think worthy of reply -- then sorry --

I have played two games so far as the Brits – 1939 start – the first game was historical – variable entry times, the second game was historical fixed entry times

I am having a great time – and I would like to offered some game play suggestions (not just complain about missing leaders, leader heads, units or countries (Upper Volta, you are missing Upper Volta :crazyeye: )

After writing up my ideas, I saw that there was a lot of text – so I split it up, hopefully it is understandable – please take these comments not as complaints, but as enthusiasm for your mods—clearly you have thought of many ideas and rejected many more – If this is true with any of my suggestions, please do not take offense --

As I have read your posts about your design efforts, I particularly liked your citation of Hearts of Iron II – I hated that game – completely boring – a game that may have all of the finicky little details, but the interface was awful and the design intent was obscure.

CIV 4 is fun – and the simplifications that it makes are acceptable to me – so I try to suggest ideas with in the larger CIV 4 design intent – for example, rather than creating 40 different bomber type – lets create three promotions that can unlock a useful game element (killing ships).

Some background – As noted above, I have played two games so far – so there is a lot I do not know but I have developed some overpowering tactics that exploit weakness in the game system – so I have thought about some possible fixes.

<continued next post>

My strategy as the British has been very aggressive on the ocean, I put 6 subs into the Skaggerack, and reinforce with a large stack of cruisers (all of the Scapa Flow Cruiser fleet). I put the cruisers in the Jutland area, where they are out of range of most mainland European based bombers. But they are safe there because the planes cannot sink them. They promote, and I can heal with a medic cruiser. This means that I have been able to bottle up the Germany Navy fairly well – with the subs there, I can crush any German capital ships with a bombardment –

Bug Number 1: With a large enough capital fleet, I can bombard a single German ship to death – there is no message in the message line (it would be nice to see a note, like when you kill something during normal attack).

Enhancement 1: Ships are too overpowered against Air – I know you know the arguments – but bombers need to be able to kill ships – maybe a promotion?
Within your concept of separate missions for bombers – and the requirement that you use generic plane types – maybe the following mechanism – three promotions – naval attack, unit attack, city attack (which would permit factory and defense attack). A bomber unit could only have two of these types -- And only bombers with Unit and Ship Attack could kill ships. This would permit the development of anti ship bombers and fighters –

Enhancement 2: Ships in cities must be much more vulnerable. Right now, they can never be killed – they take collateral damage from planes, but cannot be killed, and cannot be killed by ship attack (maybe ship bombard – must test). In real life, if a bomber raids a city, the ships are at severe disadvantage. Currently, I can sit with a huge fleet of ships in London – protected from others ships while the bombs rain down.

There are a number of ways to fix – 1. Ships in a city attacked by bombers must leave city -- they are immediately placed on coast squares.
2. Just double or triple the damage against ships in port – (and all planes can attack and kill).

Another issue – In my second game, I put some English units into Europe, attacking the Germans – even retaking Amsterdam (those overpowered Fleets) – (Tactics: Take the Scapa Flow stack, base in London – move to Amsterdam coast – Bombard Amsterdam all at once -- Will certainly remove defense, most likely will collateral damage all units to 50%. Move home – next turn repeat – and on this turn directly invade – Attack at 99% success chance – move transport into city and unload units –THEN – air transport six to nine units from Canada into Amsterdam –

Yikes – a little over powered – got to put some limits on the Air transport –

I thought of an easy way to do it: How about only mature cities getting air shipments -- so – you must have either 50% cultural defense or have an Airport in receiving city to Air transport. Even this will be over powered – as you will be able to air transport from Canada or USA to England – but it is better than directly into a captured city. Another thought, maybe prevent air transport into a city in revolt.

The reason this is important is that once you build two air bases in Canada, the Battle for the Atlantic is over!!! There is no need to run any ships across the Atlantic at all. Then I can use my over powered fleets to bombard to my heart’s content – you can move 6 ground units across the Atlantic per turn – more than the likely capacity of the cities. (All Air units just rebase)

So Enhancement 3: Restrict Air transport as noted above. Either way works for me.

Here is another enhancement element. This is a little chrome, rather than a design element: Air unit training – we all know about the major effort of the allies to create well trained air units -- So here is a proposal – a new building called the Air training base – is built by moving an air unit with 10 XP to a city with an Air base – if you leave an air unit on an air training base for a turn, and NO attacks are made against the city, the air unit earns a 1 XP The Air training base only lasts for six months, after which another air unit with 10 XP must be expended.

This would simulate the USA’s air training policy very nicely – and pose the strategic dilemma that existed at the time. It works within the promotion system, and only introduces the concept of stationary units earning the promotions.

However, this maybe difficult to code -- I am not familiar with the SDK well enough to know, so I thought of another way to implement – have three different bomber and fighter types for each unit, that take different amounts of time to build – for example – right now I can built a Spitfire in three turns – for another 10% hammers – I get 3 XP, for another 25% hammers I get 6 XP. So I have a choice to build trained, or advance trained air units, IF I have the Air Training base in the city

Or to avoid any SDK changes at all – Air Training Base gives 3 XP – That is the simplest –

But it is important for the strategic dynamic is to have them expire after X number of turns (veteran pilots are needed to keep the Training base going. and to create the Base with the Veteran unit) which I suppose will require an SDK change...

Yes – it is a little bit of chrome – but I think it adds some flavor –

A final question – Is there a trigger in the game for the Germans to send troops to N Africa? As the British, I move all of my ships to Malta and defeat the Italian Navy in detail –
I use subs in the Gibraltar straits, and about 10 cruisers in Gibraltar, plus the Alexandria fleet at Malta controls the sea lanes around Italy easily. Even with out air cover.

This strategy would become impossible is bombers could sink ships in port, or the ships would be forced out of port – then the Italian Navy could get them – (see above)

My strategy is overpowered – and I kill any landing craft I see – and I see all of them – So the North African campaign is easy for the British – Cruiser and battleship sorties to bombard – and attack with three infantry (and one tank flown in from Canada) – So I was wondering, do the Germans ever land in N Africa?

So – again the British Navy is very much overpowered in enemy air covered areas – and mass bombardment attack will kill most of the Italian Navy fairly quickly –
The tactics are – move the Alexandria fleet to Malta. As the Italian Navy comes out, count the number of ships in the target square. Bombard with all units minus the number of battleships equal to number of ships in target. Use remaining battleships to kill remaining targets –

While it is true that I could play at higher difficulty levels – I think that having many more units to kill with these tactics do not increase the fun of the game –

Again, I am sure that you have heard these requests before – many times I expect, but I hope that I have suggested something of merit.

As things stand now, against the AI – my tactics are overpowering –

I can destroy the Italian Navy easily, and keep the German fleet in home ports easily (see above) – as you know this was not the strategic situation in WWII for the British --

again thanks for this mod -- my comments should not in any way suggest disappointment or complaint -- I am very happy with your efforts, and hope that you will take these comments in the spirit they are offered.

And I agree with some of your comments up thread -- there is a level of detail that we do not want -- I do not think a CIV WWII scenario is improved by labor camps or the like -- the slavery concept in CIV is there -- as is the emancipation concept (although I read a thread that advocated removing it)

These concepts (in my opinion) represent some of the best and worse of the human experience -- and yes, it is true that slavery has been used for most of human history and is still prevelant today --
Thus, I applaud the designers of the central game and you, Dale, for your efforts to thread this needle

And that is why my modest suggestions are designed to represent some of the strategic aspects of the conflict

cheers --

LingLin:

An massive set of observations. Thanks. :)

I'd like to hear your view on all the above after you've played a game or two of beta 3. I think with the better war AI some of your points will now be redundant. :)

Will do -- but I think the Air Training concept models a real strategic consideration / choice

?? Take my good air unit out of service -- to create better? or use it to fight today??

And with respect to the air transport issue -- unless unit being transported can be attacked as they arrive -- the ability to take six units from Canada to France is very over powered --

I agree in principle on the air transport numbers. 3 from the origin just doesn't limit enough. Also, I raised the air cap to 10 in a city with an airport. Maybe reducing this again will help.

Air training is definitely an alternate solution to having many types of aircraft. Whilst in reality you need many types of aircraft, the AI would just be more confused.

I do still think beta 3's AI will modify some of your ideas though, surrounding naval combat mostly.

Am now trying the latest download as Italy with historic settings, but haven't played long enough to see how the new AI plays it yet. But after reading the suggestions about regional 'events', here is my suggestion: I forget the terminology, but I think it was in a Civ III Mediterranean scenario where there were specific goal-points/markers/locations/obelisks that you had to control to earn points or somesuch. Could something like that be useful here, if the region/zone solution (from Rhyes?) cannot be implemented for 'convincing' the Allies to invade North Africa or Normandy to take the pressure off Russia? If there is some sort of marker in western North Africa that Germany/Italy controls, then the Allies would be inclined to attack it.

Also, I have played long enough to be seeing the random BTS-style events. It wants me to build forges as a quest (most of my cities had just completed factories), which seems kind of odd! Sweden had a hurricane -- a simple word change to 'gale' or 'storm' would suffice there. I like the earlier suggestion for espionage types of events, in addition to the production/science ones.

While I'm at it, one thing that stood out as missing in a historical sense is the Murmansk convoys. I don't recall the history in great detail, but the Allies had to ship supplies to Russia across the north, and also of course had to supply England as well. Could the addition of a naval-unit equivalent of a great merchant, which has to go to a city in an allies' control (i.e., cannot just be cashed-in within your own borders or added as a specialist) to get the bonus simulate this? The allie should also get some benefit (perhaps resources, see below). Otherwise, even though it was an earlier version, I had no incentive at all to send my German navy out into the Atlantic and could just concentrate on using them for shore bombardment or to keep things under control in the Baltic.

Similarly, the resources issue keeps crossing my mind. I've played as four different countries now, and all of them have oil and no real threat of losing it except through the occasional act of sabotage. Perhaps this isn't true at a higher difficulty, but I recall that oil supply was critical for Germany and Japan, and led to some of their decisions for where to attack. I don't know the modding details, but I have wondered if there is a way to put a 'limit' on the number of units a particular resource-source can supply? E.g., Italy has an oil field in Albania and it will supply say 100 units -- if you want to build that 101st unit, you need additional oil (or disband an old unit, etc.). The same could be done for coal -- each coal source supplies say 100 squares worth of railroads, or some number of railroad-space movements per turn. Of course, the tricky part is what happens if you lose a source -- on the next turn do units disband, or are just unable to move, or move/fight at half strength? It would have to balanced somehow though, or the 'solution' would be to load up on cavalry (no oil required) and to add zeppelins to the mod.

Maybe you could get some kind of currency for example:
10 units of oil for every oil ressource you control.
Every tank substracts one unit each turn.
That way you could store it just in case one well gets sabotaged
If you have 0 and a negative income units get disbanded.

This is add-on pack 2 talk here. ;)

I am in favour of implementing some form of oil economy, with oil units requiring an oil supply.

I'm also considering implementing a form of my combined stack combat for add-on pack 2 as well (combat similar to CTP2 as opposed to 1-on-1 Civ style combat).

The oil thing would be really good.

What is CTP2 ?

Civ call to power2.
In ctp2 you fought with stacks of up to 8 units in battles instead of 1vs1.

Dale,
I played the beta 3 pack this weekend -- Great Britain -- Historical, 1939
While it is better -- still I could use the British fleet to my advantage

I decided to limit my self -- air transport great people, spies ONLY -- no unit transfer (actually -- I think I was too harsh, should be able to move Paratroopers as well)

I still had NO problem with movement of unit across Atlantic because of following moves --
6 CA and 6 BB moved to Gibralter from Scapa Flow
All subs to Skagerrak
remainder of Scapa Flow fleet lurks in Jutland Area -- blocking Germans moving out of Baltic

Move Suez fleet to Malta Fight Italian navy to standstill -

in 1940 -- Italian fleet tries to break out of Med -- crushed it
London ships with some of the Scapa Flow fleet provide French and Dutch coast line support -- bombing anything in range --
Amsterdam is not taken until late 1941
Caldis taken in 1942 -- but Paris never falls --
English counter attack out of Normandy turns into major campaign --
in 1943 --English takes Caldis France never fails --

Also -- in 1943 -- northern fleet supports attack on Copenhagen English takes it, but German counterattack drives out English (works as diversion)
In Med -- West balkins have taken all of Yugoslavia
English have taken all of N Africa -- Russia has Sardinia -- English have Sicily,
Naples, Brindisi and driving on Rome --

All due to aggressive naval tactics that are completely unhistorical
The Germans never capture Norway, France, or breakout of Med -- Thus, transport ships move back and forth without escort --

The only time I have lost transports in in Med -- when Italians suprised me with a CA or 2.

By the way, AI uses transports in attack mode -- transports should never attack (like scouts)

My main tactic is harbor lurking (or harbour) -- make sure that ships send turn in harboor -- when under enemy aircover -- easy to do in English Channel and Sicily / Malta / Sardinia / Tunis area
Since France never went Vichy, I can move a transport from Gibralter to Malta (UN ESCORTED) without any risk --

I risk battleships by coasts -- operate under German air cover without fear, etc Currently, it seems to me that AI does not attack ships with planes.

The Italian Navy is using harbor lurking, and will stay in harbor until a weak unit is sighted and pounce on it --

a fighter promotion (anti ship) that grant 200% bonus to ship attack, and permit ship kills would work very well to insure that British fleet would stay away from coast -- while it would be strange to see the fighter planes currently in the game used in attack role, this would be much better than current situation -- where fleets can travel without air superiority and attack

Also permit Ship attack in harbor at 300 or 400% bonus with ship sink to all planes -- that will reduce harbor lurking

Of course -- Trick is to get AI to use it properly --


Also -- Great Spy does not work as in regular game -- while it is invisable -- counter esp still kills them -- in core game -- they are invulerable --

Hopefully there would be some way to 1) attack ships in port from the air, as described above; and 2) attack ships in neutral territory via air and bombardment. I can understand the game compromise to allow ships to move through neutral territory, but currently it can be used to distinct advantage.

Not sure if this one can be done, but: neutral territory should be a no-fly zone, right? Currently planes fly back and forth across Turkey in the historical mode, which doesn't seem realistic to their sovereignty.

Coming up in the next version: port airbombing!

Excellent!!

I'm not sure what you have changed, but is there a way to do any of these:

Make ships invisible to units unless in a coastal waters (as opposed to open ocean) except for ships, so fleets are not so unrealistically easy to track. Give carrier ablility to see ships for a little more distance (to represent recon planes). Give destroyers a slightly stackable air defense to represent a destroyer screen to protect against planes (no major ship was without one). Ships immune against collateral damage, since when does a bomber attack a whole fleet. Bombers unrealistically bomb ships, should use torpedo and dive bombers, a new torpedo bomber unit (might get too confusing for AI) for ship attacks and can be carried on carriers.

Can germans artilery be unique - 88 mm flak 36, even tho it was supposed to be AA gun but it was mostly used as artilery or AT gun.

Great news re port airbombing! But the suggestion above to specialize the air units into fighters (multitaskers), torpedo bombers (anti-ship only), and bombers (anti-city, anti-landunit) makes sense to me. It also raises the question: will port airbombing be a new 'choice' (like bombing improvements, etc.)? This way we could choose whether to attack the naval units or the land units in a port.

While we're at it, does it make sense to have a way to specifically attack fighter interceptors? Wasn't that one of the prime details of the RW Battle of Britain -- Germany did not concentrate on taking out the RAF fighters, deciding to bomb the cities instead? Attacking fighter interceptors would have to have two elements: air-to-air (clicking a square and engaging whichever interceptor shows up) and air-to-base (similar to port attack, only against air units stationed at that base/city?). Presumably this is a mission only for fighters, not bombers.

Also, regarding unit specialization, there are nation-specific land and air units. Were there not specific-enough differences among the naval units for some differentiation? The obvious example is battleship designs like the Bismarck and Yamato being superior to those of other nations (also presumably more expensive). Of course nation-specific graphics would be nice also.

A suggestion:
I think that Dale has a very good point that asking for a new unit (to do "this special thing", bomb ships, carry supplies, 88mm flak, etc ) is hard to do --

Lets see if we can figure out ways to extend the game without creating a special unit for every thing -- because, the AI cannot deal with it, and the graphical overhead, art work demands, etc will become impossible i.e.
if we put in torpedo bombers, then we need three levels (basic, advanced, modern), for each CIV (USA, UK, German, Italian, Japan, etc, etc) that is ALOT of work --
Then of course people will say WHAT ABOUT dive bombers --- I can see where Dale would not want to open that can o' worms.

So the question to me is can we get the stuff we want within the constraints of Civ 4, and Dale's willingness to add stuff.

For example, if we create a promotion of Naval attack --
Lets say --
200% against ships
Ship Kill
25% attack against fighters
50% defend against fighters

Only 1 graphic element is required --
and I am guessing that the AI programming might not be too bad (The AI seems to be good at selecting best unit for attacking, probably need to tell it to produce these planes for CVs)
Hey, nothing is ever simple with AI --

Ah, yes, I forgot about the balance though I have read the threads about slow performance and AI confusion with new units. It does make sense to do a naval attack promotion for fighters instead of creating a new unit. Perhaps even the battleship specialization could be handled with promotions, much like the winter-effect for Russian infantry?

But I think the attack-interceptors/attack-airbases thing would have to be handled as an option for fighters to choose as a mission. There could be a promotion(s) that would make it more effective.

Whether the AI can handle this is a different question, one I cannot address too deeply.

Before I forget, does it make sense for anti-air units to be able to attack ground units? I have had the AI try this in the beta-3 version, and it wasn't even counterattacking from a city to break a siege (actually, it was attacking a city). Shouldn't these be defense-only, like machine guns in the vanilla game?

Thought about the history of the naval war in Europe some last night --
What prevented the British Navy being used the way I am doing it --

I see two things preventing capital ships from coming close to the coast – submarines and planes

If we look at the Battle of Calabria – we see that the Italian High Command would not commit capital ships without destroyer escort – Indeed, it would have been considered criminal to commit capital ships anywhere without destroyers (it was not done until late in the war (US Navy sends out Indianapolis, and look how that turned out)

In the Med, or the North Atlantic – no way –

Dale has added the harbour bombing which is critical I think – but lets continue on this path –

One of the most important dynamics of the Naval War in Europe – the Brits never had enough destroyers – In RtW – I never use them. So one of the important aspects would be to fix the relationship between subs, capital ships and destroyers –
The first way is to alter the relationships between the ship’s strengths

Proposal –
Subs -- very strong against Capital ships (BB, CA, CV) +200%
-- weak against destroyers 50%
Destroyers -- strong against subs +50%
Capital Ship -- cannot see subs, cannot attack subs
Transports – should not attack and I think a defense of 15 is high – they should be like workers – dead if attacked, last unit to defend -- Currently the AI will run around attacking subs and destroyer with stacks of Transports – YUCK
Transports cannot attack – and max defend of 3

The above changes force all transports to be escorted – and prevents transport strike forces --

This would go along way to fixing the problem – however, there are some problems with this – In the Pacific war – the US subs were handicapped by the torpedoes not working – maybe the way to handle this is that the base Sub strength is low – but Germany and Italy get Sub experience from Naval Yards –

Or a Quest that is triggered after USA builds 10 subs --then must sink five transports –
Then all US subs get a promotion that restores attack stength



To add historical flair, and show how we might use elements other than new units:

Two new elements
A new Espionage mission
Sink ships in Harbor
This is modeled after the Italian frogman attack(s) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decima_Flottiglia_MAS#Chronicle_of_Operations
in Alexandria harbor
or the attack on the Tirpitz in Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_commando_frogmen

A New random event –
History – German U boat in Scapa Flow (U-47)
Sub infiltrates harbor
Requirement
No destroyers in Harbor
Capital ships in Harbor
Result – 1-2 capital ships sunk (double amount if no Naval base)

Advantage here is that you must build have destroyers with your Capital fleets to prevent this sort of attack –

These changes would nicely represent the problems the British faced with destroyer shortages –

But I think the attack-interceptors/attack-airbases thing would have to be handled as an option for fighters to choose as a mission. There could be a promotion(s) that would make it more effective.

Yes -- I agree--
Having the mission for fighters to attack CAP would be good --

Having a promotion available later in the war (maybe as a result of Advanced C3) -- This would nicely model the later war --

This would work out as -- Early war with out promotion -- Air superiority missions not as effective -- With Advanced C3 -- very effective --

And have the CAP attack promotion stack with Interception promotion
But make the naval / ground attacks weaker (-25%) ??

I definitely agree about the subs. I posted elsewhere that an earlier game as Germany I never even bothered to send ships into the North Atlantic. In part that was also due to subs being absolutely useless, other than for early surveillance or delivering spies. The only use I've found for them is to take out ships that have already been severely damaged by capital ships or by planes. Even so, they don't fare well. Even with promotions they are not very strong. I like the ideas of increasing sub attack strength against capital ships and adjust capital ships and destroyers accordingly. I almost never build destroyers currently since they have little to do -- they can see subs which are then easily destroyed. Harbor attacks for subs would be excellent, with destroyer/base deterrent -- wasn't it a destroyer that stopped a Japanese sub at Pearl Harbor?

I also have encountered the transport-attack, which is quite unrealistic and quite annoying. Dunno what defense strength it should have, but it should probably have some positive number like 5 or so. It may be enough just to remove their attack ability.

I too have been pondering the ineffectiveness of spies. There should be some way to gain experience, through both espionage and counter-espionage and perhaps some unique building (and perhaps just by going undetected -- mine are always disappearing before they even attempt anything). The quest idea is intriguing to expand not only for spies but in general (e.g., commando-type raids of certain squares, air raids, etc.). There should also be something for spies to do after the war starts (or maybe I am just uninformed about what else they can do, since they can no longer sabotage?).

Spies are very powerful in the basic game, but less so in RtW --
But the best way to win as the Russia I am told is to do a spy heavy build -- and go after Axis oil supply --

There have been bg with spies and great spies --
In the base game -- Great Spies are invulnerable --
Regular spies can be attacked by counter esp

In RtW first release
All SPies were visible to all units

In second / third release
visiblity problem solved -- but Great Spies can still be attacked by counter esp

Thinking about Transports --
No Attack for sure

Defense --
Argument for -- transport counter represents a fleet of transports -- (five units load)
Thus some part of fleet will make it -- so some defense is good
(the result of an attack on undefended fleet would be loss of some but not all) ?

Argument against -- cargo is not reduced -- thus if wounded transport fleet makes it -- all units arrive -- complete vulnerability forces the player to escort transports

Given the map -- there are too many places where transports can move from place to place without facing attack (which will change soon- yay) I would say -- while the argument for defense is good -- no defense forces the player into the strategic choice --

OH -- cool spy mission -- Naval Codes -- location of target's ships !!!!
all of them would be over powered (especially in Pacific) -- but maybe choose class of ships (BB, CV, Subs, Transports, not DD or CA)
Especially when combined with Jagodon's idea about ships not being visible

Speaking of Jagordon's message -- there are alot of merit in there

Make ships invisible to units unless in a coastal waters (as opposed to open ocean) except for ships
Yes -- except ships and planes

Give carrier ablility to see ships for a little more distance (to represent recon planes
CAP should give better sight -- but there is a recon mission for all planes so maybe not

Give destroyers a slightly stackable air defense to represent a destroyer screen to protect against planes (no major ship was without one).
Agree

Ships immune against collateral damage, since when does a bomber attack a whole fleet.
Agree

Bombers unrealistically bomb ships, should use torpedo and dive bombers, a new torpedo bomber unit (might get too confusing for AI) for ship attacks and can be carried on carriers

Covered above -- but the thinking for me is that bomber would not be able to get the ship attack promo -- the fighter range and attack strenght are more aligned with attack aircraft
P-51 closer to Dauntless than B-17
and fighters can be placed on CVs --

And one other thing to really get the Battle for the Atlantic going -- when you get one of the medium technologies -- give bombers ability to attack subs -- until then -- bomber cannot attack subs
(from Wikpedia -- Additionally, new weapons were designed for use by aircraft, rapidly increasing their importance in fighting submarines. The development of the FIDO (Mk 24 mine) anti-submarine homing torpedo in 1943 (which could be dropped from aircraft), was a significant contributor to the rising number of German sub sinkings.
)

Great ideas, but unfortunately I dread having to write an AI to handle them. ;)

However, here's some changes I made:
- Port airbomb is missions similar to other city airbomb missions.
- AA units defense only.
- Transports defense only.
- Ships can be bombed to zero instead of 50% (not the "lucky shot" concept).
- Subs get bonus versus BB, CA, CV.
- Destroyers get bonus versus subs.
- Ships now collateral immune.

These changes sound great, and something that can be playtested to see how the balance is while you contemplate the bigger issues.

Dale,
The changes are great -- I will definitely play this out for you as GB and Italy --

Of the many suggestions I have had, you have gotten the most important IMO -- and I am very happy --

In the spirit of simple changes that might have a big impact --
The only two allied health resources on the map are the fishes at Malta and the fishes at Gilbralter

I find these placements are strange -- I propose you move them for reasons historical and game play --
Historical -- One of the biggest fisheries in the world is the Grand Banks of a New England / Canada
Game Play -- We need a reason to fight a Battle of the Atlantic -- putting health resources in Canada might help this --

Another change -- Currently, two :health: are available -- fishes and the naval harbor gives a health bonus for fishes -- so two :health:

I have read your reasons for not have many health resources on the map -- this works for me --

But given that I want to represent some of the strategic / political ascpect of the war -- how about the following:

Move one or both of the fishes to Canadian waters --
Give US two Crab resources -- This gives the the possiblity of trade between the Aliies of health resources -- and a reason for the Axis to send subs to the US East Coast

To balance-- remove the health benefiit of the Naval Harbor
This would give a bit more health to the Allies (inland cities could get 2 health)

But it would give a pay off for the Axis to fight the Battle of the Atlantic --

I am guessing that the base AI might understand this, but likely not -- but the base game Naval AI is way better these days --
But it gives a German or Italian human player a viable strategic goal -- cut off the trans Atlantic trade! -- and the Allied AI will certainly try to counter / fight back

Finally -- a simple solution to the Kiel Canal issue -- Put a fort 1 west of Bremen (I think) this would make the British blockade of the Skagerack less useful -- and ships can travel through forts

A final thing --
I am very excited about the special event concept of sub attacks in harbor (as a special event, not an actual movement of a sub into the harbor)
I see that that there is a good tutorial on creating special events -- I will see if I can do it -- (not a good progammer, but I can hack around a bit)

If I get something to work -- I will send to you for your consideration --

Can you point me to the reasons for limiting health resources on the map? I didn't find it in a quick perusal of these threads. If it is to keep the cities from mushrooming to huge populations, that makes sense. I like the idea of crabs/fish off the North American coast as an incentive for Axis sub activity and Allied patrols, especially if the USA is already exporting them to UK/France at the beginning of the scenario.

Try this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=238420

Tried two games over the weekend, one as USSR one as Germany, both using beta-3 1938-start on Prince level I think it was. The AI is certainly more competent than before. Finland, while not a major power, put on a fierce defense/counterattack at Helsinki during the Winter War. And the Allies tried two large amphibious assaults in NW Germany soon after the Sept1939 DoW.

I've read elsewhere about the inevitable boredom of the 1936 historical start. Is there any way to incorporate the Spanish Civil War into that timeframe? I don't know enough of the history of it, other than that the Axis supported Franco, but perhaps this is a stage for quests/events (since the outcome is already historically determined)? "Gift a stuka to Franco, receive X"?

Another anti-air glitch: AA units are currently (beta-3) able to intercept air attacks while loaded inside a transport at-sea. I don't think there was anything else within range.

Had an idea about partisans. From earlier versions of Civ, I found the actual military unit partisans a huge pain to deal with, and as pointed out elsewhere they aren't very realistic. I don't know all of the historical details of partisans in WWII, but in game terms would it make sense for spies to be generated? These would do the usual spy activities. I wonder if there would be a way to limit such partisan-spies to the borders of their original country. However, how would these partisan spies be countered? Shouldn't the presence of military garrison thwart/prevent them?

Hi been playing the beta 3 addon and had a couple problems/suggestions. First off it seems ranged bombardment doesn't work if the enemy ship is sitting in neutral waters. For instance playing as britian I can't bombard german sh ips in dutch waters before they join the allies. Not sure if this is the intended purpose, but it cost me a handful of bombers and a battleship... which sucked.

For some reason or another London, Liverpool, and Sydney's growth seem to be stuck. All of them got to around size 5 and just stopped growing. Even though the granary showed 1 turn for growth, and there was quite an abundance of food and unworked tiles.

I realize the health resources are absent to keep populations/production somewhat balanced... but the AI really seems to have a problem with this. As outside of britian and canada, 90% of the cities are always squalored. Production seems a bit out of whack as well. I can't remember a nation ever poducing an entire naval fleet in the time it took to make a few tanks.

So to balance the production... maybe you could remove the 25% production increase on the naval factory. Or make all factories (except naval) require a goods factory which has no health decrease but takes a bit longer to build, and isn't available until polymerisation. This is actually pretty realistic since its the contractors making small parts that really amp production, and theres nothing small about a battleship.

Other than that... great mod, I've really enjoyed it.

A thought about the desert (I don't think this has been mentioned already, sorry in advance if it has). There is the special promotion for the winter effects, why not make a similar terrain promotion for the desert? Would allow one to specialize/promote units ala the Afrika Korps, without having to add special units/graphics/etc.

Is there the possibility to get more different unit graphics in the mod (I think of the infantry units ) ?

Great mod.

Any chance for more nations?

Denmark maybe? (Allied)
Copenhagen will now be a part of Denmark
Nuuk will be available in Greenland
Tórshavn (Faroe Islands) will be a part of Denmark (Temporary occupation by Britain when Denmark is invaded by Germany (Historical Events), Airport project to be built by British) (If playing British, a mini task would be to "capture" the island, and build the airport to provide protection in the Atlantic against German naval operations)

Switzerland (Neutral)
Replace Rhine with Bern
Add Zürich

Any other potential nations?

Oh and a restriction on money would be nice. What I mean is, when you go to (Historical Events or Partially Historical), and become friendly with your allies which btw, this is most appropriate with concern of the "weaker" allies, you can easily be bringing in lots of money and vital resources from them. Sure this is nice and all, but you shouldn't be able to reek in +1500 gold per turn from allies to fund the 1 turn creation of units! Perhaps you could make units ridiculously expensive (when you intend to pay them off for 1 turn creation) or perhaps make the allies just pleased? I'm not sure if they'll still be willing to offer you some money because of this. Or maybe (if possible), a loaning scheme? Where loans made to one nation would eventually have to be paid off? (or would it be theoretical i.e. payed off after WWII) :p

Don't know if this has been suggested before. Playing the 3.13 RTW version. (without the add-on, will download soon)

Armor unit: give them -25% city attack, remove access to city raider promotions.

In its current format, armor are the best unit for all offensive purpose. In open-terrain, I can only agree. However, for city operations, arty and infantry should be the only viable option (from a ground unit perspective).

Thanks for the great mod, awesome work.

very much agree with DarthCycles armour suggestions. If you are fighting in open terrain armour is great, but confined areas like forests and especially cities they have to grind through mines, obstuctions, close range AT weapons, ambushs.
- it would be nice to see a hedgerow terrain type for the normandy area (and maybe lightly scattered around europe) as defensive as forests but gives same benefit as farm. then it is a bit of a grind to take France back from Germany, rather than blitzkrieg to berlin.
- themed promotions would be a quick and easy way to get the mod more WW2 aligned without 'more exact realism' and the like. Mobility promotions could be Motorized - Mechanised, etc. They could give bonus movement, bonus vs inf weapons in defence, etc. More wheeled/tracked vehicles meant faster moving divisions as well as heavier equipment being assigned.
this would tie in with tech-allowed infantry AT promotions.
- unit limit on codebreakers.
- dont obsolete tanks, it is cool and useful to be able to make light/med tanks when you have heavies, to fit the type of mission you want. raiders vs main force vs heavy breakthrough.
- maginot isnt tough enough. arty/air concentrations can break through soon after ww2 starts with few or no casualties (prince diff) and france has few troops to stop germany (despite having larger inf/arty/tank forces.
- france needs a small navy in the med defending their middle eastern lands. otherwise germany just doesnt take paris and moves troops to palestine/syria to take the undefended cities there.
- at the moment i would say RtW is great for hunam vs hunam but the AI needs a real kick up the bum.

how about a Machine Gun unit like in regular civ with 1 first strike, 50% vs gunpowder and defend only. An early machine gun would have 15 str. A regular machine gun would have 18 str, and an advanced machine gun would have 20 str. Also, they should be able to get pinch unlike in reg civ.

I'm sure someone has proposed this, but I would like the idea of POW as workers. Like in civ 3, where the mayan uu could enslave a military unit into a worker. I think this promotes realism, as the enemies dont just fight to the last man, but rather surrender to protect their own lives. So, every turn, each POW worker has a 20% chance of becoming a partisans. If you station a military unit over the POW, the chance is reduced to 2%. If there is one successful uprising of POW, other POW workers in the same tile will get a 50% chance of uprising and become partisans as well. Also, you cannot just disband or gift away POW workers. If the country of origins of the POW workers are destroyed, then all the percentage above would reduce by 1/2.

Check elsewhere in these threads, much earlier during the development phase -- there is a discussion of POW issues and valid reasons to leave POWs out of the scenario.

POW worker won't be added at all. this is out of respect for the living and dead POW's from WWII and all other wars. There is no way to usefully implement this, and no real balance issue that it would fix.

Out of respect for the dead, let's pretend they never existed?

No, out of respect, I won't allow the "capturing, deleting, etc etc" of them.

A few suggestions:
Decrease the the strength of fighters and give them +100 vs air?
Its just feels wrong that a single fighter almost always wins against a AA-gun.

Increase the damage of artillery against one single target.
Right now you can kill 2units in a stack almost as fast/even faster than one single since you deal more colleteral than direct damage.

Increase the chance to hit ships in port.
Last game I tried to attack a single battleship in port with 8 bombers and 6 fighters.All failed (might be just bad luck but with that amount I could have killed 2 on open see)

And one bug concerning AA-guns:
One AA can interrupt fighters/bombers after it got destroyed:
If you select more than one airplane and send them to attack a tile defended by one AA-gun the AA gets a chance to interupt every single one before the combat takes place. Very funny if you kill the same AA 5 times in one turn.

hey, how about splash damage for missile units? Maybe reduce the strength, but maybe worthwhile in some strategic instances.

pows could be very useful, if talk in respect to pows then lets shot all entire game down - so many ppl died in ww2.
this is strategy war simulator we need pows and we need new terrain building in addition to farms, cottedges and such we could have Ccamp- concentration camp and jales.
in concentration camps we could store pows and for each if its in city radius - city could generate +1 or +2 gold or production shields.
Jale in other hand for our idle workers. when workers done their job we could put them in jale so that they dont cost maintanance cost, +gold from worker in jail -gold maintanance cost = free upkeep.
lets say there limit 10 inmates in Ccamps and jales.
If we play simulator then lets play it as close to real as possible or if u so sensitive dont play it at all!

I suggest to those wanting POW's, concentration camps and other stuff have a go at adding them yourselves.

If you hadn't noticed I'm no longer working on RtW. The add-on is the final work I'm doing on the mod. :)

If you hadn't noticed I'm no longer working on RtW. The add-on is the final work I'm doing on the mod. :)

That's really bad news.
Anyway, thank you. You've made a great mod - it's a pity we won't see any further enhancement.

If you hadn't noticed I'm no longer working on RtW. The add-on is the final work I'm doing on the mod. :)

Are you still going to make the World wide version? :please:

Some suggestions while playing through...

- An actual Partisan unit instead of generic infantry being generated. It seems odd that Partisans should be suddenly generated fully trained and equipped professional soldiers rather than a militia type unit.

- Some way for the Historical Events modes to "switch off" after a certain date, so that you can follow history *up to a point* but then go on to invade Sweden etc. - say in 1945.

I think I have a good suggestion about making AI perform a lot better in historical events mode, starting the game in 1936 (I have played Europe 1936 with exact or random hitorical events several times). AI does not take advantage of guaranteed peace and no barbarians for many turns in the begining of the game. It starts building military units in the undeveloped citys, when it is a better strategy, I believe, to improve your infrastucture by building workers and factories first. I think there should be a production queue for a game start, which AI could not change until it is completed. My suggested production queue would look like this: worker (from 0 to 2); vehicle, air and naval factories, barracs. There could be build 2 workers if a city can produce one in 4 turns or less. And there might not be a point to build any workers if a city can't build a single worker faster then 12 turns. Start building factories right away then. Barracs should be in a scripted queue becouse I am afraid that as soon as AI will get control of what to build, it will start building units without barracs, meaning without promotions. While with factories in place, improved land and population mor