Gunpowder units can't actually be loaded into trucks.

Another bug: the anti-air artillery can instantly remove all city defenses; its bombard ability is set way too high (should anti-air artillery even be able to bomb city defenses?)

Starting (soviet) air force feel too large; it feels too easy to bomb everything like crazy from the air; the soviet airforce was never really that significant in determining the outcome of battles.
The mighty soviet bombers allowed me to blitz Poland by October week 2; I got everything except Poznan and Cracow (which Germany snagged) suffering only minor losses.

It really would feel more accurate if the major DoWs were hard-coded by event (especially Germany vs USSR), but leave the minor powers to be influenced by in-engine diplomacy as normal.

Why don't early artillery have a withdraw chance?

Why is a T-26 (light tank 2) weaker than a BT-7 (light tank 1)?

The unit can withdraw if it has 2 or more moves - it's how it works in civ :(

I agree with the rest. Decreasing tanks and bombers would make economy in better shape for Soviet Union and harder to destroy Poland.

The unit can withdraw if it has 2 or more moves - it's how it works in civ

I don't know what you are talking about. In civ4, siege units like catapults and typically have a built-in withdraw chance. They are low strength, but you can use them to attack a stack and have a chance of them surviving by withdrawing, so you can use them to soften up a stack before attacking with other troops.

Withdraw chances are completely unrelated to the number of movement points that a unit has.

* * *

The starting german army and german industrial capacity need to be strong enough so that they actually pose a real threat; it should be *hard* as the soviets to hold back germany.

I think you need to cut way back on the starting Soviet army and/or boost the German starting army. As the soviets I have easily wiped Poland and finland and just started a war with Germany, and will beat them easily.

I would also put Italy into permanent alliance with Germany from the start.

I would also remove "require complete kills" from the default scenario options. Its just confusing when civs hang around because they have an unkillable spy somewhere.

Its March 1940 and as Soviets I'm at the gates of Berlin (see screenshots).

Some ideas for weakening the Soviets:

a) Radically cut back their airforce.
b) Make workers much more expensive (like +300%) to make it a very expensive proposition to improve all the vast tracts of soviet land.
c) Reduce the size of their starting army and push it even further east to make blitzing poland harder.
d) Make artillery tougher, so the enemy AI has anti-stack units that it can use to punish your mega-stacks.
e) Poland starts with large stacks on its western front to fight the germans, but small ones on its eastern front making soviet conquest easy.

You should change the order of the civs. Germany should be going first on the first turn. As it stands, Poland is going first, and France is going before Germany. The German fleet off casablanca gets destroyed on the first turn, and Poland kills several german units and workers, and many other naval units get killed by the poles and french.

Just start the navies in port to prevent first turn annihilation.

* * *

Transport ships should be unable to attack.

* * *

Fighter aircraft should not be doing collateral damage with their bombardment.

* * *

The British strating airforce should not be significantly tougher than the germans; trying to blitz france shoudl not result in the german airforce being destroyed by the brits.

each nation has so many units. perhaps reduce each civs units by at least 20%?

perhaps make france a bit stronger against the germans as they got wiped out quite quickly in my game

oh perhaps make the carriers carry at least 5 planes each, with 3 they're quite weak

Starting (soviet) air force feel too large; it feels too easy to bomb everything like crazy from the air; the soviet airforce was never really that significant in determining the outcome of battles.

Yes but no at the sametime. The Soviet Airforce was very very large in numbers but the problem was that their quality of aircraft and pilot skills sucked so much that the LuftWaffe always neutralized them in most battles .


The mighty soviet bombers allowed me to blitz Poland by October week 2; I got everything except Poznan and Cracow (which Germany snagged) suffering only minor losses.

The thing is that when a country is invaded on 2 fronts...especially 1 after the other...it is rare that it would manage both sides well enough to win...let alone survive.


It really would feel more accurate if the major DoWs were hard-coded by event (especially Germany vs USSR), but leave the minor powers to be influenced by in-engine diplomacy as normal.

DoWs ? I do not know that abbreviation...please explain.



Why don't early artillery have a withdraw chance?

Hmmm...cause they lack the motorized skill to do so ? I don't know...I'm saying my opinion.

Why is a T-26 (light tank 2) weaker than a BT-7 (light tank 1)?

I agree. the T-26 had better armor and firepower.

each nation has so many units. perhaps reduce each civs units by at least 20%?

I don't see how this effects the game overall...

perhaps make france a bit stronger against the germans as they got wiped out quite quickly in my game

France was a WW2 absent. Why ruin a good thing ?


oh perhaps make the carriers carry at least 5 planes each, with 3 they're quite weak

I'm a fan of the SNES game "Pacific Theatre of Operations II" and in that game they had a max of 4 fighter/bomber unit. Why not leave it at that number ? 4.

You should change the order of the civs. Germany should be going first on the first turn. As it stands, Poland is going first, and France is going before Germany. The German fleet off casablanca gets destroyed on the first turn, and Poland kills several german units and workers, and many other naval units get killed by the poles and french.

I see what you mean. I have a distinct feeling that it is cause by the unconscious bias of the ModMaker :)


Just start the navies in port to prevent first turn annihilation.

I agree for all nations except Germany. After all they decided when the war was gonna start. No ?

Fighter aircraft should not be doing collateral damage with their bombardment.

I'm always facinated by the way ppl think that a 20 mm gun on a strafing airplane will do much damage to anything...


The British strating airforce should not be significantly tougher than the germans; trying to blitz france shoudl not result in the german airforce being destroyed by the brits.

I must agree...especially when they are all based in England. (No Allied airplane had the range to get there before the P51 Mustang)

Yes but no at the sametime. The Soviet Airforce was very very large in numbers but the problem was that their quality of aircraft and pilot skills sucked so much that the LuftWaffe always neutralized them in most battles


Then you either need to make their aircraft *really* inferior or reduce their number
But reducing their number will work better, because their airforce makes it too easy for them to steamroll the Poles and Finns.
Soviets should be having to use infantry waves and artillery, not just airbombing. Soviets should lose the air superiority war pretty badly vs the Germans.

The thing is that when a country is invaded on 2 fronts...especially 1 after the other...it is rare that it would manage both sides well enough to win...let alone survive.

I have no problem with Poland getting crunched quickly, but Germany should get most of it. As it is, Germany has to fight for it whereas Soviets can blitz pretty easily.

DoWs ? I do not know that abbreviation...please explain.

Sorry, Declarations of War.

Hmmm...cause they lack the motorized skill to do so ? I don't know...I'm saying my opinion.
In vanilla civ *catapults* have a high withdraw chance, so do cannons, so to trebuchets.
Withdraw chance on siege units isn't representing mobility when its on siege units, its just a helpful mechanic to represent ranged fire as an anti-stack weapon, but without losing the unit every time. But unlike a ranged bombardment ability, the artillery units still gets heavily damaged, so it makes an artillery-backed advance powerful but slow, you can't blitz because you have to wait for the arty to heal.
It works well in vanilla, and the AI understands it.

And a slow advance (other than for poland) is what you *want* here, when the turn length is a week. It should be *hard* to capture cities.

I'm always facinated by the way ppl think that a 20 mm gun on a strafing airplane will do much damage to anything...

Fighters should be air superiority fighters, their only real function is to take out enemy fighters so that tactical and strategic bombers can actually kill stuff. The fighter bombard should be pretty weak.

T-26

9.6 tonnes (10.6 short tons)
Armour 6 mm (0.24 in) bottom, 6–10 mm (0.24–0.39 in) roof, 15 mm (0.59 in) hull (front, rear, sides) and turret
Primary
armament 45 mm 20K mod. 1932/34 tank gun (122 rds.)
Secondary
armament 7.62 mm DT tank machine gun (2,961 rds.)

BT-7
Weight 11.5 tonnes
Armour 6–13 mm
Primary
armament 45-mm Model 32 tank gun
Secondary
armament 7.62-mm DT machine gun

So theire similliar in power - slight bonus to strenght it's because it's speed - it's easier to attack from surprise, encircle enemy, got away.



You should change the order of the civs. Germany should be going first on the first turn. As it stands, Poland is going first, and France is going before Germany.

Yup I'll leave mussolini as second the rest is doable

Transport ships should be unable to attack.
Fighter aircraft should not be doing collateral damage with their bombardment.

I agree with both - need fixing. I'll also increase the strenght of fighters a bit to shoot more bombers.

each nation has so many units. perhaps reduce each civs units by at least 20%?

Yeah I'll reduce 15 -30% depending on wich nation it is.

I'll probably change weeks to months - the timeline should fit better than.


perhaps make france a bit stronger against the germans as they got wiped out quite quickly in my game

I think it's strong enough - much machinegunners wich means they will defend own contry rather than make second front in Europe in September 1939.

oh perhaps make the carriers carry at least 5 planes each, with 3 they're quite weak

Improved carriers carry more planes.

So theire similliar in power - slight bonus to strenght it's because it's speed - it's easier to attack from surprise, encircle enemy, got away.

I don't really care *which* is stronger, but the one with higher tech requirement should be better. If you have a light tank 1 and a light tank 2, the light tank 2 should be better.

As it is though, you have a mod that is stuffed full of units, but with no significant differences between them. There is no real strategic incentive to build anything but your highest strength fighter and tank, so the rest are just clutter.

If you want people to build multiple units, then you need to distinguish them more. You can have a (very) short range fighter with high strength and a longer
You can have a high strength tank with 2 moves and a lower strength tank with 3 moves and a withdraw chance.

Why would you ever build the armored cars in this mod?

I'd also increase the rock/paper/scissors aspect more. Each unit needs to have a role, something it is good at. So artillery can be anti-machine gun for eg.

They require the same tech
The name is a little bit confusing but it's how i managed to do unique units.
T26 is cheaper and weaker so i think it's ok - you can still choose wich one you want to produce.

Tremendous work asioasioasio :goodjob: Some substantial tweaking is in order though!

The army compositions have far too much armor in them. I'm not sure what the right % is, but maybe 25% tops is reasonable to shoot for? Armor hammer cost and GPT upkeep need to be higher.

The early AT infantry graphic should be an AT gun. Till late 42 there were only AT rifles, but these wouldn't be independent units, so only AT guns make sense. The strength is fine. In 43 the PIAT, Panzerfaust, and Bazooka started to appear so the graphic would be ok then.

The Finnish Jaeger is too weak. Consider that the Finns were able to send the Soviets packing during the winter war. Right now the Soviets start with way too much quality armor, and the Finns are too weak. Perhaps rename the Jaeger to Sissi (commando ski troops) and give them substantial forest defense?

In the 1939 scenario all 6 of the Waffen SS units are already built. Historically there was only 1 regiment and this time.

The US Army was tiny in 1939. It took time to ramp up production. It might help to give them some sort of pacifist civic that gives -80% military production to keep them out for a while.


I can help with doing some python if you want. For example I would like to create a new promotion for the Soviets that gives -15% strength (or so). This represents the purges Stalin made to the army and it could be removed with a series of either Soviet specific techs, or just triggered when the Soviets discover some of the existing techs, or even based on the game turn. Whatever works best.

Another idea is to give the Soviets a promotion that gives -15% strength and -2 mobility on the first turn of Germany declaring war on them (and not the other way around). The represents the miserable response to the initial invasion.

Similarly some sort of "winter war" promo could be given to the Germans in Russia (ie based on a unit's x,y) during the winter 41 months. Winter 42 would be a similar, but less debilitating promo.

I'd like to see ships cost a LOT more than other units, they need to be very expensive and therefore very valuable. It would make control of the air and control of the oceans more interesting. It would be more realistic, and more fun.

As for the pace of getting techs and units.... since there are so many techs, the speed may be necessary given the pace of the game. If it changes that time is moving in weeks instead of months, that would change this problem.

They require the same tech
T26 is cheaper and weaker so i think it's ok - you can still choose wich one you want to produce.

Why would you ever want to produce a lower strength tank when you could get a higher strength one at the same tech level?
A slightly lower hammer cost is not enough of an incentive.

As I tried to explain above, you have a lot of units here, but without significant variation in purpose or stats.
There must be something that a particular unit is *better* at than another unit that fills the same role in the same tech level.

* * *
The game also seems too armor-centric. I'd suggest giving tanks a large city-penalty, to encourage you to use artillery and infantry for taking cities. Taking cities should be bloody.

* * *
It might help to give them some sort of pacifist civic that gives -80% military production to keep them out for a while.


I like this, but you'd also need to find some way to stop them from switching out of it until ~Dec 41.

* * *
More with the first turn issue: as Britain, I had ~10 naval units (20% of my navy) destroyed by the Germans before taking my first turn. Don't start with naval units within range of each other.

* * *
Why does Britain start as non-militaristic military attitude civic? Britain was rearming by 39, surely they should be Defensive?
You should consider fixing all the civics so that leaders can't change them voluntarily, and then changing them by event on particular turn numbers.
This would also help with keeping the US low production for a while.

* * *
Canada seems to start at war with Italy, but UK doesn't? Historical war start dates aside, fixing Italy/Germany to be a team would make much more sense. Would be a shame to miss out on the north africa wars.

The Finnish Jaeger is too weak. Consider that the Finns were able to send the Soviets packing during the winter war. Right now the Soviets start with way too much quality armor, and the Finns are too weak. Perhaps rename the Jaeger to Sissi (commando ski troops) and give them substantial forest defense?

I think the Jaegers are strong enough. Maybe add more jaegers at the start for Finland? I think it was good idea from Asioasioasio to give them snow and ice defence. I think soviets just have to many starting units in the scenario.

Great work on your mod Asio :D

I've also have a few comments but I'm unsure where to put them I will post some here :



I have noticed a maximum limit on the amount of damage inflictable to enemy ships. I don't believe that there should be one.

During war time, I'm not convinced that an enemy air force would spend time and resources bombing a cow pasture...

While playing Germany I noticed that Italy produces military equipment for them. I have always had the impression that Italy lacked the industrial and technical know-how to develop adequate military equipment to survive in both world wars but could just be me.

When I opened up the "corporation screen" I saw that there is the Confusionism icon present. I think that the Assets/res/fonts/Gamefont_75.tga file has not been edited.

The odds for combat success are strange. If the odds are below 75% I have never won even once.

The strength of ships are unbalanced :

- The sub and transport are the same but this doesn't work. The maximum armament on a transport was .50 caliber MG and some had 3 inch guns. When the u-boats saw that a transport was armed...it just submerged and fired torpedoes.
- The Destroyers and Battleships' strength are also too closely similar. It is not rare so far that a british destroyer managed to sink a german battleship armed with radar guided 15 inch guns (like they had in real life).
- Subs should generally have an attack bonus against transports, battleships and carriers. Neither of the latter had Sonar or depth charges.

I doubt the flexibility of Machine Gun Units to intercept fighter units strafing them.

France's Army is overly strong and aggressive. I think that their outdated tactics and strategy should be reflected in their attacks and inertia.

I miss the action button for fighters from RTW when you could specificly attack only other aircraft units. It was perfect for achieving air superiority.

I have noticed that for some cities a few national wonders state that there are too many built in the city while other national wonders are available in the same city...strange. (IE : check Berlin).

Tacticly speaking...Germans were masters at crossing rivers even before the amphibious promotion. Perharps reduce their penalty for it ?

DDT tech/wonder should have an expiration date on it because it is a cancer causing agent.

-----------

Here are a few 'suggestions' for adding stuff (most I have already done for RTW) :

- The Inquisition Mod. I dislike the idea of the Nazi or Commies having conquered so much Democratic cities and letting their political party exist.
- Sea mines. I'm not sure how to make the AI work them though.
- Super spies (make them like "OSS" agents who sabotage cities, etc)
- Nation specific quests. (Germany = Breathing space; Great Britain = Crush German Economic Threat + conquer 0.5 the world; Japan = Take all british, dutch and american colonies : "Asia for Asiatics !", etc)
- Events triggered by historical facts (Ex : Japan at war with US + US conquers saipan + US has 'advanced bombers'. Damaged US bombers land in Russia, Russian leaders faced with a decision : 1- return the plane and pilots (gives extra diplomatics points) 2-return pilots but keep the planes (+75% of advanced bomber tech cost) )

If anyone would merge his Python knowllege with this mod please make France to split into France and Vichi France. I am not sure if it is even possible, though.

One thing that bothers me is a small Europe. Everything is so congested, I understand that map was done up to scale, but I would not mind to see bigger Europe for a better gameplay.

And a quick question: how can I roll back my 2.13 Warlords back to 2.08? I got CivGold disks...

Tremendous work asioasioasio :goodjob: Some substantial tweaking is in order though!

The army compositions have far too much armor in them. I'm not sure what the right % is, but maybe 25% tops is reasonable to shoot for? Armor hammer cost and GPT upkeep need to be higher.

The early AT infantry graphic should be an AT gun. Till late 42 there were only AT rifles, but these wouldn't be independent units, so only AT guns make sense. The strength is fine. In 43 the PIAT, Panzerfaust, and Bazooka started to appear so the graphic would be ok then.

]Yes, this non recoil antitank weapons were discovered later. But since AT Gun is seperate unit it should be equipped with antitank riffles - like for example this one
http://www.1939.pl/uzbrojenie/polskie/piechota/karabin_ppanc_ur35/index.html
Strong enough to penetrate than with armor thick less than 20 cm (so good against Pz I and Pz II) and kill the crew. It would be to hard to recognize unit and additional models needs to be done - I simplified it and use the same model for both units.

he Finnish Jaeger is too weak. Consider that the Finns were able to send the Soviets packing during the winter war. Right now the Soviets start with way too much quality armor, and the Finns are too weak. Perhaps rename the Jaeger to Sissi (commando ski troops) and give them substantial forest defense?
It has strong bonus against tanks. I agree with Ahriman and makke that the problem is elswhere - the Soviets are to strong.

In the 1939 scenario all 6 of the Waffen SS units are already built. Historically there was only 1 regiment and this time.

The US Army was tiny in 1939. It took time to ramp up production. It might help to give them some sort of pacifist civic that gives -80% military production to keep them out for a while.

OK I'll fix it.

I can help with doing some python if you want. For example I would like to create a new promotion for the Soviets that gives -15% strength (or so). This represents the purges Stalin made to the army and it could be removed with a series of either Soviet specific techs, or just triggered when the Soviets discover some of the existing techs, or even based on the game turn. Whatever works best.

Another idea is to give the Soviets a promotion that gives -15% strength and -2 mobility on the first turn of Germany declaring war on them (and not the other way around). The represents the miserable response to the initial invasion.

Similarly some sort of "winter war" promo could be given to the Germans in Russia (ie based on a unit's x,y) during the winter 41 months. Winter 42 would be a similar, but less debilitating promo.

Nice ideas, could you also make other historical events like: war triggers. Split To Vichy, etc.? I would gladly use your help!

I'd like to see ships cost a LOT more than other units, they need to be very expensive and therefore very valuable. It would make control of the air and control of the oceans more interesting. It would be more realistic, and more fun.

As for the pace of getting techs and units.... since there are so many techs, the speed may be necessary given the pace of the game. If it changes that time is moving in weeks instead of months, that would change this problem.

Yeah it'll be months in next version :)

And I agree with ships - they'll be more expensive, and with ability yto bombard coast they would be important power.

Why would you ever want to produce a lower strength tank when you could get a higher strength one at the same tech level?
A slightly lower hammer cost is not enough of an incentive.

As I tried to explain above, you have a lot of units here, but without significant variation in purpose or stats.
There must be something that a particular unit is *better* at than another unit that fills the same role in the same tech level.

I used parameters from Wikipedia + own calculations (in Excel - since I'm accountant in RL:lol:) to set up units parameters. I don't see why T-26 should be much different from BT-whatever. They used the same gun and MG, The armor was similliar. The only difference was faster speed of BTs using Christies suspension - so it has 3 moves, greater escape chance and slightly bigger strenght, and of course cost).

The reason why some nations have 2-3 bombers, tanks, fighter, etc in one tech are these:
China (Taiwan) can build only F_86_SABRE
Netherlands can build only GLOSTER_METEOR
Finland can build only DE_HAVILLAND_VAMPIRE

Great Britain can build all of them (because they used all of them): DE_HAVILLAND_VAMPIRE, GLOSTER_METEOR, F_86_SABRE Eliminating one of the unit would mean that one of the nation won't build jet fighter.

The game also seems too armor-centric. I'd suggest giving tanks a large city-penalty, to encourage you to use artillery and infantry for taking cities. Taking cities should be bloody.

Yeah the mod (like civ4 too) is still to armor-centric (tough less than Warlords).


* * *

More with the first turn issue: as Britain, I had ~10 naval units (20% of my navy) destroyed by the Germans before taking my first turn. Don't start with naval units within range of each other.

OK

* * *
Why does Britain start as non-militaristic military attitude civic? Britain was rearming by 39, surely they should be Defensive?

Choosing this civic i thought of Munich treaty and phony-war :)

You should consider fixing all the civics so that leaders can't change them voluntarily, and then changing them by event on particular turn numbers.
This would also help with keeping the US low production for a while.

I'm not sure if i would like set civics without possibility to change it without event.

Canada seems to start at war with Italy, but UK doesn't? Historical war start dates aside, fixing Italy/Germany to be a team would make much more sense. Would be a shame to miss out on the north africa wars.

Hmm it starts with war only with Germany. Maybe Italy declared war.

Great work on your mod Asio :D

I've also have a few comments but I'm unsure where to put them I will post some here :

I have noticed a maximum limit on the amount of damage inflictable to enemy ships. I don't believe that there should be one.

Thx :)

So if I understan good ships cannot be sunken from air?

During war time, I'm not convinced that an enemy air force would spend time and resources bombing a cow pasture...

Part of strategical bombarding :p

While playing Germany I noticed that Italy produces military equipment for them. I have always had the impression that Italy lacked the industrial and technical know-how to develop adequate military equipment to survive in both world wars but could just be me.

how they produced equipment for Germany? I don't understand.

When I opened up the "corporation screen" I saw that there is the Confusionism icon present. I think that the Assets/res/fonts/Gamefont_75.tga file has not been edited.

Only confucianism appears or are other icons? I must check again this .tga

The odds for combat success are strange. If the odds are below 75% I have never won even once.

I have no idea why it's happening, but similliar impression i had playing civ many time

:spear:

The strength of ships are unbalanced :


- The sub and transport are the same but this doesn't work. The maximum armament on a transport was .50 caliber MG and some had 3 inch guns. When the u-boats saw that a transport was armed...it just submerged and fired torpedoes.
- The Destroyers and Battleships' strength are also too closely similar. It is not rare so far that a british destroyer managed to sink a german battleship armed with radar guided 15 inch guns (like they had in real life).
- Subs should generally have an attack bonus against transports, battleships and carriers. Neither of the latter had Sonar or depth charges.

I basicly tweaked settings from BTS - I'm noob in Navy Theme. So Destroyers should sank more expensive Battleships?

I doubt the flexibility of Machine Gun Units to intercept fighter units strafing them.

France's Army is overly strong and aggressive. I think that their outdated tactics and strategy should be reflected in their attacks and inertia.

And it is - it has many machine gunners wich shouldn't make much harm Germany. Besides I already heared opinion that France is to weak :)

I miss the action button for fighters from RTW when you could specificly attack only other aircraft units. It was perfect for achieving air superiority.

RevolutionDCM will be added. So this option too.

I have noticed that for some cities a few national wonders state that there are too many built in the city while other national wonders are available in the same city...strange. (IE : check Berlin).

Thx I'll check it

Tacticly speaking...Germans were masters at crossing rivers even before the amphibious promotion. Perharps reduce their penalty for it ?

The get much experience - it's possiblke to make units with promotion amphibious warfare.

DDT tech/wonder should have an expiration date on it because it is a cancer causing agent.

It was used commonly to 60's/70's (it's even now used in Africa against mosquitos spreading Malaria in Africa) far beyond tech tree.

-----------



Here are a few 'suggestions' for adding stuff (most I have already done for RTW) :

- The Inquisition Mod. I dislike the idea of the Nazi or Commies having conquered so much Democratic cities and letting their political party exist.
I agree. I already have button for 'Political prosecution'

- Sea mines. I'm not sure how to make the AI work them though.
I had mines (tough land) in Warlords version and I was very unhappy from the fact how they worked.

- Super spies (make them like "OSS" agents who sabotage cities, etc)
Part of RevolutionDCM - so on to do list

- Nation specific quests. (Germany = Breathing space; Great Britain = Crush German Economic Threat + conquer 0.5 the world; Japan = Take all british, dutch and american colonies : "Asia for Asiatics !", etc)
- Events triggered by historical facts (Ex : Japan at war with US + US conquers saipan + US has 'advanced bombers'. Damaged US bombers land in Russia, Russian leaders faced with a decision : 1- return the plane and pilots (gives extra diplomatics points) 2-return pilots but keep the planes (+75% of advanced bomber tech cost) )
Great idea for events. primordial stew would you like to make them? :)

And a quick question: how can I roll back my 2.13 Warlords back to 2.08? I got CivGold disks...

I have no idea. But the Warlords version is imo worst than this.

Asio,
I think you're thinking a bit too much about historical weapons and a bit less about fun gameplay design.
Every unit needs to have a role; there must be some reason why you would build it.
Why would you ever build a strength 16 tank with 2 moves when you could build a strength 18 tank with 3 moves from the same tech?
Why would you ever build a strength 9 range 8 fighter when you could build a strength 11 range 8 fighter with the same tech?

Higher strength is so significant in the civ engine that a small difference in hammer costs will still never make you want to buy the cheaper unit.

Re naval units, you should make each unit have a role.
Destroyers should be mobile and good vs subs.
Subs should be for taking out transports and battleships. [Consider the Marksmen promotion from Fall From Heaven 2, that lets assassin-units target the weakest unit in the stack.]
Battleships should be very high strength, and demolish cruisers and destroyers, but slow and very expensive.
Cruisers should be a compromise between destroyers and battleships; faster than battleship but lower strength, slower than a destroyer but higher strength. You could also give them a (slightly ahistoric) role as AA defenders.

* * *
Some specific comments:
ut since AT Gun is seperate unit it should be equipped with antitank riffles

AT guns should be far more prevalent and effective than hand-held infantry AT.
I would suggest anti-tank rifles/bazooks/panzerfaust etc. be a Promotion available to infantry that gives +% vs armor, and then have anti-tank guns as the primary anti-tank unit.
Also have anti-tank guns as defensive weapons, separate from assault guns like StuGs.

I used parameters from Wikipedia + own calculations (in Excel - since I'm accountant in RL) to set up units parameters. I don't see why T-26 should be much different from BT-whatever. They used the same gun and MG, The armor was similliar. The only difference was faster speed of BTs using Christies suspension - so it has 3 moves, greater escape chance and slightly bigger strenght, and of course cost).

See my comments above: gameplay. If you have two units that are basically the same but one is superior, then you're really just adding clutter by putting them in the game. You aren't even adding diversity, since players will only ever build the better one.
Obviously historical accuracy is important, but gameplay within the engine is even more important. There needs to be a reason why the player should build any given unit.

Choosing this civic i thought of Munich treaty and phony-war

Well, munich is 38. By Sept 39 Britain is remilitarizing hard, and declares war after Poland is invaded.

I'm not sure if i would like set civics without possibility to change it without event.

Why not? You will get a much better historic feel, and much better balance, by forcing the major powers to use their historic civics.

There is no point in some of the civics designed to limit military buildup if the relevant faction just changes to the superior civic on turn 1.
The US military production needs to be held back significantly for the first year or two, otherwise the axis has no real chance.

Some of the civics are clearly superior to others, so if you want the weaker ones in the game you need to force them. Eg Britain as defensive, US as non-interventionist, etc.


Hmm it starts with war only with Germany. Maybe Italy declared war.

Probably. But you need to make sure somehow that the main powers are on the right teams; this needs to be Germany/Italy vs US/UK/France/USSR. The other factions can be influenced by diplomacy. So there has to be some way to make sure that Italy can't just stay neutral.
Having them at war with the UK even ahistorically early will also help gameplay; if the war in north africa starts at some fixed point later it could be too easy for the human UK player to metagame and airlift a ton of units into Egypt in preparation and then have an overwhelming strike force against whatever ragtag mob Italy still has left in north africa.


So if I understan good ships cannot be sunken from air?

I think only torpedo bomber aircraft should be able to sink ships from the air.
Normal fighters and tactical bombers shouldn't really be very effective against naval units.
Another alternative is just to add a very large strength penalty vs ships (-50%?) to all aircraft, and have cruisers and battleships get a decent AA intercept chance, and then have a Torpedo Bomber promotion for aircraft that cancels the penalty.

So Destroyers should sank more expensive Battleships?
He's saying the opposite; currently destroyer strength is too high relative to battleship strength.
Destroyers should be for mobility and anti-submarine.

besides I already heared opinion that France is to weak
France *should* be weak.
The AI Germany needs to easily roll through France. Keeping the nazis from conquering france should be nearly impossible.

More random thoughts:

a) Canada should be a UK vassal.
b) Remove the oil in Ireland. Add Baghdad and tweak the map slightly.
So to have oil output, UK must either: protect their naval oil off the coast of scotland, OR protect the middle east and have a supply route open, or trade for it from the US.
c) Tel Aviv should be Jerusalem; Tel Aviv was really not very important in 1939.
d) Tweak the river at Gibraltar so that the city is cutoff from Spain by the river, to make Gibraltar even harder to invade. Change the river around Gdansk so it is possible to invade it without a river crossing.
e) Limit Uranium to only 3 tiles on the map, so only the US, Soviets and Germany are capable of developing Nukes.

Others random thoughts :

- When I built the VolksHalle a window pops up but no movie is shown.
- My game doesnt have the font shown in the preview pics but I do have the rest of the theme.
- When upgrading an unit (ex : Red Guard I to Red Guard II) it would be nice if the uniform and weapons would change.
- Nation specific Generals (I saw a couple in the download section) with names specific for their country alone. (I tried this in RTW but I had problems with it)
- I think that Italy's Elite Infantry should be scuba divers who attack enemy ships in port and sinks them (cause their ground army sucked).
- The panzerJaeger Tiger Elefant's canon is too far from its turret.
- The number of national units should be dependant on the number of cities the civ owns.

I love the mod and the scenario and have been waiting for it for months. I do think the navies need to be reworked with country specific units. For example, American torpedoes did not work correctly during the first few years of the war. The fuses were set wrong and most of the torpedoes never detonated on impact. Plus, treaties limited the caliber and # of guns on certain countries ships, and crews were of different quality; thus making German and British Battleships unequal. Plus, ships of the same "class" ie Battleships, were not the same in size or # of guns anyway. So early units from certain countries could be less effective. Really there isn't any one size fits all with the navies.

The navies need the same attention to detail for ship classes that the land units got. Plus maybe giving the UK a trait which grants free promos to start.

I also liked the sub suggestion for Marksman and the more rock paper scissors approach.

I also think the land and air units had a lot of units which were identical except for the names. The Stug and the Wespe were essentially identical, why build one or the other? The same goes for a lot of the fighters. There must have been some difference in real life. One fighter must have been more manueverable and the other must have had more range. One was better in a dogfight and the other better at intercepting bombers. Etc.

Well, I've played this a little bit now as the Soviets. I have a couple of points...

First, I don't claim to be a great expert on World War II, but why does the Soviet Union start at war with Great Britain?

Secondly, I agree with those that each civ has too many units. Actually, I would say that there's too many different types of units as well, but I would settle for just having fewer of them at the outset. I would agree that there's a bit too much focus on historical accuracy and realism than on gameplay. The different classes of units are just dizzying. I mean, if there's a type of hardcore WWII enthusiast gamer who wants that level of depth, that's perfectly fine, but it might not be a bad idea to consider a more streamlined version for more casual players (such as myself ;) )

I love the mod and the scenario and have been waiting for it for months. I do think the navies need to be reworked with country specific units. For example, American torpedoes did not work correctly during the first few years of the war. The fuses were set wrong and most of the torpedoes never detonated on impact. Plus, treaties limited the caliber and # of guns on certain countries ships, and crews were of different quality; thus making German and British Battleships unequal. Plus, ships of the same "class" ie Battleships, were not the same in size or # of guns anyway. So early units from certain countries could be less effective. Really there isn't any one size fits all with the navies.h.I have done this in my mod for the initial ships, using promotions.Strength Bonuses based on Tonnage
Flanking Bonuses based on speed
Movement Bonuses based on range
1st Strike Bonuses based on guns

I think it's a bad idea to give Machine Guns the ability shoot down aircraft. There's so many machine gun units! If players want to defend against air attacks, they should have to build units and buildings to protect against them.

I think it's a bad idea to give Machine Guns the ability shoot down aircraft. There's so many machine gun units! If players want to defend against air attacks, they should have to build units and buildings to protect against them.A better option would be to give them a chance to intercept aircraft, which would break off the attack, but not enough to kill them.

A better option would be to give them a chance to intercept aircraft, which would break off the attack, but not enough to kill them.

But were machine guns even used for this? Didn't the planes of World War II fly too high for ground-based machine guns to hit them?

I am imagining the antics we see in "movies" with machine guns (and other auto-cannons). The attack is broken off but not destroy the plane.

I've played as the third reich for about 200 turn, and believe it or not, while i was at war with britain, and stored 70% of my troops to conquer the land, suddenly mussolini backstabbing me:p.
Is it possible to make them to have a permanent alliance??Because it weird that he declare war on me even he's friendly on me(while i'm at war with him, he's status is still friendly to me!:lol:)

I don't think more historical units had broken gameplay. Even it adds more flavour and smile (at least on my face :) ) when i can use historical and flavour units - if it won't i would just stay with civ's standard M4 Sherman, Supermarine Spitfire and Avro Lancaster - less work but imo also less fun.
It didn't broke gameplay, also because AI still chooses stronger units to build. The same option is for Human Player.

And units have different parameters (different parameters were used for different units combats: tanks. bombers, fighters, artillery) - depending on speed, armament (type and diameter of gun, number of MG - more provides additional strenght agains human units), thickness of armor, weight, number of built units, size of the shell, rate of fire, range, weight of carried bombs. I've put much time to this system to make it +- historicly correct, and sorry, but I won't change it to RTW clone where everything is more simpliefied. If it'll apear it will apear as standalone mod's mod, surelly i won't put so much effort into those units' xml.

For MachineGun - I was thinking about it too - it's weird to shot air units with land MG (tough possible - it's not the problem to penetrate even metal surface - so the pilot can be killed:mischief:). IIRC ability to shot down air unit with MG was introduced in patch 3.13. I left it right now, but it seems the ability to intecepting air units should be decreased (maybe to 10%).

What do you think? Leave this option weaker or throw it away?

For ships - yeah it could be more diversified. But I don't plan to change it soon.

Is it possible to make them to have a permanent alliance??
I didn't have idea this option exist when realising mod. Will be fixed that way in next patch, until the events in Python would be added - managing much better with peace and war declarations.

This mod looks like it is aimed at allowing people to try using differing types of units. RTW is more aimed at "what-if" scenarios.

Both of these mods can aimed at these different objectives.

And units have different parameters (different parameters were used for different units combats: tanks. bombers, fighters, artillery) - depending on speed, armament (type and diameter of gun, number of MG - more provides additional strenght agains human units), thickness of armor, weight, number of built units, size of the shell, rate of fire, range, weight of carried bombs. I've put much time to this system to make it +- historicly correct, and sorry, but I won't change it to RTW clone where everything is more simpliefied

Obviously it is up to you what you do with your mod. But I would suggest that there is no point in having units that are strictly dominated by other units, and that they don't really add diversity because no-one will ever build them.
And even historically speaking, there is usually a reason why some particular unit was built.
Maybe you could have more of them in a regiment; so even if tank X is stronger than tank Y on a 1v1 basis, that doesn't necessarily mean that a regiment of tank X's will be better than a regiment of Tank Y's, if the regiment of tank Y contains many many more actual tanks because of their

Another way you could achieve some variation is through leader traits.
So for example, you can represent the fact that Germans had excellent aircraft and tank crews and that brits had excellent pilots and sailors through leader traits.
Create a trait that gives combat 1 and interception 1 to all aircraft, or a trait that gives mobility 1 and combat 1 to all naval units.
And a trait that gives +combat 1 and drill 1 to all armored units.
This way german tanks/fighters with the same stats as soviet tanks/fighters would still lose to them, because of their better crews.

There is no reason why every leader in your mod needs to have only 2 traits; you can use leader traits to represent national superiority in training in partiuclar areas.
Italy or France for eg might have none of these types of traits at all.

Obviously it is up to you what you do with your mod. But I would suggest that there is no point in having units that are strictly dominated by other units, and that they don't really add diversity because no-one will ever build them.
And even historically speaking, there is usually a reason why some particular unit was built.
Maybe you could have more of them in a regiment; so even if tank X is stronger than tank Y on a 1v1 basis, that doesn't necessarily mean that a regiment of tank X's will be better than a regiment of Tank Y's, if the regiment of tank Y contains many many more actual tanks because of their I see this mod as a Unit vs Unit type as opposed to Formation vs Formation (i.e. RTW), where individual tanks and infantry combat abilities count for less than the overall combat performance of the whole formation (i.e. Division, Corps, Army, Army Group)Another way you could achieve some variation is through leader traits.
So for example, you can represent the fact that Germans had excellent aircraft and tank crews and that brits had excellent pilots and sailors through leader traits.
Create a trait that gives combat 1 and interception 1 to all aircraft, or a trait that gives mobility 1 and combat 1 to all naval units.
And a trait that gives +combat 1 and drill 1 to all armored units.
This way german tanks/fighters with the same stats as soviet tanks/fighters would still lose to them, because of their better crews.

There is no reason why every leader in your mod needs to have only 2 traits; you can use leader traits to represent national superiority in training in partiuclar areas.
Italy or France for eg might have none of these types of traits at all.Since each major nation has unique units you can customise their values. I initially gave all my units promotions based on nationality and skills (but ran out of promotions :) ); then I updated the unit parameters that my promotions were based on (except for a few unique promotions e.g Leadership, Winter Warfare, etc.).

However, all this changed in later versions of my mod (as I used the makeup of the military formations) to determine the combat bonuses. Additional promotions are added due to the effect of city buildings and Generals, etc.

I know someone probably mentioned something like this somewhere, but the Trucks seem too strong. In the first turn of the scenario, I ended up losing 3 infantry units to kill four trucks, which had killed 4 workers before I could even start (which is a separate issue I read is being taken care off). Maybe a solution, without modifying power, is to have Trucks only defend?

Oh... another thing I forgot about. Britain currently has the city of Dublin, but Ireland was an independent country at the time and a neutral during the war. I understand that it was too small and uninvolved to justify including them on a map this size, but the British should have Belfast (which was still under their control) rather than Dublin.

Hi all!

Just grabbed my copy of Civ and reinstalled, coz i was bored, patched up and ready to go with this mod ... but:

The Scenario is still kinda unplayable as certain Nations ... for 2 month now?!

Anyone working on this or is this 'scenario' project dead?

I liked this mod earlier, when it was for Warlords only, but now its not very payable, sadly ...

cheers

HahnHolio

No worries - mod isn't dead. With next patch many issues will be removed.

Very nice mod, its fast compared to road to war. I played many games as Britain and was surprised to be at war with Russia at start. Most time, Russia bring an unstoppable stack of doom to invade middle east. I tryed to bring as many units to stop them with no success until now. Its easier to buy a peace with russia for a few credits.

Russia and Germany very rarely enter war against each other. Jets and nuke can be researched by Usa, Britain and Germany as soon as middle 1940.

If this scenario goal is history, maybe nukes should be removed as no nuke where used in european theater. Jet planes should be a bits later in tech.

Think this mod would be much better if more scripted events/wars was used yeah. Also no nukes maybe as mentioned above. Maybe one scripted version and one open diplomacy version???

Think this mod would be much better if more scripted events/wars was used yeah. Also no nukes maybe as mentioned above. Maybe one scripted version and one open diplomacy version???

The more I look at these posts the more I think ppl want RTW (without active defense) with the depth of this mod.

I don't think more historical units had broken gameplay. Even it adds more flavour and smile (at least on my face :) ) when i can use historical and flavour units - if it won't i would just stay with civ's standard M4 Sherman, Supermarine Spitfire and Avro Lancaster - less work but imo also less fun.
It didn't broke gameplay, also because AI still chooses stronger units to build. The same option is for Human Player.

And units have different parameters (different parameters were used for different units combats: tanks. bombers, fighters, artillery) - depending on speed, armament (type and diameter of gun, number of MG - more provides additional strenght agains human units), thickness of armor, weight, number of built units, size of the shell, rate of fire, range, weight of carried bombs. I've put much time to this system to make it +- historicly correct, and sorry, but I won't change it to RTW clone where everything is more simpliefied. If it'll apear it will apear as standalone mod's mod, surelly i won't put so much effort into those units' xml.

For MachineGun - I was thinking about it too - it's weird to shot air units with land MG (tough possible - it's not the problem to penetrate even metal surface - so the pilot can be killed:mischief:). IIRC ability to shot down air unit with MG was introduced in patch 3.13. I left it right now, but it seems the ability to intecepting air units should be decreased (maybe to 10%).

What do you think? Leave this option weaker or throw it away?

For ships - yeah it could be more diversified. But I don't plan to change it soon.


I didn't have idea this option exist when realising mod. Will be fixed that way in next patch, until the events in Python would be added - managing much better with peace and war declarations.

Though I agree with most comments I think the unit diversity is fine - as long as the starting armies are small enough, so players actually have to decide between building units or buildings.

Having recently reinstalled BtS I tried out the USSR and noticed a couple of things:

- USSR starts at war with the UK (and pretty soon I got DOWed by the USA too)
- Sweden DOWed Finland/Baltic
- Italy attacked (and killed) the West Balkans (probably because they have too many units)

- Nuclear Fission wasn't discovered in 1939 and everyone either has it or starts researching it

- Istanbul should be 1 tile West (it's on the wrong side of the Bosporus)

- Global Warming should be turned off IMHO.

I would not let Machine Guns kill planes (the other way around is more accurate); they can't even kill tanks in reality (yes, many early WW II tanks had little armor, I know).

While ships in general should indeed be more expensive, perhaps Germany should have slightly cheaper submarines (U-boat threat)?

BTW,

:newyear:

The more I look at these posts the more I think ppl want RTW (without active defense) with the depth of this mod.Which is why I am continuing to develop my version of RTW. While it will never have the range of units offered in this mod. However Having King Tigers representing "Army Groups", albeit slow and ponderous and enough flavour for me.

The more I look at these posts the more I think ppl want RTW (without active defense) with the depth of this mod.You can turn off Active Defense by editting RtW's "GlobalDefinesAlt.xml"

Very nice mod, its fast compared to road to war. RtW can be speeded up by turning off Bitter Winter (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=336983).

Hi, been a LONNNNGGGG time since I was in the forums, but I have recently rebuilt my computer with Windows 7, and would really like to play this Mod. Please give me the right link to DL it. I Tried running the file: world_war_ii_-_1939_mod_1.99
But when I stacked about 20 German units to invade Poland I got graphical errors, not reported errors with a pop up telling me there was an error, but simply a noticeable glitch, like it would stay in the zoomed position that is at an angle for the battle sequence, or it would load the game without the peripheral displays like the research bar, and menu at the top, or the map and selected unit/city at the bottom. I tried installing the latest patch, but that only made the game shut down during loading, and now I can't launch the Mod at all.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

It kinda bothers me how wiped out civilizations stay in politics and stuff...they should be eradicated from the game after you take over their last city and their units deleted

also wish nuke would be alot more powerful

When I was playing as Nazi Germany, it was unrealistic to see small weak countries like West Balkans declare war on me. If anything, they should be trying to make peace with me any way possible

I think that France iss waaaay too powerful in the offence. By november '39, the French had captured two German cities. The French should probably have a more defensive army.