Well, I've just started the World War II scenario, and looking around the map, I see Gibraltar spelled "Gibralter", Koenigsberg spelled "Konigsburg", Chisinau spelled "Chisnau", and Orlando as a coastal city. And there's a civ called "Low Country", which presumably ought to be The Low Countries. I know these are pretty superficial things, but it's the superficial things that turn me off. I'm going back to playing Rhye's and Fall.

That is pretty superficial.

That is pretty superficial.

First off let me say that I like the mod so far and it is clear that a large amount of work went into it. But OP has a point: the mod still lacks polish and there are some really awful errors like the Me-109 coming after the Focke. The AA gun bugs and such really hurt as well though that's supposedly fixed now.

Most superficially: the lack of graphical unit icons throws people off.. not user-friendly, and yes I know your rationale for it and I was not personally thrown off too much, but if you want a more popular mod you'd have kept graphical unit icons. Your rationale about it being for old-schoolers also rings hollow if you have errors like the ones described above (Me-109, etc.) and the OP's spelling criticisms. Or the adjectives stuff.. it's just "Russian spy" not "Russians spy" etc. The Civ IV vanilla team got it right the first time--one adjective for the units, but another word for the nation.

The ME-190/FW-190 and AA are fixed in the add-on betas.

The unit icons take two minutes to learn.

As far as I'm concerned they're more user-friendly (and from reports I'm getting a lot of people agree). If I used an icon for infantry, all infantry would have the same icon. With my icons you can tell with a glance what level that infantry is at (how many stars it has). A lot of people have also said they love seeing the old board icons back. At this point, many more people like the NATO icons than changing to standard Civ4 style heads.

You do have a point about spelling/grammar (the translators mongreled not just RtW but the whole of BtS) and I've already said these will get fixed in the add-on. But really, in the scheme of things, spelling/grammar IS a pretty superficial thing to cite as the reason not to play.

The ME-190/FW-190 and AA are fixed in the add-on betas.

The unit icons take two minutes to learn.

As far as I'm concerned they're more user-friendly (and from reports I'm getting a lot of people agree). If I used an icon for infantry, all infantry would have the same icon. With my icons you can tell with a glance what level that infantry is at (how many stars it has). A lot of people have also said they love seeing the old board icons back. At this point, many more people like the NATO icons than changing to standard Civ4 style heads.

You do have a point about spelling/grammar (the translators mongreled not just RtW but the whole of BtS) and I've already said these will get fixed in the add-on. But really, in the scheme of things, spelling/grammar IS a pretty superficial thing to cite as the reason not to play.

Good point about the multiple infantry types and being able to tell at a glance from the star system. Perhaps a compromise is to have a very quick tutorial in the add-on pack, just 1 page telling the player how the system works.

I started and abruptly quit a game as UK, that no-oil glitch really hurts! :)

The oil is fixed in the add-on betas. :)

With Firaxis changing the trade so much in the code (trade routes on, trade routes off, etc) it got stuffed at the last minute. :(

Whilst I like the new trade stuff put in, it did cause me a headache at release with resources not going where they should. :lol: