World War 2 Worldwide

December 8, 1941 - America is reeling from the attack at Pearl Harbour. Japan is poised to seize Malaysia and the Philippines as well as feeble China. Europe has fallen before Hitler's panzers, who are now knocking at the gates of Moscow. Beleagured Great Britain cannot hold off both Axis powers by itself. Will America awake fast enough to send help to Europe, or will it be up to Russia to turn the tide in the East?

This is a world wide scenario of World War 2 just after Pearl Harbour. The civs are:
Germany
Soviet Union
America
Great Britain
Italy
Japan
Spain
Turkey
Free France
Brazil
China
Neutral Powers

This scenario is for PTW (version 1.14) and it incorporates all of the special world war 2 units. Instructions for installation are in the readme. (Version 1.1 no longer requires you to change any of the unit names or directories).

There are no cultural conversions. Everyone starts with limited military in my attempt to restrict the loading time (it takes 37 minutes on my 733 mHz machine) but there are still enough for some good opening attacks. Railroads are strategically placed. My world map (version 3) is used. Fascism has been added and war weariness has been removed from all governments. All units have been modified for balance; for example, infantry have equal attack and defence. The tech tree has been greatly simplified, but the nuclear race will still take place. Buildings have also been simplified and made much cheaper since the focus is not on building. The courthouse acts as a temple, aqueduct, courthouse and granary and every city has one. There are no other units or leaderheads, to reduce download size.

CHANGES VERSION 1.10
-Fixed city sizes: all city sizes are now relatively accurate
-Removed Vichy France: all territory except Djibouti (neutral) given to Germany
-Sturmovick is now Russian
-Set player properties
-Put more units on the Russian/German border, esp. Russian artillery. Also made lots of Russian
troops conscript, and removed all German Tiger II/Panther tanks.
-Fixed directory path thing (see installation)
-American airbases in Great Britain
-Deleted some African and South American cities
-Turned on Accelerated Production

To skip the long load time, I've included a save game. It allows you to play as Germany
without going through the load time. In addition it includes Germany's alliances and
declarations of war, as well as diplomatic embassies. Place it in your saves folder and load
as normal.

Download size is about 550kb.

Version 1.10
http://www3.telus.net/sheff3/WW2Yurtv1.1.zip
Version 1.00 removed after ??? downloads

Save game pack: Save games for Germany, America, Russia and Britain. Download size is about 950 kb.

Version 1.10
http://www3.telus.net/sheff3/WW2savpac1.zip

Please hit the download tracker if you download this, because telus hit counter isn't working.

wow it looks great (except Europe looks a bit too big). I cant wait to play it.

I think that was the point to make europe larger, after all it as where the biggestr fighting occured. Im gonna check this out.

Doesnt make no sense still. Shouldnt be like it. I mean you still could fit all them units on with a smaller Europe. It was a world war, everything should be emphasised.

Yurt - (Looking @ it in the editor) VERY good. Would have prefered Vichy France to be German and should the Tiger II be called the King Tiger? Why havnt the player properties been set?

I didn't set the player properties because I wanted people to easily be able to choose which civ to play. I tried setting them but the only civ I could ever get was Britain (leader name Hitler, for some reason). Can you tell me the best way to get it to work?

Impreza: Europe was enlarged intentionally. That is a carry-over from my world map, but it also suits the scenario. If Europe was smaller Germany would have a very distinct disadvantage compared to Russia, Italy would be almost nonexistant, and Britain would only have a few cities. I might have to enlarge Japan too as I could only fit six cities into Japan when their population should be higher than Britain or France.

As for the Tiger II, I decided to keep the PTW units with their original names to reduce the complication of everyone having to rename their folders. The only ones I changed were "fw190" and "me-262" which were too informal.

Yurt: I normaly set them all & then set (in this case) Germany as the human player. However if u want 2 make it so that it can be changed in the game just dont set a human player.

Ok but i mean i still dont see no point in making Europe bigger. We have many Europe world war 2 scenario's. I dont see how Germany would have distinct disadvantage against Russia. As i believe at the start of the Russian campaign, though Russia outnumbered Germany, they still were crucified. So make Russian troops conscript at the start.
Russia will have a massive capacity for industry, as they do in real life. So i think if you make a small advantage in terms of city's etc for Russia, this would make a challenge and maybe be more realism. I think Europe is emphasized too much in world war 2 scenarios. You still can have all the units etc if Europe was smaller. I think if you make Europe smaller, then this would benefit ur scenario, both in realism and for historical purposes as for Russia gradually having an advantage.
Britain should have few city's it is a small coutnry compared to France or Germany in different ways.
Well it seems a good scenario, welldone :)

Yurt: Tryed to start the scenario. How do you do it? Because its in a folder I cannot find it when I click on 'Load Scenario'.

Shouldn't Italy be German? It was part of the Axis/Third Reich, and in all other scenarios it is part of Germany.

You made Canada british?!?!?!?!? Hello, this is post 1931! Even in WWI we had (by the end) a seperate chain of command! Just for that I am boycotting this scenario!

Tiger II? It sould be just a plain Tiger or a Tiger VI, as the tiger was the Panzerkamphwagen VI (Panzer VI).

I might be rambling on with this a bit, but it is late at night and I have a suggestion for what is already a good scenario but could be far better.

The December 1941 date to start could be used very well within the limit of the PTW diplomacy engine if you wanted. As we know, the editor doesn't let you mess with diplomacy at all, which can make a world war II scenario quickly turn silly once the AI gets on a roll. How to counter this? Start the Axis and Allies each as one nation(with the exception of the Communist allied nations, which should probably all fall under Soviet Russia). Obviously these three nations would be the size of what they were circa Dec 1941

This lets you put plenty of neutral nations into the game, without just BS things like Japan and the US allying. The AI and you will fight for Turkey, Spain, the South American countries, and etc. favor. It would make a far better WWII experience inmho. I know Russia and the other commies would fall under the Allied umbrella in my theory, but I just thought with this way you could play out a post-war rush on moscow scenario after the main war. :D

Has anybody gotten this to work yet. Yurt, I noticed that you have put the Sturmovick as a German plane but wasnt it Russian?

The british&france@american tanks should be very bad while the Russiand and Germans shoud be muc better.

I think you should make technologies that will allow tank improvpment, unfortunatley you can't make a technologe which is called let's say King tiger but you should just change thew technologt name maybe to a 100mm canon tank and it will allow any civ to build good tanks or technology like havy tanks.( if they had such in reality)America and Britain never had real good tanks during the war).

No civ in 1941 exept rusuia had heavy tanks and only russian tanks had diesel engine. However you can add technology such as diesel engine which will allow to build JS1,2. I think a unit like an ss gruop and NKVD should be possible to Germany and Russia, they will be like a normal infantry exept they reduce the resistance in captured sity.

All the technolohies should be changed and each of them will allow better units( much better) me262 should be possible only for Germany....

*- the magino line was very strong and the Axis would never bit France so fust if they had try to go throu it.


Most of the tanks from the start of the war should be several times worse then tanks some fwe generations better.( big heavy tanks from the end of the war had armor that will never allow tanks from the start of the war to destroy them).


The scenario does'nt work at all it even doesn't apper in the scenarious after I unziped, could it be becouse my version is 1.21?!


I belive that EUrope should be very big, even biiger then in your map, you people realy talk crap( I mean some say that if it's world war everyithing should be as it in reality) but in reality the world is'nt like in a game, a county like Germany can build huge arny and have gerat technologies and it doesnt have to be huge, if in a game size iz wgat metters when in reality it does'nt and it means that if you want a realistic scenario you should make the "small" countries much biger becouse it's thge only way to give them the potential they realy have.
DO you think that Britain will be able to be world power in civ in a real map!? I look now on the map- it's 1.90 m from me and i can hardly see britain so in the game it should be impossible to do something with this island however this tiny island was able to be the strongest and leading nation in the world for more then 200. And don't say that it had huge calonies, this calonies never suplied the troops( britain never had big army) it's army was just well organized and had the newest weapons...

The game is'nt at all like the reality so we should make it more realistic by change what we can- we can't make british tropps which will be 7 times stronger or mort then the Chinese but we can make Britain biger.

If you are not agree yet let's look opn israel( if you will be able to find it on the map.).

DOn't say that it survives only becouse of USa support, it do get help but it is'nt somethinh crusial.
If we will take a civ 362^362 map still we will be able to put only one sity on israel. And Isreale will be much weaker when the arbs states( which ha s biger sityes and huge armies) and it will be wrong to give israle a huge amount of forses, it's army is not as big as you think, it is hust that in a war israle almoust do'esnt loss troops( you should add a 70 point's bouns for every israle soldier). Althow I belive it is a possibility but to make israel 6 times biger is another possibility.


If we talk about WW2 when the major conflict was in Europe( i even doe'snt want to talk about Japan USA war it is bulsjhit Japan never had a chance to bit USA, not the slites( can you imaigne Japan troops in Wahington?) Japan had no matireals to build enough ships and they survived so long just becose of the distance.( Most of the Japanies Navy was build in 1913-1920.( they had old ships....USA wasn't the leader in army technologies but it was able to develop them very fast and produce tons of weapons.

When you talk about the WW2 to talk about Japan and USA conflict is realy stupid you should better talk about German Holand conflict i think that the American advantage is the same the Germany had on Holand.

The Normandy invasion it's bul**** to, do you realy belive that it was the reason that germany fell?!

GB and USA invaded just becouse they sow that if they wouldn't invade Coomunist Russia will capture the wholl Europe( a thing that could lead to a disaster). I think that the Invasion however was a great thinh becouse Russia couldn't take whole Europe.
The AXIs was doomed after they atacked Russia( if you want to hear mu opinion).


Bla bla bla....
I can't make real sugestions becouse it doesnt work!!!!whhh!!!


* It's realy great that you start the scenario in dec 1941 becouse as a said before size is what metters( unfortunatley) in the game and only smaller Russia can make the ww2 scenario playble.

ye shturmovik is a russian plane( SU) .very famous.

I dont understand what u r talking about timberwoolf. I think Britain would be world power because its industrialised and because it controls most of the world in this world map! In Africa Britain had troops from all over its Empire, this also happened at D Day. So this clearly helped the British!

You clearly dont know what ur talking about. Of course we can make British troops 7 times stronger than Chinese. Germany is strong because of its man power. So boost populations. Also Europe will be more high tech because of its factories etc, such as in Germany. We dont need to make Europe bigger to replicate world war 2. I suggest you check your punctuality and maybe actually get some experience with the editor so you know what you are talking about ;)

_Impreza_ -You didn't understood me right.

All the british troops that were in Africa like you said were produced in britain. You ever heard about black British army's during the 19 century or even during ww2!?
Britain treid as hard as it could to get as many troops as it could from the colonies but the majority ot it's forces always remained British!

The colonies never gave much troops to anybody.NEVER!

in Civ's the colonies are very important.
In real life they were also but in civ you can produce ton of troops( in a country you have just concqered, some 5-6 turns is really nothing) while in real life the colonies gave resourses and money, not troops!!!

And how can we make Britain to produce more troops( by the way they were some 35 milloions in GB in 1939?) while you can put only a fer milloons on the little Island.
So you must make Britain larger. In Civ if you will put the real russuian sityes in there places you will be unbetable after 20 turns without war- you will just have more big sityes when everybode else and thats the onlyt thing that important.( I don't talk about the infrastructure i ailways build every building and do it very good) the last times a played Regent I drooped the game very fast couse it was too easy. I mean- a good player that have big territory will always bit even great player that has a teriitory which is twice smaller. To play against the comp is the easiest thing- even if you are twice smaller- capture 5 sityes in ome blow and hold them 5 turns....peacew treaty- you got 5 towns- he lot 5! and prepare the invasion again, 5 or even 2 more and again.... and it becomes esier everu turn couse the computer is stupid....

I say all these becouse we can't make the Comp think but we can make him very very strong, maybe stupid but strong!
Don't you get it!? If there are 30 countries in your map and you control 1/30 you already won- it's only a metter of time till you get a few sity in a quick operation- you'l be biger when any of your enemies( stupid enemies by half a percent. and then you capture 3 cityes more and when you'k have 1\15 of the map it realy start to bother you and you abandin the game.

Even if they are 8 civs- one has 50 percent- you have 9 and the othe has 7-8% that's a metter of time til'l you destroy them noe by one. I doesn't say that they can destroy you becouse it is impossible- if they even have 3 times more troops you atcak with canons first or doe'snt atack units with high defence and smaller ofence- you give them to atcak...you bombard and bombard while the comp waste his troops for nothing.

I don't need the biger Europe for myself!
I want it for the comp!!!Can't you get it?!

Britain a whole Canada landing division for D Day, and another was half Canadian for your information. Maybe if you want to back your ideas up with sources that would work.

I didnt understand you last time because of your punctuality. The populations of any European country's stand the same for Britain's as for being translated into the map! If you want to boost population then you simply make more food per reocurce or terrain. Anyways most city's dont come near the actual populations for your infomation.

Its not always size of territories that count but technology and industrial output of city's.

"I don't need the biger Europe for myself!
I want it for the comp!!!Can't you get it?!"

Nope i cant get it. The Computer isnt that dumb not to use a more formidible army that you give it on an editor or a far more formidible industrial output.

Maybe you can calm down and look up your history and maybe get some experience on the editor. ;)

Red Raven- I must say that you don't now history so much.
Germany was unable to win in 1943.
Ofcourse germany had no chance to win after kursk.
The D day was long after the Kursk batlle.

Look on the 1941 dec map.
Russia did'nt follen.
Look on the 1942 dec map.
still Russia didn't fallen.

In the D day time Russia have recuptured all her trritories and was fighting in the baltick countries territory.

Russia got huge ammounts of amunition and other stuff from the USa and Britain. Russia itself produced tons of tanks and had multiplie number of troops thwn the Germans. The Germans had no resourses, they were unable to compit with the Russian industry.
The D day could only make the war shorter by 2-3 months.


Evry smart politichan inderstood that the D day invasion had another couse.( not to bit the Germans( ofcourse they had to fight with them) but to free as many countries as they could.

Doesn't it look stupid to send a lot troops to a war then you alrready now who is the winner!? But if you have some other long way foughts about it like to fight with comunism it looks much more possible.


Once again I will say the Japaniese conflict wasn't risky at all.

I didn't said that the Japaniese wanted to envaid washington, i Said imaigine!!!
TYou can only imaigine these.
In our world things doesnt go like in a game, if the Japaniese would have captured a few little calonies from USA the Americans would'nt sign a peace treaty with them.
It would only be a mettert of time till USA would kick them hard.
USA was very industrialized country then and very big and had all the resourse she needed.
Japan was only partly industrialized, had no resourses and already had worked only for war.

IN peae time USa produced more ships when Japan in their max production time during the war.
Why could'nt Japan fall so fast!?
Look on the map, Japan is pretty long distanced from USa.
USA had small ugly not trained army in 1941 they just weren't rady for a war.
They had to buld transports and mobilize solders and train them and it takes a lot of time.


Yurt

-Vichy France part of Germany (possibility- i am against it, you see, Vichy have never gave troops to the Reich.

What I want to sugest- you should not make a map but a saved game there the Vichy France would pay Germany high atributes and all the resourses she is heaving.
By the way the saved game it's the only way to make the situation more realistick.

Churchill, Pershing- I don't remember how they were in a game but in real life they were just terible.

Charmain tank- another bul**** of the game.( it's a very bad tank).



A big EUrope is good for everyone!
If you gight all ther time in Europe how can it be that you won't be able to see find the fight places on the map?!


I will now try to install the scenario and add more suggestons.

my comments some how went to the end of the first page!:crazyeye: :confused: :confused:

Intresting!
I live in the 22( 2003 06 22)( once again) and you are in the 23....
Funny....
How things in the future?!
Not the right question!

You want to know how it's in the past!?

Now after playing the scenario I must say- it's not realistick at all.

First of all- Russia is too weak. ( I smashed Russia in 2 turns).
Germany is alright exept- Germany had king tiger only in 1944 and Panther at about 1943.
GB is way to strong!!!!!!

The american tank is way to strong- the Americans had no good tanks during the whole war. none!
The British alswise.

The Russians had other tanks exept t34.

If you give Germany King tiger Give Russia JS 2- the best tank of the war.


I don't now way you made it impossible to build ral roads!?
I checked the map and Ruusia has a lot sityes without roads!
Not only Russia.

Most of the fights suposed to be between Ressia and Germany.
But with an exetremly weak Russia it becomes not intresting.


BIG sityes should produce a tank per turn and not one in 4-5 turns!!!!

the m262 was used in the end of 1944 and 1945.


Once again- I think you should make a save game with the realistick aliies!!!
Just play it 2-3 turns and make a realistick situation- if you want i can make a few saved games also.( YOu need one for evry contry.) Way there is no cannons( almost )!?

As far as I know The Russian artilery was the strongest in the world they had more artillery then all the other world together.

While invaiding Russia I so no Russians cannons at all!!!!

I have a lot other suggestions i will just play a bit more and find others too...

Yurt if you wanted to emphasize europe more and make it realistic then why not use el mencey's map?

@Phoenix: I don't know anything about planes. I think I asked someone and they said it was German, if you are sure it's Russian then I'll change it.
I'll try to fix the player settings for next version.
Why can't you get the scenario to work? You're supposed to put the scenario folder into only your Civ3ptw folder, so its contents merge with the contents of the other scenario folder. You don't put it inside the other scenario folder.

@Mobilize: It could be, I decided not to because I wanted Italy weaker than the rest of the axis.

@Goonie: I could have made Canada independant, but then should I have made Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. independant too? I really don't care if you boycott the scenario, I don't gain anything from you playing it.

@Sarevok: I already explained, I didn't want to rename too many units as it just forces people to rename the folders and everything. People are already having enough trouble renaming the two fighters.

@PriestofDiscord: That is a good idea, however I wanted to make a scenario with all the different nations (except Canada :D)

@timberwoolf: You probably haven't played the scenario yet, but most of the stuff you are suggesting is already there. The tanks are already like you suggested. The thing is, I don't want to put in any extra units. I am only using the ones from PTW and from basic Civ3. So the tanks are:
Churchill, Pershing, Tiger II, Panzer, Panther, T-34, and tank (available to all other civs).
The me-262 is available only to Germany.
The scenario is for Play the World, if you don't have play the world you won't be able to play the scenario. Did you unzip it to the right location? The scenario folder does not go inside the other scenario folder.

@Impreza: Boosting populations means either (a) less cities, or (b) lots of starving cities. I made europe bigger so there could be slightly meaningful combat there, not capturing Paris, then moving three squares right and taking Berlin.


People seem to be having problems installing/running this so I'll make it clear again down here:

1) You need PTW version 1.14 (or higher)
2) unzip it to the folder "Civ3ptw" NOT to the folder "Civ3ptw\scenarios"
3) the files should all fall into place; check your scenarios folder to make sure the WW2Yurt.bix is there.
4) Rename the two folders and .inis as described in the readme.
5) It should work now.

Ugh. Hi, Im new. Just wanting to say, more than a few things to TimberWolf. Firstly, the Japanese conflict was very risky. Had they won the battle of Midway, the military was prepared to evacuate Hawaii(itd be next). Then CinCPacFor would have been moved back to San Fransisco. The Japanese fleet wouldnt even have to steam anywhere near Hawaii or any other American Fleet to reduce American Capabilities in the Pacific. Your an idiot if you think the goal for Japan was to get troops through to Washington. The Ultimate Japanese goal for the attack on America was to push the supply lines for American Ships back to the states themselves, because of Hawaii, Americans were able to attack the Soloman Islands and Guadalcanal. Those invasions would never have been possible without such.

Nextly, you think that the D-Day Invasion was bull****? It wasnt. Had we been beaten at the Battle of the Bulge I would agree with you, but youve got to realize that the D-Day invasion was far bigger than the landings at Normandy Beaches. It involved an amphibious assault on Bordeaux, British Commando raids at Marseille, as well as Airborne Troops landing during the initial invasion. But even more than that, it involved the portable piers that we built to transfer the some 800,000 troops and supplies left in Britian for Operation Overlord into the French Heartland.

Your over-zealous belief in the superiority of Soviet Forces is idiotic. The Soviet Union came very close to death during the Seige of Stalingrad, had the commander of German Forces in Stalingrad held out just a bit longer, then the battle of Kursk would have broken the seige. Most certainly the Caucus Mtns would have been taken. Then, the Soviet would have to launch a fully dedicated campaign to retake the Ukraine, which still had major potential for a Soviet victory, but at a major cost of supplies and time.

Here is my fix list so far:

-Vichy France part of Germany (possibility)
-Japan larger (possibility)
-Russian troops conscript
-Sturmovick Russian
-Set player properties

Su( Sturmovik, also known as SHTUKA) it's a German plane.
I always mix it up with IL that was Russian.
Probably becouse now Russia v'got Su...

The Russian best planes in the begining otf the war was IL2 and Mig 3.

First of all the Ilyushin 2 Sturmovic was indeed a Russian plane, which made us heavy losses in ww 2 and was very difficult to shoot down. What you mean, timberwolf is the German Ju 87 Stuka (Sturzkampfflugzeug), which was also a battle plane like the IL 2, but too old since England.
Red Raven, I also do not think Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, but Kursk. In the month after Stalingrad German troops could destroy 4 whole Russian armies. Kursk was the turning point. Hitler wanted this battle, although Guderian warned him Guderian wanted this battle a year later. And if German planes had destroyed Russian hydro plants, which gave 60 % of the enrgy, in 1943, Russia would be at the end. However even though they took Berlin in 1945 their power was weak after that. They would never be able to go forward after taking Berlin. IF there was only one German army left, they would pulled the Russians out of Berlin and far beyond the Oder river. But these troops were used in the Ardennes and in the operation to retake Budapest (Königsberg and Berlin were in danger, but Budapest had to be retaken. Very logical!).
D- day was very risky at all. If the Germans used their tank divisions in the hills above on the beaches, the inb´vasion would have been a big disaster, but Hitler gave no order, because he felt sick and didn´t want to be woken up. In fact he had a kind of nervous breakdown. In such a way you can loose wars!
Japans tactic was to pull the US out of Hawai´i. The US would have to start their offense at San Diego or san Francisco giving the Japanese time to dig in and many US soldiers would have died, making the USA ready for a peace treaty with Japan. With good concessions for Japan, of course.

Adler

Great Scenario! I have been looking for a Worldwide WW2 scenario for a long time. I do have some suggestions, though. First, the Americans need an airbase, if not an entire city, in Great Britain. as it is, they will have trouble fighting the Germans. Second, since your only using 13 civs, maybe you should keep Vichy France it's own country. This will aloow Free France to try to take its own territory back without getting wiped out by the Germans/Italians. Also maybe you should divide the Neutrals into some smaller civs. For instance: European Neutrals, South American Neutrals, Asian Neutrals, African Netrals.

Oh, and definetly make Canada independant! :goodjob:

Timberwoolf - What do you mean "smashed Russia?" Russia is supposed to be weak enough that they can just barely hold on until all the cities start firing out units. How much did you take in two turns?

Are you sure you can't build railroads? Does anyone else have that problem?

Also I noticed that I couldn't sign alliances, has anyone else seen this or know how to solve it?

IRT other Russian tanks - once again, I'm not adding any units except the ones included with PTW.

Russia doesn't have any cities without roads except Petropavlovsk, which has a harbour. That's because to this day there is not a major road to there. All the rest are linked by railroad, except Murmansk and Vorkuta which are linked only by road. There are roads connecting every city, except the island ones. Some of Africa is not totally connected but it wasn't back then, and there are still harbours.

If the production is too slow, I can turn on accelerated production.

I'll add some more artillery, thanks for the feedback, if you have any more fire away!

Impreza - I've never heard of El-Mency's map, and I already had mine made so I figured I'd go with it.

Shortej - I'll try to find a way to put an airbase in but it might just end up getting all the units expelled if the British demand a withdrawal. I guess what I might try to do is have the scenario start a turn early, then create a bunch of save games like timberwoolf suggested so I can set up the alliances. I'm going away until the 5th of July though, so it will have to wait.

As for Canada, the main reason I don't want it independant is for troop transportation. If Canada is independant, then
-Canadian troops can't go in British transports
-Canadian transports can't hide behind British ships
and lastly, it's just another pain in the butt with the lack of diplomacy in the editor. With the neutrals, there isn't really a point in dividing them since it will only slow up the scenario even more, and there aren't a huge amount of neutral cities except in South America.

I think I'll remove a lot of South American and African cities, just to speed things up a little. I'll keep the key African ones but I think they are giving Britain too much of an edge right now.

Adler17- I like guys like you.
Since Stalingrad Germany never won in a major battle. They did managed to contratcak and get a few sityes before Kursk, But after Kursc it's all was finished to Germany.

If you think Ruusiia wa too weak to bit Germany why the Germans were unable to bit them even once( I mean during a whooll year- after Kursk and Before D-day!?).

The Germans by the was started to bit the Allies which was coming from the West but when they had to send major forces to defend Hungary,( they're last oil was there) and By the way the Germans defended Hungary unscsesfully.

Yurt- In 1941 Russia did have forses, 6 or 7 armies from the war East for brought to defend Moskow.
Russia was able to produce rejenivated forses and Tanks much more faster when the Germans.

I think that you should try to add new units.
King Tiger was manufactured in numbers only since 1944 and panther sicne 1943...So at least don't give them to Germany.

The only medium and Heavy Tanks in the begin ot thw war was Ruusian, I don't count the german Panzer 2 somethibh- it was a light tank that the Germans put a lot of armor on it so it weighted 21 tons but was very slow.( had some 30 mm armor.)
Germany was able to invaid Russia becouse of an suprise element and becouse all the Russians tanks and troops knew only how to atack but not to difend.
By the way Russia had milion( a milion) paratroopers in the start of the war and she didn't need them in a defensive war so they were transferd into usual shooting divishions.
The americns gave a lot of help to Russia during thw war while Germany was circled with enemies.

I just want to say that the Fact that the Germans were destroyed it's not something strange but something that had tjo happened.
Hitler himself said before the start of the war with Russia( in mine Kampf also) that a war with Russia can result only in loose to Germany, he also said that to fight in to fronts will be a suiside.
He atacked Russia only becouse it was obvious that if he won't atack Russia will atack him in the nearest time( Ruussia had some 17 armies in the German bordsers that were ready to invaid( all the difenceses and mines and barbared whire were cut and the plains stood on the airports )) Russia will atack him.

Stalin that was mad becouse Hitler invaided before him told his forces to fight without pl;ans and all, and what's why most of the Russian army was destroyed.

Stalin Like Hitler was a crazy mada*** that wanted to capture the wholl world and turin everyone to a comunist.( exept Hitler had the same plane but with a lot of slaves)

Timberwolf, regarding the madness of Stalin and Hitler you´re absolutely right.
To the Russian Forces: Germany won a few battles agaibnst the Russians after Stalingrad. 4 whole Russian armies were smashed in the month that followed Stalingrad (beyond them the 6th RUSSIAN army).
Russia didn´t want to attack Germany soon after the German attack. Stalin was too carefull. He wanted only attacking, if he was really sure he would win. But his army was in a disastrous phase: Most of the competent officers were muredered by Stalin or in the Gulag, Stalin himself lead the army and most of the material was out of date. Hitler made the mistake to attack too late and didn´t want to help the Russian people, but enslave them. So he weakend himself. On the other hand Hitler had a chance even in 1943. IF he gave the command to a competent officer like Guderian, Guderian would ahve built a huge tank army until 1944. Then thousand of Panther and Tiger tanks would have been ready. And if the Luftwaffe would have destroyed the generators of the main hydro plants in 1943, the generators were made in Germany, and I think a German replacement was not very likely in these times, the production would ahve been lowered dramatically. In such a situation Stalin would have been beaten.
I concur the German tanks were mostly types II and III, but when the Germans discovered the T 34, within a very short period the PzKw V Panther and VI Tiger I were built. I remember a dialogue between Generalfeldmarschall v. Hindenburg and Colonel Hoffmann a day before the battle of Tannenberg in 1914 in WW1, where Hindenburg remarked the Russian soldiers were fighting like bears and Hoffmann answered "yes, but they are lead by oxes." That was the same situation in 1941. Unfortunately, or luckily, the Germans adopted this system in the war, when Hitler took the command, while Stalin gave up the command.
The western suplly was minor compared with the Russian industry output, but Kerosin and the aiming visirs of the fighters were the main help for the Russian forces.

Adler

Adler17.

Russia was able to build 100000 tanks during the war and you must not forget that the major tank factory's was destroyed in the start of the war.If the Factory's were no't destroyed Russia could produce some 250000 tanks.

Russia suffred huge losses in the begin of the war becouse Stalin himself tried to comand and his only comand was- fight till death, and this is becouse he was so med and huge forses that could retreat and build up were destroyed for nothing. After a few months Stalin was smurt enough to give the command to his Generals that diffrently when the Germans were not only good comanders but was brave enough to hold theyre opinion.
Hitler after some looses was extremly mad and took all the comand to himself and heard no one, but even if he would I don't see Germany win in these war. Germany just wasn't ready enough for a long war. Germany couldn't hold the enormous Ruusian Endustry. Germany hadn't had enough resorses. Germany was blocked from the sea.


And if now I will start talking about what could happen if Russia would atack in 1941 june the 21 or what could happen if Russia would build up her difenses or if Stalin would act with brains and what if....what if...
We can talk what could hapen if, but you should notices that the ifs from the Russian side would bring for exetrimly fast Germany destroy while Germans if could only make the war longer but wouldn't save them from defeat.
People say that Thw Winter won the Germans- I say that the Germans were'nt ready for war they're tanks could'nt act properly in the winter, they're clothes were not hot enough for the Russian winter, they just hadn't winter clothes. They're guns and rifles were'nt shoting good in the winter.

In the other way- Russia had( in 1941 june) some 8000 tanks that were espeshialy for roads, for the German good roads, they could move in a very hugh speed up to 90km\h with wheels and 65 with the don't remeber the word( the iron once). They were espeshilay done to destroy enemy command punkts and take over territory.
3 armies were ready to invaid Romania to cut of German oil suply.
1000000 paratroopers huge numbers of tanks and more and more.

Germany really was lucky and also akted smurt when they were able to bit a huge number of armies, but don't forget all these armies were not a defensive units, no one told them hopw to defend, they were trained to atack.


About The German Generals- most of them wroute memuars after the war and they say all the time that Hitler was so stuped and he didn't lesson to them, I belive he didn't but in the same time Stalin could say somethinh to a Russian General and they were situations that the General ( like ROkosovski ) refused to lesson to him and they were others. More then that Gukov gave the orders and not Stalin (mostly and after 1941) . Gukov by the way never had lost a batlle, althow he cared only about winning and gave no dam'n how many lifes the win would cost.

The Russian had good tanks to and they prodcued them in big numbers, it's a common belive that the Russians had no motorized armies while Germany had very motorized, so it's a mistke Germany used Horses in huge numbers becouse they had a lack of oil....

Bla bla bla....


By the way, I now play For Russians and it's really intresting I lucnhed a big atacj in the Fist turn and was able to capture and hold 4 sityes( 3 week 1942) but I still cant build railroad exept the first turn after i loaded, there is just no such option and German bobmers destoyed pises of my rail raod and it's really a problem now.
Wow!!
Maybe I can't build it becouse the Germans have destroyed the connections with coal!?
HAH!
Probably that's the reason, thogh i now that even before cuuting the road to coal it was impossible...I will check it up...

The factories in Soviet Union produced 29 800 tanks
between 1930-1941...
The 4th Mechanized (under Lieut Gen. A. I. Vlassov) Corps
had 101 heavy tanks (KV and T-35) 359 Medium (all T-34) and
more than 400 light tanks.

Germany on June 22 1941 had 4 000+ AFV:s...

Rocoteh

In the Invasion Germany activated 3350 tanks even not one of them was medium or heavy.

They were 3 espeshialy big Russian armiew -the 6th, 9th, 10.
Each one of them was suposed to have 2350 tanks, 698 armors( theone that carry troops, similiar to a tank but without the canon) 4000 artillery peaces more then 250000 soldiers and oficers.


The 9th army was especialy strong, in the Russian Finland war they were only 3 infantry divisions in it, then it desapered and in June 13 1941 it apears near the Rumanien border, it is not yet full but already contains 17 divisions 2 air divisions, 6tanks div,2 motrized div,2 cavalary, 7 infantry, it is similiar to the other to exept the fact that all the divisions had the best weapons and even the cavalry divisions got t-34. Alll the army had 3341 tanks.
Only in one army while they were some 20 armies in the German border. The German Tanks were really old and most of them was worst when the tanks that in the 9th army.
The army was suposed to cut Germany of the OIL.

By the way- in the start of the war Germany didn't have Startegic bombers.

The Russians were totally surprised by the Germans. But the German tanks were not totally old. They were equal or better than most of the other Russian tanks- until the T 34 was made in huge numbers. On the other hand you´re right, the Germans didn´t have strategic bombers in 1941, because of miscalculations in the leading command. Nevertheless a strategic bomber, the He 177 Greif, was introduced in 1942. In 1943 such a strategic attack was possible.

Adler

Adler17- Yes, some of the German tanks were a litlle bit( only a little bit) better then the Russian ones, but the Russians had some 9 times more tanks.

In every game they always pit King Tiger and Tigers...But they althwasy forget- they were only 456 Tigers produced during thw war.( or used!?) . Tiger one wasn't a battle tank at all, he had a huge gun to destroy buildings. Panthers were prodcued since 1943.

YE, the scenario is to easy for both sides( Russian and Germany), maybe i will play for Turkey?!

I don't understand why the sity population of Kiev,Belgrad or Paris is German!?

I think the Russian tanks of 1942 where out of date, despite only 150 produced T 34, which were superior. Nevertheless there were masses of enemy tanks, when German troops entered Russian territory. Nevertheless the speed and the air superiority were too much for the Russian armies.
Yes the Russians produced much more tanks than the German, but in quality I think a German Panther, Tiger or even a PzKw IV J was better than the T 34. I know the JS heavy tanks, which were a real match for the German tanks, but the T 34? In a duel between a Panther or a Tiger and one T 34/85 the winner was nearly ever the German tank. The T 34 was an outstanding tank at all, but it was not able to cope with a German Panther or Tiger. Indeed only tanks of the types III and IV D and E were no match for the T 34. Only the number was the beating factor.
The German population of this cities is prpably not changeable, because of problems with the program.

Adler

PzKw IV J - I never heard about such tank, I know only about Panzer IV( without J).
In my opinion the T34-75 was better then the PZ4 and in 1942 they were produced at anot 6-7 thosands such tanks.( while no German tank could compete with them).
I don't know if you lisson to me- Tiger apeared only in the second half of 1944 and Panthers only in march( i think) of 1943.

A Tank like JS3 was in active fjghting since January of 1945 and they were produced in bier numbers then the Tiger 2. While JS was a realy great tank that countinued to be such during the 50's.

Now think again- T34-85 was a modifed T34-75 that was in production since the end of 1939. While Germa tank manufacturers were able to build Panthers only in 1943.
By the way the Panther it's a little bit better version of t34-75.

I don't say Germany had no good tanks, whats metter that Russia had a lot of little bit worse tanks( 40000 T34 werer made During the war) and at least twice more tanks that could compete equlay with the German tanks.

What about KV and T35?!
Until 1943 they were very good comapred to the German tanks.

Originally posted by Red Raven
Your over-zealous belief in the superiority of Soviet Forces is idiotic. The Soviet Union came very close to death during the Seige of Stalingrad, had the commander of German Forces in Stalingrad held out just a bit longer, then the battle of Kursk would have broken the seige. Most certainly the Caucus Mtns would have been taken. Then, the Soviet would have to launch a fully dedicated campaign to retake the Ukraine, which still had major potential for a Soviet victory, but at a major cost of supplies and time.

Not really .. Hitler had told his commanders to hold out at Stalingrad much much too long, which was the problem. It gave the Soviets time to complete an encirclement and cut off the German salient. Had they pulled back when Manstein advised, they might have had enough force to prevent the Battle of Kursk from ever occuring. Kursk was a Russian salient that need never have been permitted had the Germans not suffered so much in the Winter War.

But in the event, thats not what happenned, and the Battle of Kursk, the largest ground force conflict in history up until 1967, broke the German army. From that point on Germany never had a hope of expanding again.

The Soviet contribution was enormous. Granted, much of it was made possible by Lend-Lease, but nonetheless, the war was truly decided on the Eastern front, and the British and American commanders knew this well.

D-Day was a large invasion, it's true, but smaller than many conflicts on the Eastern Front. Naturally we tend to exaggerate it because we're Westerners, but the military fact is Germany was already losing by this time. It's a good thing too - otherwise the Atlantic Wall might not have been manned by old men and young teenagers, but by experienced elite troops and D-Day would have gone alot different.

D-Day didn't crush the Germans, that's pretty much a myth. The Soviets crushed the Germans. What D-Day did do is prevent the Soviets from sweeping across western Europe, by claiming those parts of the crumbling Nazi empire for the Allies before the Soviets could do so.

Originally posted by Adler17
I think the Russian tanks of 1942 where out of date, despite only 150 produced T 34, which were superior. Nevertheless there were masses of enemy tanks, when German troops entered Russian territory. Nevertheless the speed and the air superiority were too much for the Russian armies.
Yes the Russians produced much more tanks than the German, but in quality I think a German Panther, Tiger or even a PzKw IV J was better than the T 34. I know the JS heavy tanks, which were a real match for the German tanks, but the T 34? In a duel between a Panther or a Tiger and one T 34/85 the winner was nearly ever the German tank.

A few misconceptions here.

The Tiger II had alot of problems. Primarily they were virtually immobile at 70 tons, despite the excellent protection. They were typically used in a defensive role.

The Panther was actually based on the T-34. However, there were numerous problems: the transmission was not good enough for the vehicle's size and weight, and it was a very expensive machine in terms of resources and skilled labour to construct. The Germans only ever managed to construct 5500 of these, and often German forces in as late as 45 were still mainly comprised of PzKpfw IV's. In fact, PzKpfw Iv's were in production right up until the end of the war.

In comparison to this, the T-34 was much easier to produce, and owing to its lighter construction, much much more mobile. Over 40 000 T-34/85's were produced. The machine was outgunned by Tigers and Panthers at certain long ranges, but its 85mm was equal to the Tiger's 8.8cm KwK or the Panther's 7.5cm KwK at ranges of 500 yards or less. And because of its mobility (as well as the numbers they were deployed in) it could close this range fairly easily.

In any event the reason the T-34 was so effective on the battlefield was that it was a machine much much superior to the PzKpfw IV which formed the majority of the German armour. It also stood a chance in a fight with a Panther or Tiger if it could close range, and when backed up by JSII's the Soviet armoured forces were all around superior. Not because their best machines were better, but because their average machines were better.


PzKpfW IV AusF J realized the superiority of the Russian designs lay in their practicality. The Soviet armoured forces were realistic. With AusF J the German designers attempted to mimic the Russians by essentially simplifying the design of the PzKpfW IV to become a more pragmatic and realistic machine, attuned to the facts of production at the time.

"Ausf J was produced in mind to simplify the production by simplifying the design of Ausf H. In general, all characteristics of Ausf H were retained including weight, speed, mechanical components and armament. The first component deleted was the electric turret drive with auxiliary generator set, which resulted that the turret had to be traversed manually by hand. Its place was to be taken by 200-litre fuel tank after the production started in July of 1944. This increased the fuel capacity to 680 litres, increasing the combat range to over 300km. It is interesting to point out that German designers decided to increase the fuel capacity at the time when German Armed Forces faced serious fuel shortage problems. Problems were encountered with new fuel tanks and installations started in September of 1944. As the production continued, more modifications were made including: deletion of turret visor and pistol ports, installation of Pilze 2-ton crane mount sockets, introduction of Flammentoeter mufflers, conversion from plate Schurzen to wire-mesh Thoma type, reduction to 3 return rollers per side, installation of Naehverteidigungswaffe close defence system and ceasing application of Zimmerit paste. In addition to new modifications, numerous changes made to Ausf G and H were also applied to Ausf J. "

Unfortunately too little too late. The Soviets had been practicing this theory since early 43.

Frekk- I'm very happy to find someone who v'got ideas similiar to mine!:D



The Germans were comaperbly sucsessfull during the war not becouse of they're technical superiority but becouse they're infantry was very good.
The GFerman were exetrimly good woriors, they were very brave.
Un addition while they're main enemy was Russia the Germans had much better rifles, i mean they had automatick weapon while the Russian had old rifles from 1898(37) tipes.( quite the same that Germny had in WW1)

Originally posted by timberwoolf
Frekk- I'm very happy to find someone who v'got ideas similiar to mine!:D



The Germans were comaperbly sucsessfull during the war not becouse of they're technical superiority but becouse they're infantry was very good.
The GFerman were exetrimly good woriors, they were very brave.
Un addition while they're main enemy was Russia the Germans had much better rifles, i mean they had automatick weapon while the Russian had old rifles from 1898(37) tipes.( quite the same that Germny had in WW1)

Yes. German infantry (at least until the final months of the war) was FAR superior to that of any other nation. The troops were better trained and better equipped, as well, the German infantry were much closer to being fully mechanized than any other nation for the entire duration of the war. With the possible exception of the pre-war British Army which was 100% mobile, but did not remain so as reseerves and conscripts were called up at the outbreak of war.
Whats really surprising is that the Soviets had pioneered half-track development in WW1, with an eye to creating troop transports that could operate in bad snow, this program being under the directorship of a Frenchman named Kegresse. But they never followed up much on the program, which was noted by "deep battle" theorists like Liddel Hart and subsequently Guderian.
However, the Soviets were not quite as bad as you make out. Certainly at the time of Barbarossa they were, but through the war, they produced massive numbers of the submachine gun 7.62mm PPSh-1941. 6 million of these were produced. This was an excellent weapon; probably the most practical SMG produced during the war. Stripping the weapon was extremely simple, and unlike most SMGs it was substantial enough to be used as a club in hand-to-hand fighting. Also this weapon functioned excellently in poor conditions such as mud and subzero climate.
The Germans had a good number of SMGs as well, notably the MP 38 and 40. But they were not outfitted with assault rifles! The standard weapon of the German infantryman was a single shot, bolt action Mauser Karabiner 98K, a derivation of the Gewehr 98 used in WW1.
The Germans also had the excellent MG34 and 42, tripod mounted machine guns (not assault rifles!) The MG42 was such an excellent support weapon, it was in use with the Bundeswher at least until the 80s, perhaps later (someone might know better than me there)

Although the German infantry was outstanding in this times, I disagree concerning the tanks. German tanks of WW 2 were better compared with the allied tanks. The only weak point, which lead to the German defeat, was the low production number. A German Panther was the best tank of WW 2. It was heavier and based on the T 34 indeed, but it had mor armour and firepower than the T 34. In a 1 : 1 fight the Panther would have big advantages over a T 34. It was only produced 5500 times instead of the ammount which was needed.
On the other hand the MG 42 is still in service, rechambered from 7.92 mm to NATO 7.62 mm. It is now the MG 3.

Adler

Originally posted by Adler17
Although the German infantry was outstanding in this times, I disagree concerning the tanks. German tanks of WW 2 were better compared with the allied tanks. The only weak point, which lead to the German defeat, was the low production number. A German Panther was the best tank of WW 2. It was heavier and based on the T 34 indeed, but it had mor armour and firepower than the T 34. In a 1 : 1 fight the Panther would have big advantages over a T 34. It was only produced 5500 times instead of the ammount which was needed.
On the other hand the MG 42 is still in service, rechambered from 7.92 mm to NATO 7.62 mm. It is now the MG 3.

Adler

Indeed, a Panther one-on-one vs a T-34 (at range) is not an equal match, but then you are comparing the German heavy tank versus a Soviet medium tank. The Soviet equivalent to the Panther would have been the JS2, which was perhaps not quite as good as the T-34 but this mattered little. The T-34 was superior to the average German tank, which would have been the PzKpfW IV. The Panther was pretty much the Rolls-Royce of tanks in its day, *when* it worked (this is another problem with the Panthers - they broke down frequently due to the transmission problems). But it wasn't realistic.
Let's say you can get a tank that is 90% efficient at 750% cost, or a tank that is only 75% efficient but at only 100% cost, which is superior? Ease of production and maintenance definately figure into overall quality as they are reflected in performance. It's only if you take these factors out of the picture that the Panther becomes superior.
The real problem with the German 'supertanks' was that since they didn't appear in numbers, they were really just targets for the SU-22 tank destroyers, which carried 200mm (sloped) armour and a formidable 122mm gun - easily enough to outgun Tigers or Panthers. At only 44 tons, this vehicle was cheap and easy to produce, as well as highly mobile. The German equivalent, the JagdTiger, had roughly the same protection (armour was slightly thicker but not sloped, so penetration was easier) and firepower, but at 70 tons, was, like the Tiger, almost immobile and useful only in defensive positions.
With SU-22s and other tank destroyers on the field, it was foolish at the time to concentrate resources on a high-end tank. The battlefield of the Eastern Front was a dangerous place for anything that stood out.
What was superior on the field were good low-end tanks, in numbers, and highly maneuverable. Maneuverability was an advantage the Germans understood well from the early days of the war, when the PzKpfW III met the French Char B tanks. The Char B's were much heavier and with more firepower than the panzers, but, they were outclassed, firstly because they were deployed in small numbers attached to infantry regiments and not as independant armoured regiments, and second, because they didn't have maneuverability. The Germans were always able to close on these tanks and at short range, all tanks are equal - the only thing that matters at 200 yards and less is turret traverse speed. That, and numbers.

AFAIK the heavy soviet guns lacked in accuracy especially in long combat distances. Correct me if I´m wrong. But German tanks were only beaten by numbers and NOT quality.

Adler

Originally posted by Adler17
AFAIK the heavy soviet guns lacked in accuracy especially in long combat distances. Correct me if I´m wrong. But German tanks were only beaten by numbers and NOT quality.

Adler

All tank destroyers lacked somewhat in accuracy, but, they were nonetheless highly effective on the field.

German tanks were beaten by both numbers and quality - like I said before, though the Germans had the best tanks, they didn't have very many of those, and their most common tanks were basically obsolete by 44. So what they had was a huge mass of obsolete machines with a few very high-quality machines mixed in, facing a huge mass of updated machines with a few almost-as-good-as-the-best machines (JS2's) thrown in.
This is in stark contrast to how the Germans won their early victories against other armoured forces, which was with the PzKpfW III, a machine that was not perhaps the best, but it was much better than the majority of tanks it was likely to face. If you really want to look at who was winning the armoured battles, the victor's average tank was always faster, more versatile, and more mobile, and cheaper to produce, at the cost of protection and firepower. So up until late 1943 the Germans are winning most of the armoured battles, but after that time the edge in mobility and versatility is lost by the Germans. It's no surprise that they start to lose armoured battles.
Everyone tends to look at the Tiger and Panther and say, wow, how great they are. But really they weren't so hot. At the Battle of Kursk, the largest armoured engagement in the entire war, for instance, the Soviet advantage in numbers was inconsequential. But they defeated in that battle almost all of Germany's Tigers and Panthers and Elefants. This is because in the battle conditions - poor visibility, mud, etc - the main thing that victory depended on was mobility. Most of the Tigers and Panthers that succumbed were destroyed by multiple shots from T-34s to the rear of the crafts. Even though they had no real numerical advantage, they were able to shift large numbers to a concentrated area in a hurry, and outflank and surround forces. They were able to speed past German armoured forces and strike directly at supporting elements - infantry, artillery, depots, and command - which were entirely defenceless once the forward elements were outflanked. Without their supporting elements, the forward elements were soon defeated.
So, sure, a Tiger or Panther is better if both tanks are just sitting there taking potshots at each other, but that's not how battle works.
If you really want to see how this works out, there's a game called Steel Panthers which is an excellent simulation of tactical WW2 battles, its free and you can get it here (http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/sp_waw.htm) or read about it here. (http://www.matrixgames.com/games/WorldAtWar/)
It very excellently illustrates the advantages of the Soviets in armoured forces in the late war, as well, you will have alot of fun running around in PzKpfW III's if you play the Germans in the early war.

:confused: I cant find the .ini files :confused:


Could some one tell me where i can find them

:crazyeye: Never Mind I found out what was wrong i had 1.04 :o

Im slightly insulted at how US orientated this scenario appears to be.
The British-Soviet alliances could have and WOULD have defeated the German Reich; and later the Japanese Empire.
Sure the war prolly would have gone on to about 1960 but they would have won regardless of American intervention; and insinuating that America was needed because Britain and the Soviet Union were losing just pisses me off.

The British Empire and Soviet Union quite successfully defended themselves WITHOUT the Americans, and through smarter tactics would have and did defeat Germany.
It is a well known fact America can not fight wars. They lose wars if they fight themselves, or they come running to the UK to help them in which case they win but only after blowing up half of the UK troops.

*takes a deep cleansing breath*

Ok im done.
Rant over.

:)

Originally posted by lmsw08233
Im slightly insulted at how US orientated this scenario appears to be.
The British-Soviet alliances could have and WOULD have defeated the German Reich; and later the Japanese Empire.
Sure the war prolly would have gone on to about 1960 but they would have won regardless of American intervention; and insinuating that America was needed because Britain and the Soviet Union were losing just pisses me off.

The British Empire and Soviet Union quite successfully defended themselves WITHOUT the Americans, and through smarter tactics would have and did defeat Germany.
It is a well known fact America can not fight wars. They lose wars if they fight themselves, or they come running to the UK to help them in which case they win but only after blowing up half of the UK troops.

*takes a deep cleansing breath*

Ok im done.
Rant over.

:)

Pretty much, yeah. They aren't quite as awful as you make out, though. In fact eventually Germany would have sued for peace if the Americans hadn't joined in - this was why the British signed with the Soviets a pact against the Nazis which strictly forbid a separate peace agreement with the Germans. By early 1942, before the Americans had even had time to mobilize for war, the German impetus had been lost and they were mostly losing ground they had won earlier. However, I disagree that the war would have gone on to 1960. Likely the British and Russians would be forced to seek peace before this, for internal political reasons. Germany would probably be reduced to its pre-war borders. Either that, or it would be a primarily Soviet Europe.

As for Japan - no way! With the help of the Australians they may have been forced to give up most of the southern islands. But there is simply no way the British could have defeated the Japanse while fighting the Germans at the same time. Maybe push them out of the southern Pacific and southeast Asia, but there's no chance the British could have kicked them out of China and Korea unassisted. The Americans were vital in winning the war against Japan, and if the Russians were the force that defeated the Wehrmacht and the British the destroyers of the Luftwaffe, the Americans were the ones who smashed the IJN. Credit where credit's due! The American campaign in the Pacific was a bloody, hard-fought campaign and I do credit the Americans with great perseverance here. They fully deserve the lion's share of the credit for defeating Japan.

No what i meant was eventually after German got its ass kicked, and no doubt after a long hiatus in a war; the British and Soviets would have eventually gone after and defeated the Japanese.

Frecc after the Soviets bit the Germans they atacked Japan, and also they difeated japan in 1939 that is by the way was a reason for Japan not to atck the Soviet Union becouse they were pretty much afraid.

After destroying the Germans UK and USSR had enough forses to destoy Japan which was much weaker then Germany and also had a border with Ussr.

I don't say that the Americans did no **** during thw war, they did defeat Japan, but the war in Japan was much more regionaly then world wide.

The Japanese managed to capture some Islands which was bed difended and it si much more harder to recapture a well difended Island then to hold it.

Originally posted by lmsw08233
Im slightly insulted at how US orientated this scenario appears to be.
The British-Soviet alliances could have and WOULD have defeated the German Reich; and later the Japanese Empire.
Sure the war prolly would have gone on to about 1960 but they would have won regardless of American intervention; and insinuating that America was needed because Britain and the Soviet Union were losing just pisses me off.

The British Empire and Soviet Union quite successfully defended themselves WITHOUT the Americans, and through smarter tactics would have and did defeat Germany.
It is a well known fact America can not fight wars. They lose wars if they fight themselves, or they come running to the UK to help them in which case they win but only after blowing up half of the UK troops.

*takes a deep cleansing breath*

Ok im done.
Rant over.

:)

Hey, I just wanted a snappy intro. In 1941 things weren't looking all that good for the allies, plus the scenario takes place the day after Pearl Harbour, thus the American focus of the intro. The actual scenario doesn't have an Amero-centric focus at all.

I need to know, can anyone build the railroads in this scenario?

canada became independant in 1867, i believe that was before WWII.

I´m not so optimistic to think Britain has won if the US wouldn´t have helped. It would have been a much harder fight and the invasions in North Africa, Italy and the Normandy would not have been taken place.
Without any help Britain would have lost the battle of the Atlantic due to too high losses of freighters and tankers. Without Britain and his help, especially Kerosine and the air battles over Germany, the Russian would have to be fight a much harder battle, perhaps too hard.
In fact the Luftwaffe wasn´t destroyed by the British. Until the very last days of the war, the air supremacy above Germany was not aliied, they were superior, but our forces were still able to strike deadly, like an air strike against British divisions, which crossed the German border near Kleve and had to retreat after being hit badly by Me 262 fighter/bombers.
Russia indeed was the main losing area of the army.

Adler

The Germnas sufferd huge loses in aircraft in the batlle for Britain.

THAT was coused becouse the most of German aircraft were pretty bed for air fights, they were good in bombing undifended teriitory, but were not efficent in fightings.

Althow England have lost quite big part of it's navy but still- The German navy was very weak and couldn't compeat with the British.
That's one of the many mistakes the the crzay Hitler made.
He wanted to conqer Britain but had no navy to do that...

The German air force of 1943-45 became weaker and weaker and wasn't afeeceint at all.
Germany was unable to produce planes in big number whle the druf adickted Herring had an air force of 1.2 miliion soldiers in it, most of them did nothing and only in the end of the war some air force soldiers were transferd in ground divisions...

The me 262 was a great plane but couldn't compeat with the allies which had some 20 planes on every German plane in Jan 1945.

Adler- The allies have nearly destroyed slmost all the big German sityes and I belive it shows who really ruled the sky's.

About the Russian front- Germany was not prepared to fight in the Russian Winter, and I don't think that some 25% more fighters would have chanhed the war so much.

Originally posted by casual_moose
canada became independant in 1867, i believe that was before WWII.

Yeah thanks, I actually knew that already. The thing is a) Australia, South Africa, and a few other British areas were also independant, which would lead to the scenario being too slow, and b) the "war" element of this world war 2 scenario works a whole lot better if there is less chance that certain parts of the allies won't go off and sign peace treaties with the axis all the time. It's bad enough having three separate civs for the allies, but to break up the British would make them pretty useless. Also, as I already mentioned, Canadian troops would not be able to load onto British transports and Canadian transports would not be able to be sheltered by British ships.

Originally posted by timberwoolf

Althow England have lost quite big part of it's navy but still- The German navy was very weak and couldn't compeat with the British.
That's one of the many mistakes the the crzay Hitler made.
He wanted to conqer Britain but had no navy to do that...


Hitler did not want to conquer Britian - the NAZIS considered Anglo Saxons to be an Ayrian race and the British Empire was one of the main pieces of 'evidence' of 'superior' races that the NAZIS had. Hitler needed to conquer Britian but he wanted peace.

He was angry that he was at war with the nation he wanted to ally with (Britian) and allied with the nation he wanted to be at war with (USSR).

Many historians believe that "Operation Sealion" (the proposed invasion of Britian) was just to scare Britian into peace.

Anyway Britian and the USSR could have beaten Germany and Japan but losses would have been huge and mainland Europe would probably have become communist. I say this as Britian was working on an Atomic Bomb before America joined the war but didn't have the resources to make it. However if Britian had to then we would of helped the Soviets develop an A-Bomb.

Many more people would have died as a result and the world would probaly be communist now (though I'm not saying that that would necessarly be a bad thing - it may have worked out on a worldwide scale).

Anyway now I've had my little rant so its time for someone else - how about someone from America to tell us that we are all wrong! :D

Originally posted by Phoenix
Anyway now I've had my little rant so its time for someone else - how about someone from America to tell us that we are all wrong! :D Okay, you're all wrong! ;)

Seriously, though, have you folks considered taking the bulk of this discussion to the World History (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=43) forum? This thread should be about the scenario, not the real WW2. I know that's hard to separate sometimes, but give it a try, okay? :)

Written by Phonex.

Many more people would have died as a result and the world would probaly be communist now (though I'm not saying that that would necessarly be a bad thing - it may have worked out on a worldwide scale).

NO!!!
It would be the worst thing that could happen!
You read 1984?!
I belive it could be preety much like in the book or even worst!
Comunizm is the worst regime!

Timberwoolf - I agree that communism is a bad system. I believe that it is evolutionaraly bad news as you wouldn't be encouraging intelligence (in democracy intelligence = more money or at least thats how its meant to be). No I havn't read 1984 I'll look at it.

Originally posted by timberwoolf
Written by Phonex.

Many more people would have died as a result and the world would probaly be communist now (though I'm not saying that that would necessarly be a bad thing - it may have worked out on a worldwide scale).

NO!!!
It would be the worst thing that could happen!
You read 1984?!
I belive it could be preety much like in the book or even worst!
Comunizm is the worst regime!

timberwoolf.

I have read 1984 33 times during my life.

Are you sure Orwell was talking about communism?
I am not.

Have you read his "Homage to Catalonia"?
Is it really a homage to Catalonia?

Orwell was always talking in 5 dimensions.
At least....


Rocoteh

Rocoteh.

What Orwell was taking about surely was something cloze to comunizm.

Comunizm it's a totalitar regim...

Comunizm showed itself as impossible life style.
And even in the paper it sounds horrible- why should I leave in comun with some people I don't know.

And until one have long nose and other biger ears there can be no comunizm....

( Then I read what I have written i find a lot of mistkes, so don't think that i'm a complitley stupid)

timberwoolf,

I just wanted to say there are several ways to interpret
1984 and Orwell.
(Your interpretation are shared by 90% so it is no
wrong with that.)

As i said, after reading "Homage to Catalonia", you can
wonder if the title is a big joke.

Well, this was my second and last comment on the subject
since I respect what Padma wrote in Post 62.


Rocoteh

Yurt,

I think you are 100% right with The British Empire.

If Canada and Australia should be separate CIV:s,
you should then also have India as a specific CIV.
(Remember "the quitt India movement".)

The sum of it would be to much "what if" and unhistorical.

I also think its right to have Europa oversized, with regard
to where most combat took place.

In the board-game Global War published by S.P.I. 1975
France was 4 tiles! It was like: OK I roll 5 or 6 and the
battle for France is over!!

In fact no company have managed to produce a WW2
true global game. ( Board-game or computer-game.)

I am not counting World in Flames since its not true
global, and I am not counting Hearts of Iron since its
real-time.


Rocoteh

Germany lost many planes in the battle of Britain indeed. Nevertheless German planes and pilots were better than aliied. A Me 109 E was as good as a Spitfire I and a FW 190 A better than a Spitfire IX. Russian planes were not so good, but much more. Erich Hartmann, Germany´s and the World top fighter pilot, shot down 342 Russian and 10 US planes with Me 109. Yes our cities were bombed by the RAF at night, but this fight would have been a draw, since the losses of the British planes were too high (approx. the third flight over Germany was the death or imprisonement for an aliied bomber. Only the US bombings broke the Luftwaffe nearly the neck. Nevertheless. because of the Me 262 the Luftwaffe was still able to beat the US bombers hardly. In the few month they were in combat 500 REGISTERED allied planes had been shot down by these planes. Because of the difficulties of the last days of the war, many air victories could not be registered, so this figure can be multiplized with 2 and such a figure is more real!
The German navy was weak indeed, having only 4 BBs, 3 BCs (Panzerschiffe), 3 CAs and 6 CLs. But the navy was more effective than the IJN. There were made big errors by Hitler in leading the navy, but without US help the British wouldn´t been able to supply Britain. Not mentioning Japan... A war with Germany and Japan without US help would have been a British disaster.
Russia lacked in Kerosine, and their planes did not have modern aiming visirs, so having a Russian plane on your back in 1941 at the beginning of Barbarossa, this was not so dangerous. Only a lucky hit caused in these times a Russian air victory. Without western help the Russian planes would have been much less efficient as they were.
No, without US help Russia and Britain were both not able to stop Hitler.

Adler

Adler17 - I belive you read to much communistic stuff.
The Communist that wanted to invaid Germany were to late and Germany strike first, that coused huge losses to a lot of Russian tanks that were good in offense only and to most of the planes.(and then the comunist lied and talked about how they were not ready for the war and all).

I have read German general dieries and it's full of comence such as- there is not enough oil and amunition and stuff...Germany was the country that couldn' win in a long time war becouse of the lack in Oil and other resourses while Russia is realy full of usesful resoures.

Russia like Germany had most of the planes good for bobming but not for fighting.
Theses pkanes were suposed to be used then the sky was under the control of the country wich uses the planes.
Germany atacked and took control of the sky which gave them a huge + , althow only against Russia.
The British plane of 1940 were much better then these of the Germans in 1940.( for air fighting).

The Russians did have very good planes, in fact Russia had at about 25000 planes in 1941.
The bigest problem was in the fact that most of the Russians plane were very simple, made forbombing missions, andStalin wanted to produce 100000 Su2. ( a plane that could be used only if the Russians would rule in the sky).
So to do that he had a lot of pilots and most of the Russian pilots had 3 monts training( insted of 3 years).
Also Stalin forced people to go to the air force- soldiers who didn't want to go, but had to.
They got sergant rank and in the Russian army sergants really treted badly, so The German pilots were much more proffesional then thouse from Russia.
Yes the German pilots were the best in the world.
But it wouldn't save Germany.

Indeed it is propaganda the Soviets wanted to strike first. Stalin was too aware of beginning such an adventure. He wanted to wait until Germany and Britain were weak enough, but this wasn´t in 1941. And it is true the Soviets had over 20000 planes, which most of them being destroyed in the first weeks. These planes were too old of being of value for the fights (Moskva and Rata fighter from Spain). And yes the Russian pilots were not trained well (not mentioning some elite squadrons), showinmg high losses. And yes, Germany had a lack of fuel, but due to synthezisation this problem was solved partly. The lack of fuel became critical when the US bombed the raffineries. But Russia lacked in raffineries to make Kerosine, which they had to import. Without aliied help, they woud hjave had a crisis to get their planes in the air. And a German air strike against the hydro plants with generators made in Germany would have caused a severe fall of production if made at least in 1943. IF this happened, Russia would have made peace or would have surrendered.
Russia had also good fighterd like LaGG 3 and several other, but mostly they were indeed not able to cope with German fighters.
But I still say without US help Russia and Britain would have been doomed, at least if Hitler heard on Guderian and his other officers.

Adler

So does anyone have any more comments about the scenario (thanks Rocoteh)?

I especially need to know if people can build railroads or not.

1984 was directed against totalitarianism, not communism. We all know that Stalin's communism wasn't really communism and all the communist references in 1984 are an attack on real-life communism, not a criticism of theoretical communism.

I disagree with above i DO beleive germany could have won after Kursk , why would have stalin wanted a second front so bad if Russia could have won without D-Day? I higly doubt that russia could have pushed germany back to berlin without the D-day invasion. For one without the invasion rommel would never had gotten wraped up in the west and the germans could have used him in the east not to mention his command (army group B)(wich by the way was considered the best fighting force in the world for alot of the war) Wich consisted of the seventh and fifteenth armies just to name a few elements. So anyway i just had to voice my opinion thanks.

Hmm, might be, IwoJima44, might be. A fact for this theory: When conquering Berlin, Russian forces had no power, less supply nad high losses. A strong counter strike might have pushed them out of Germany again. If D-day would have been an allied disaster, with the forces form the west such a counter strike might have been successfull, but then? What happened if Germany could have pulled the Russians out of Germany again in 1945? Would have Hitler commited suicide? Would the western allies made peace with him? Such questions are very speculative.

Adler

I'm going to make some changes and playtest today so it's possible that a new version with player properties, a stronger Russia (with artillery), the Sturmovick fixed, and other changes will be released shortly.

I will take Vichy France out and give most of it to Germany. However I'm not sure about a few places:

Northwest Africa (Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, etc.)
Djibouti
Madagascar
Morocco

Cool scenario, on your map the city Mahajanga is on the Madagascar island, and Morocco is were you have Casablanca and Agadir. Everything looks all in the right place and correct owners for these. Take a look at this site for some more refrences
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm

The French colonies in north Africa shurely should be Nazi.


And by the way, I think you should make some 15 separate saved games for each country but with the real political situation, I mean- Germany in war with most of the world ans so on...

I know that North Africa is Nazi, but I'm not sure about Morocco (the two cities) and Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, and Mali.

I will try to make those save games but it takes a lot of time, I will include at least one or two.

I'm changing back the folder names so they won't have to be changed in the next version.

Can somebody please check their files for me, I think the default folder names are "me-262" and "fw190" but I might have the hyphen mixed up (it could be "me262" and "fw-190".

Default folder names are:
"ME262 and FW190".
Name of Ini files are:
"me262" and "fw190".

I think you should rework the install instructions,
otherwise many people will miss this interesting scenario.

Rocoteh

Just to tide everyone over until version 1.1 is released, here is a save game file. This requires you to change folder and .ini "me262" to "me-262" (it was created before I read your post Rocoteh) but otherwise nothing needs to be changed - in other words if you didn't make any changes before don't make any now, if you did make changes before, you have to change everything back to its original names.
This is a savegame for Germany, they have an embassy, mpp, and rop with Italy and Japan, they have contact and map of every civ except China (will be fixed) and they are at war with Free France, Great Britain, Russia and the USA. All other civs have contact with each other, as well as varying degrees of each other's maps.
Many changes have been made for this save but they will be explained in detail in version 1.1.

Download (http://www.donhomer.homestead.com/files/germany.zip)

The scenario is looking good Yurt. I gave it a play today from the saved game. had some trouble installing but if you change it for the 1.1 version like you say then there would be no problem. I posted the other day and for some reason I thought that the scenario started in 39 not late 41. After playing the saved game Morocco looks fine but I am not sure about Somalia if Italy still had it or the Brits. Looks good though and on my first turn I thought about making an attack on Moscow but decided to hold an armored division in reserves, glad I did. The Free French guerilla's destroyed my cities in Africa near Guinea.. Grrrr, and I can build railroads. Didn't have too much playing time but was fun countering the Soviet push out of Moscow, they took back a few cities but I am gearing for an offensive.

Sounds good! Italy was completely expelled from Abyssinia/Somalia before the scenario takes place. Are there any balance issues that I should address? Maybe a few more troops for Germany?

More troops for Soviet.
Soviet had 300+ infantry divisions December 1941.

The Soviet winter counteroffensive nearly crushed
the German forces on the central front.

Rocoteh

New scenario posted (more soviet troops next time).
See first post.

Some reflections after a very short playtest:

Why did you remove Vichy-France?
It was not occupied by Germany until November 11 1942.

You changed the first version which was historical accurate
and made a new unhistorical one.
I hope you change it back.
To say that Vichy-France was nazi is to oversimplify history.
Even if Petain had a pro-German policy, Vichy-France was
not a German puppet-state.

The unit costs is far to compressed. Now you can produce
a armor unit (I suppose they should represent divisions)
in 3 weeks. The building time should be much longer.

With regard to naval units, my suggestion in Meateater:s
thread also is relevant for this scenario.
Adding the names of the Capital ships also gives flavour.

That was some negative critique. Overall though, I am positive
to the scenario. You have made several correct design decisions
and waiting time between turns is just 4 minutes.

There is great potential in this scenario.


Rocoteh

Thanks for the feedback!

I removed Vichy in order to simplify diplomacy. I could change it back, but last time I got the impression more people wanted it out. It would be great to get more feedback from other people on this topic.
Also Spain might be tempted to invade Vichy due to its small size, that would definately not be accurate.

Capital ships - do you happen to know which ones were sunk by 1941? Arizona was at Pearl Harbour right?

If the costs are too quick, I could remove accelerated production easily.

[b]See my first post for a zip with save game files for America, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Arizona and Oklahoma were sunk at Pearl Harbor.
(U.S. lost no more Capital ships during WW2).
I hope that you change Vichy-France back to
the first version.

Again: These scenario have great potential.

Rocoteh

Here are the positions for the U.S. Capital ships
December 7 1941:

Pearl Harbour:Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennysylvania,
Arizona,Tennesse,California,Maryland and WestVirginia.

Casco Bay, Maine: Arkansas and Texas.

Newfoundland: New York

Norfolk, Va. : New Mexico

Iceland: Mississippi and Idaho

Bremerton, Washington: Colorado

Portland: North Carolina.

Gulf of Mexico: Washington.

One reflection: Many people say that the Battleships
were obsolete already when WW2 started.
Still U.S only lost 2 and that was in port during an
surprise attack made without declaration of War.

When Prince of Wales and Repulse met their tragic
faith 3 days later, December 10 they had an escort
of 4 !!! destroyers. They never had a chance against
the attacking Japanese air.(94 planes)
These were 2 out of the 5 Capital ships The Royal Navy lost.


Rocoteh

Battleships were and are still (Iowa class, although only being in reserve) very good for battles against ships or coastal bombardment. But what are the dangers for them? Airplanes and subs (and other BBs of course). In WW 2 most BBs were lost because of airplanes, than subs. Only a few were sunk in a real battle against surface ships. The Russian Marat was sunk by a bomb of the Stuka pilot Rudel in Kronstadt, the German Tirpitz after being hit by 5,45 ts bombs tallboy (nothing else could hurt her really), PoW, Repulse, Arizona and Oklyhoma by Japanese bombers, while US bombers sunk at least Yamato, Musashi, Ise, Hyuga, Hiei and Haruna. Bismarck, Gneisenau and Admiral Graf Spee were scuttled, while Admiral Scheer and Lützow were also bambed. Italy lost his flagship Roma to German guided bombs in 1943, while Conte di Cavour was sunk by US planes. Barham, Royal Oak and Kongo were destroyed because of subs, while Mutsu was lost because of a ammo explosion. Only Hood, Yamashiro and Scharnhorst were sunk in battle with other battleships. But most of these ships were old ones, being built before or during WW I. The modern ships were much better protected and it was very difficuty to sink one of them. Bismarck was scuttled after being heavily damaged by the British fleet. The Tirpitz only sunk after being hit by super bombs, while Scharnhorst got over 11 torpedo hits. The same with Yamato and Musashi and PoW. The Roma was sunk by Fritz X guided bombs. So they could take much damage.
Today such a battleship would be a target for many missiles but I doubt they would be very effective, because modern missiles are not developed to sink a heavy armoured ship. So BBs are still a very good weapons platform.

Adler

Yes, and "the Battleship-holidays" resulted in the strange
situation that most of the available Capital ships 1939
were built during
or before WWI. 6 of the British Battleships available
September 1939 had been in action at the Battle at Jutland 1916.

If most of the Battleships had been up to the Iowa or
Tirpitz standard 1939 I think the naval-history of WW2
had been different. Without "the Battleship-holidays"
that is an possible alternate history.

With adequate air-escort and ASW-cover the Battleships
were effective.

I agree with you: the modern missiles are only effective
against modern ships with no armor.
Considering their not very impressive warheads I think
the missiles would be nearly worthless against an Iowa.

Now all the Iowa:s are out of service again.
I think that was an mistake.

Rocoteh

Yurt,

Why not reinstall Vichy-France and change Spain to
neutral. Yes i know there were negotiations between
Germany and Spain concerning Spain joining the Axis.

...but how serious was Franco? The Civil War 1936-1939
had torned the nation apart. I see Spain going to war
as very unlikely.

Why not also change Brazil to neutral?
Yes I know they send troops to Europa:
1 Infantry division. It come to Italy November 1944
and never saw much combat.

Rocoteh

I don't want the neutrals to be too powerful. They should be weak enough that they don't declare war on anybody.

I guess I will restore Vichy, but I can do that without eliminating any other civs.

Were any of the other battleships from your list destroyed before December 8 1941? And you don't happen to know the positions of the other ones do you?

United Kingdom: Queen Elizabeth (1912),Warspite (1912),
Barham (1913), Malaya (1913), Valiant (1913), Revenge (1913),
Resolution (1913), Ramillies (1913), Royal Sovereign (1914)
Royal Oak (1914), Renown (1915), Repulse (1916), Hood (1916),
Nelson (1922) and Rodney (1922) = 15

France: Provence (1912), Lorraine (1912), Bretagne (1912),
Dunkerque (1932) and Strasbourg (1934) = 5

U.S.A.: Arkansas (1910), Texas (1911), New York (1911),
Nevada (1912),Oklahoma (1912)*, Pennsylvania (1913),
Arizona (1914)*,Mississipi (1915), Idaho (1915), New Mexico (1915),California (1916), Tennesse (1917), Maryland (1917),
Colorado (1919) and WestVirginia (1920) = 15

Russia: Marat (1909), October Revolution (1909) and
Paris Commune (1909) = 3

Germany: Gneisenau (1935) and Scharnhorst (1935) = 2

Italy: Guilio Cesare (1910), Conte Di Cavour (1910),
Andrea Doria (1912) and Caio Duilio (1912) = 4

Japan: Kongo (1911), Hiei (1912), Kirishima (1912),
Haruna (1912), Fuso (1912), Yamashiro (1913), Ise (1915),
Hyuga (1915), Nagato (1917) and Mutsu (1918) = 10

Yurt,

I suggest you eliminate Brazil.

Question 2: I will be back later with info.

Rocoteh

OK:

United Kingdom: Royal Oak sunk October 1939,
Hood sunk May 1941 and Barham sunk November 1941.

September 1 1939 - December 7 1941 add:
Prince of Wales, King George V, Anson and Duke of York.

France: Bretagne sunk July 1940
September 1 1939 - December 1941 add: Richelieu.

Russia: Marat sunk September 1941.

U.S.A.: Arizona and Oklahoma sunk December 7 1941.
September 1939- December 1941 add North Carolina
and Washington.

Germany: Bismarck was sunk 1941.
September 1939 - December 1941 add Tirpitz.
If you choose to add the "Pocket Battleships" Graf Spee,
Scheer and Lutzow, Graf Spee was sunk 1939.

Italy: Conte Di Cavour sunk November 1940.
September 1939 - December 1941 add:
Littorio and Vittorio Veneto.

Japan: No changes.

Concerning positions for non-U.S. Capital ships December 7
1941: Sorry, not easy to find good sources.

...but if you add these ships an reasonable estimate
should not be to hard to do.

I have worked with more than 10 different sources
for these and the other stats. One problem is that
many sources confuses, counting old battleships
converted to training ships and so on.


Rocoteh

I just wanted to say something about the Neutrals, you can't make them too powerfull or too weak, But I would do is make them a trading civ and have them trade with everyone to hopefully prevent war via trade.
I have been trying to get around a problem that is somewhat the same. And that is not having war break out with counrties that should not be at war. You can read my conclusion to this in my WW2 scenario thread, just too much to post again.

The German ships in december 1941:
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in Brest, Tirpitz still in the baltic, although being transferred to Norway a month later, Admiral Scheer was in the Baltic, too, while Lützow was in the yard.

Adler

Yes, I missed Tirpitz (tired when writing).

Post 95 have been corrected.


Rocoteh

Here are the starting locations for the Japanese
Capital ships:

Kure: Nagato, Mutsu, Yamashiro, Fuso,Ise,
and Hyuga.

Pescadores: Kongo and Haruna.

Near Pearl Harbour: Hiei and Kirishima.
(Escorting the Carrier-force: Akagi, Kaga, Soryu,
Hiryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku).

Russian Capital ships: Oktober Revolution operated
in the Baltic Sea and Paris Commune were in the
Black Sea. I do not know if they were in port or at
sea December 7 1941.

Rocoteh

The Russian ships were both damaged by German planes. I don´t know exactly, but Octobarskaya Revoluzjuiya (spelling???) laid heavilied damged in Kronstadt, using her artillery against German troops at Leningrad. Parishkaya Comune was also damged, but I don´t know if she was operational or not. OR was not at sea. If he were she would have been a perfect target for German planes, subs and surface vessels. Until the end of WW 2 Germany kept the sea superiority in the baltic, but at the end many German ships were (unneccessarily) sunk by Soviet subs. OR was not in action in WW2 after Leningrad.

Adler

Yes, both were damaged by German air during WW2,
but still have to be counted as operational, considering
the limits of the game-engine.

Rocoteh

Brazil and Vichy can both be in (maybe you misread the post).

Thanks a lot for the info, it is very useful and I will definately make use of all the info I get.

Yes, I misread the post, but I still think Brazil
can be left out.

Rocoteh

The French ships - they were probably commandeered by the Germans right? Or were they destroyed?

The French ships were still commandered by French although some of these ships fought against allied ships, but with little success. When the French forces didn´t fought against the allied landing in North Africa, Germany occupied Vichy and the rest of the fleet was either scuttled or captured and used by the axis navies.

Adler

Provence, Dunkerque and Strasbourg were controlled
by Vichy-France.
November 27 1942 (2 weeks after that Germany had
invaded Vichy-France) they were all scuttled (in Toulon)by their
own crews. Strasbourg was salvaged 1943, but was sunk
August 18 1944 by British bombers.

Lorraine was demilitarized 1940 and rearmed 1943.
(I will see if I can find more info on Lorraine).

Richelieu joined the Allies 1942 and fought with them during
the rest of WW2.

Since the scenario starts December 1941 I would consider
to leave out Provence, Dunkerque and Strasbourg.

Richelieu and Lorraine should be Free France.


Rocoteh

Lorraine was demiltarized in Alexandria July 1940.
1943 rearmed and fought for Free France until
the end the war.

Provence and Dunkerque were badly damaged at
Oran 1940. (During the British attack.)


Rocoteh

Have you considered to give the Bomber unit
Lethal Land Bomb. and Lethal Sea Bomb.?


Rocoteh

I think ALL planes should have at least lethal sea bomb. Even fighters were able to sink ships in these days. Me 109 was one of the first fighter/bombers which sunk several CLs and DDs at Crete for example. The FW 190 was even better, because it had a bigger load and could even launch an air torpedo!

Adler

Yes, and Sturmovik should have Lethal Land Bomb.
Also, its Bombard Str. seems to be to low.


Rocoteh

If Vichy-France will be a civ it shouldn't be able to build any military units in my opinion becouse althow it wasn't under straight Axis control it was never really free...

The Germans could do what ever they wanted in Vichy territory.

timberwoolf,

I agree with you that Vichy-France should not be
able to build any military units.

I think its a very good idea.


Rocoteh

Should Vichy be a civ- or wouldn´t be better to make it German? And if the Sturmovik gets lethal lad, the FW 190 should also get lethal land, just my opinion. Considere what these planes destroyed as battle planes and successor of the famous Ju 87 Stuka...
BTW there are special made units like the Bismarck or the Rodney class BB´s. Should´nt they be integrated into the game. Oh I would have just forgotten to tell you building new units is relatively slowly. Production should be increased.

Adler

The SAM Missile Batterys should be removed or have
their Air Power value reduced from 8.

I made a test:
I added 10 Bomber units to Britains starting forces.
These 10 units attacked Hannover and all 10 were
shot down by SAM. OK, I understand these SAM:S
shall represent large concentrations of AA-guns but
this is hardly realistic.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Adler17
Should Vichy be a civ- or wouldn´t be better to make it German? And if the Sturmovik gets lethal lad, the FW 190 should also get lethal land, just my opinion. Considere what these planes destroyed as battle planes and successor of the famous Ju 87 Stuka...
BTW there are special made units like the Bismarck or the Rodney class BB´s. Should´nt they be integrated into the game. Oh I would have just forgotten to tell you building new units is relatively slowly. Production should be increased.

Adler

"building new units is relatively slowly."
I this supposed to be ironic? A German town with 9 shields
can build a Battleship in 10 weeks! It can build a Panzer
unit (I assume it represents a Panzer-division) in 5 weeks.
Total tank-production in Germany 1941 was 60 tanks
each week. Thus it took ALL German tank-factorys 5 weeks
to produce 300 tanks that could man 2 Panzer-divisions.
(I now refer to the tank-part of the Panzer-division).

With regard to Vichy-France: During the last 50 years
all serious strategy/wargames have treated Vichy-France
as a separate state. I see no reason to change that
unless someone can present new historical documentation


Rocoteh.

There is some problems in civ conserning the difenses...

You can build only one sam battery...
So it shouldn't be too lethal...

If you could build some 6-7 of them then it really should become much dangerous....

That's conserns the fortresses...
If there would be a possible "great fortrees" outside the sity and it would take 50 turns to build but would be will give enormus bonus to the diffence we could make the wars much more realistick- so the Germans would have to capture France without going throug the Magino line...

There is another good exapmple- Finland have build a lot of defensive structures along the Russian border so the Russian was almost unable to destroy them althow having better weapons and much more men....

In these case little civ's would be able to difend them selfes by putting a lot of money into counstruction....

*Yurt- personnaly I think that you should add units to your scenario couse it's really good, but the existing units does not enough!

IIRC the Finish fortress line, the Mannerheim line (after Generalfeldmarschall Gustav von Mannerheim, Finnish head of state), was taken by the soviets in 1940, only because of the spring that came. In the winter before the took a blody nose because of the finish forces, the famous Sissi infantry, the winter and bad soviet leaders.

Adler

I think the range of the Bomber unit should be increased
from 6 to 8.

Location on German bombers June 22 1941:
East Front: 650 Ju-88A, 500 He-111H, 150 Do-17Z and 300 Stuka.
West Front: 50 Ju-88A and 120 Do17Z.
Italy and North Africa: 90 Ju-88A and 120 Stuka.


Rocoteh

Vichy France producing no units is a good idea, I will probably implement that. I also like the lethal sea bombardment. I'll also increase the bomber range.

New units - I don't want to get messed up with other units right now. First I will tweak it a lot before adding more complications.

I'll lower the SAM site defences, they were definately not that effective.

The fortress idea is good but at this point the Maginot line and the Finland defences are not really relevant anymore.

This is well done :goodjob:

I have only one comment:
Could you add in the city of Saskatoon above Regina due to the fact that Saskatchewan was a large suporter of the war and had many air training baces across the province. These baces can still be seen from the air today, I have seen them myself. Also it was of greater importance than "Yellow Knife", so if the Kife is there then Toon Town should be in the game as well.

Anyway... Good Job. :)

Saskatchewan added! I also put another infantry in Regina.

Yellowknife is there because if it wasn't there would be no town in the Northwest Territories. Also they did send some troops.

You have my thanks :goodjob:

Did you call it "Saskatoon" (like the name of the City) or "Saskatchewan" (like the Province)?

The other day I was going over Canada for my scenario and couldn't find Yellow knife on the map I was using for a reference. It is a world map of 1942 and the only thing I could think of is that Yellow knife was called Rae at the time. Is this correct?

To my knowlage Yellow Knife has had that name since before its major development in 1930. It was named after the Yellowknife Dene who moved there in the 1800's and was a trading post (as most Canadian cities were) in or around 1789.

Here is a link that explains a bit about their history:
Yellow Knife (http://city.yellowknife.nt.ca/ResidentInfo/CommunityInfo/GeneralInfo/history.htm)

Yeah nice link there. Since Gold was not that big of a resource in the war, most of the men left the mines, to go to battle. I guess Rae was a bigger town at the time and that's why it was on the map, since Yellowknife population was 1000 in 1940. After the war is when YK started to grow again A.

Originally posted by Hunter
You have my thanks :goodjob:

Did you call it "Saskatoon" (like the name of the City) or "Saskatchewan" (like the Province)?

Sorry, Saskatoon. The above post was a typo.

I have civ 3 ptw version 1.04f. Can someone please tell me exactly how to get this scenario up and running on my game.

(i need every detail) (i cant upgrade the version of the game either)

Has something happened that anyone ever posted again on this thread? Was the scenario finally finished and uploaded somewhere? Is their any intention to make it for Conquest?

Has something happened that anyone ever posted again on this thread? Was the scenario finally finished and uploaded somewhere? Is their any intention to make it for Conquest?

Hamah,

In July-August 2003 I helped Yurt with research for this
scenario and we exchanged PM:s.
Then Yurt ceased posting at CFC and have not been seen here
since more than a year what I know.
Since there are so many CIV-sites around the world one can
not rule out that someone have finished the scenario and uploaded it.
However I have no such info.
A Conquest version need that someone is able to get in contact
with Yurt and get permission to make it.

Rocoteh

Hamah,

In July-August 2003 I helped Yurt with research for this
scenario and we exchanged a large number of PM:s.
Then Yurt suddenly quitted CFC and have not ben seen here
since more than a year.
Since there are so many CIV-sites around the world one can
not rule out that someone have finished the scenario and uploaded it.
However I have no such info.
A Conquest version need that someone is able to get in contact
with Yurt and get permission to make it.
I guess that not will be easy.

Rocoteh

What is it needed to make a Conquest version? What should I do besides asking Yurt for permission?

What is it needed to make a Conquest version? What should I do besides asking Yurt for permission?

Hamah,

I assume you mean how you convert it to a biq-file.
Open a new file with the Conquest-editor.

Then you choose the import-file option in the editor.
You import the WW2 file and save it.

Edit: There is, no doubt a need for a new WW2 Global scenario.
If I had more time I would make it.

Rocoteh

Hamah,

I assume you mean how you convert it to a biq-file.
Open a new file with the Conquest-editor.

Then you choose the import-file option in the editor.
You import the WW2 file and save it.

Edit: There is, no doubt a need for a new WW2 Global scenario.
If I had more time I would make it.

Rocoteh

Thanks, I´ll see to convert it to Conquest. And yes, there´s need for another scenario, or maybe some things change about cities and civs; USA having Reykjavik and Mexico City? :confused:

I have already made a conquest version of this scenario that i play on hotseat among friends. It has 28 civs and i have added in the pacific conquest tech tree and some more units. However, for reasons that this scenario isn't mine, i can not release my modified version. I just thought i'd let you know that there is a conquests version out there.

I have already made a conquest version of this scenario that i play on hotseat among friends. It has 28 civs and i have added in the pacific conquest tech tree and some more units. However, for reasons that this scenario isn't mine, i can not release my modified version. I just thought i'd let you know that there is a conquests version out there.

Yes, great, but if we can´t have it, it´s the same. Couldn´t you ask permission to Yurt?