Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION III > Civ3 - Creation & Customization > Civ3 - Completed Scenarios > July 1914 : On the Eve of the Great War PDA View Full Version : July 1914 : On the Eve of the Great War Pages : 1 [2] 3 Marla_SingerDec 28, 2003, 10:02 AMAceDragon : Marcus is obviously working in a way to make that scenario in weeks instead of months. The main problem with a week scenario would be the tech tree. There's two options, either we make it a lot harder to get new technologies or we change the tech tree. I guess the best would be to completely change the tech tree... I wanted so but I've got over it when I realized we couldn't add a new era. Actually, Marcus have found a way to do so. I would be pretty interested to see his version. Lynx : Ok. I will be very interested if you could explain me what are the inaccuracies so that we could work on it. If it's about the alliances, for now, I really think the best (less worse) solution is how it is now. Kristian95 : Thanx with the english names of Danish cities. Actually, the first version of the map had been in French. I had to translate all rules in english and obviously I didn't check Danish cities. It will be changed. :) About the Expeditionary bug, I'm really surprised you have such a bug. Does anyone else playing on the english version got the same issue ? Well, obviously I really need to upgrade once again the version (14 Mb to upload more !). MarcusSaurono : I would be glad to see your changes, don't hesitate to send me private messages to tell me about your changes. You can also send me a mail here at this address (marla_singer_13@yahoo.com). Kristian95Dec 28, 2003, 12:37 PMZeekater. I looked in the textfile (the one Marla uploaded as having solved a bug) and there is a line after the PRTO one which says Expeditionary but it still doesn't work. Alas I know next to nothing about how to create scenarios.... but perhaps some of you guys who know the deal can help me out ?? ;) MarcusSauronoDec 28, 2003, 01:14 PMThe week turns doesn't work with the techs as they are. I'm working on increasing the minimum research time and the research points needed. This should fix the tech prob. I'm also working on city names and locations to make nations/cities more productive. Marla, I'm testing the tech tree changes I've made and will let you know how it works out. Marla_SingerDec 28, 2003, 01:28 PMMarcus, the best way to edit the time needed to find technologies is to change that in the "Map Size" window of the "edit rules" tool. For now, it's at 320 and Germany finds things in 9 turns... You can push it to 400 or 500 I guess.... but the best would be undoubtedly to make a whole new tech tree. We'll see that later. :) Maybe two weeks turns would be better than one week turns... well, that's just my opinion. :) LynxDec 28, 2003, 02:40 PMOriginally posted by Marla_Singer Lynx : Ok. I will be very interested if you could explain me what are the inaccuracies so that we could work on it. If it's about the alliances, for now, I really think the best (less worse) solution is how it is now. Actually Im not going to bother saying what is incorrect as the list is just too damn long. You will see later th inaccuracies when you pick up a good book on WWI ProcificaDec 28, 2003, 02:54 PMI haven't really read up much on the scenario, but I think compromising at 2 week turns would be a good idea. It seems more realistic for the time covered, and the time period. Lynx: I'd be interested in looking at your list. While my knowledge of WWI isn't as high as it is of WWII and the American Civil War, I still wouldn't mind seeing your list. There are many "popular myths" about WWI which seem to get implanted into people's minds. LynxDec 28, 2003, 03:02 PMOriginally posted by Procifica Lynx: I'd be interested in looking at your list. While my knowledge of WWI isn't as high as it is of WWII and the American Civil War, I still wouldn't mind seeing your list. There are many "popular myths" about WWI which seem to get implanted into people's minds. Popular myths is this scenario's idea as that is what it follows. No doubt it was made with the knowledge of who fought who and who owned what cities and territories. Aside from that, next to everything is inaccurate and I can find tons of faults that I have tried to post earlier, but I realized that I had hit the character limit. ProcificaDec 28, 2003, 03:32 PMOriginally posted by Lynx Popular myths is this scenario's idea as that is what it follows. No doubt it was made with the knowledge of who fought who and who owned what cities and territories. Aside from that, next to everything is inaccurate and I can find tons of faults that I have tried to post earlier, but I realized that I had hit the character limit. LOL City placement is very accurate on the whole. Choice of cities also seems very good. Cultural boundaries looks good. Though Bucharest looks to be too far west. Map looks good on the whole, though I disagree with how the Alps/Carpathians are set up. Railroad placement is suspect at best, and really should be increased a bit in France, decreased some in Italy and Germany. City populations are fairly accurate, but there are definitely some that are a bit off (London at this time was the largest city in the world (with New York also up there, no other cities were even close), Paris and Berlin both being significantly larger than Moscow (Paris the larger of the two), just to name a few examples). I'm not going to get into the order of battle because I completely disagree with how the alliances are set up. Triple Entente: United Kingdom (NOT england. England is but one component of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and those from Scotland and Wales would be rightly offended by calling their country England.) (Note: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the term used until Ireland gained independence in 1922) France Russia Serbia Italy Romania Greece Portugal Belgium Triple Alliance: Germany Austria-Hungary Ottoman Empire (its too bad that Egypt and Mesopotamia areas are not included on the map) Bulgaria All the other countries either shouldn't be in the scenario, or should be strictly neutral powers. One thing that puzzles me: Where are the Russian and French armies??? Particularly the Russians. The Austrian army also doesn't seem to exist except near Italy. MarcusSauronoDec 28, 2003, 05:19 PMProfica, I haven't looked at Austria yet but I agree completely about the French and Russian armies. I've conquered russia in 40 turns without producing many extra offensive units. It was far too easy but I need to finish some tests before I go and change that. If you have suggestions PM me and I'll test them. Lynx, I haven't read all of the pages in this thread yet but will be doing so to see what you have said and what I can do to make things more accurate. In general though, anything I do will have to be cleared by Gogf and Marla_Singer before they go into a final version. Also, we are working on the neutral nations and alliances situation. The Last ConformistDec 28, 2003, 05:23 PMOriginally posted by Procifica Triple Alliance: Germany Austria-Hungary Ottoman Empire (its too bad that Egypt and Mesopotamia areas are not included on the map) Bulgaria As Procifica no doubt well knows, the Triple Alliance proper was Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. A better term for the above bunch could be "the Central Powers". ProcificaDec 28, 2003, 06:18 PMYes, that's true, but I was using their terminology. Calling them the Triple Alliance in this scenario isn't a good idea. Central Powers would be a better name, I should have caught that. MarcusSauronoDec 28, 2003, 08:40 PMAny suggestions for how to set up the alliances and maintain the neutrality of the neutral nations? LynxDec 28, 2003, 09:21 PM... Do you know how the editor works? If you did you would know very well how to do that. It also dosent take much effort to make the situation a reality. You can also make sure of some specific alliances that would set up the crisis of 1914. THIS scenario dosent do it right, (it is the closest, but also the first chance to do it right at all with c3c). Marla_SingerDec 28, 2003, 09:35 PMAny suggestions for how to set up the alliances and maintain the neutrality of the neutral nations?The answer is simple Marcus : You can't. Don't think I didn't try, I've spent a lot of time and the choice to put all countries in both alliances wasn't my first idea. :( Actually, it's not such a bad solution to put, for example, Denmark in alliance with Germany. Actually, it's the only way to see Germany not attacking it ! As it is now, neutral countries aren't neutral, that's true, but they are too weak to attack anyone ! So when you play it, it's not that inaccurate... :) The only real problem about it is that England is attacking Norway and Sweden instead of defending France. I've done everything to put the brits in that damn' western front but the AI is really not interested about it. About Russia and France being too weak. Here was my idea : In the first moves of the war, Germany advanced fast, then it's been blocked. So I counted on conscription to block Germany. Actually, it works pretty well !! Of course, it works less efficiently when it's a human player who plays Germany :rolleyes:... However, you're still free to play at a higher level of difficulty if you think it's really to easy. :p I've just played a full game as Portugal. I was doing nothing, I've chosen Portugal because it was the country the further from any battlefield. Actually, the AI behaved quite accurately compared to reality. Of course, no peace occured between Germany and Russia in 1917... but how could I do such without "events" ? During that game, there was a "neutral alliance" composed of 6 countries : Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland. I didn't put Belgium as neutral since it's been attacked pretty fast by the germans in reality... You might think it's not accurate but I think Germany attacking directly from its border with France is even more inaccurate. Well anyway, That "neutral" alliance didn't stay neutral very long. At the first turn, Spain was declaring war on France and opened a second front for France. Spain took Biarritz very fast and France couldn't defend its front in the North. Amazingly, France finished to free all their cities and took even Oostend which had been invaded by Germany before. Things suddenly changed in the middle of 1917, Germany started to advance very fast on the Eastern Front. As I was curious about why such a change, I've sent a "spy" (Rifleman unit) in France to see what was going on... actually Germany were attacking with mechanized infantry !!! :lol: This explains why it advanced so fast at the end. :) With their mechanized Infantry, Germany succeeded to advance again also on the Western Front, taking Amsterdam (cause they declared war to the Netherlands), Reims and Dijon. The only good thing I've found about playing with such a neutral alliance was that England weren't attacking anymore Scandinavia. The thing is simple, neutral countries will always declare war to someone, don't you think it's better if we choose which side they are taking at the beginning ? Spain allied with France ain't that stupid since it's the best way to not see them declaring war to Portugal or France. Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland allied with Germany isn't more stupid since the "invading" country is Germany and it's the best way to not see it invading them. Now the only question is about Norway and Sweden, they should be together so that they don't attack each other... however in which side ? I thought to put them with the Central Powers was smarter but now I believe they should be with the Entente. It's true they will be at war against Denmark and Germany then, but since they are isolated and powerless (no big armies), neither Denmark nor Sweden will be able to cross the sea for an invasion. In the meantime, Germany is too busy to think about attacking them. What do you think about it ? Here's a screenshot of my neutral game as Portugal. It describes the situation as in Nov. 1918 : Marla_SingerDec 28, 2003, 11:50 PMI've just uploaded a new version with the submarine/type XXX bug being fixed. I also changed the name of danish cities and rename King Peter as King Petar... Actually, I didn't know what title to give to his son (maybe Regent Prince) ? Well Alone, feel free to tell me which one would sound the best to you :). By the way, I also renamed England as United Kingdom. LynxDec 29, 2003, 12:38 AMhmm... did you make it historically accurate? I doubt it. MarcusSauronoDec 29, 2003, 02:14 AMLynx, I hadn't, till recently, had a reason to look into locked alliances and how they work and what options the editor gives in creating them. However, my question was also meant to ask who, given the limitations of the editor, should be allied with whom and who could be removed. For instance: are Sweden and Norway really necessary, or can they be removed? And for those countries, like Switzerland, which can't, due to location and/or strategic importance, be removed, who, if anyone, do we put them in an alliance with? Also, while the thread is in the completed scenarios forum it isn't finished. So, don't expect perfection from an unfinished product. We wouldn't be asking for input if we weren't interested in making it better. LynxDec 29, 2003, 02:48 AMDont HAVE to put people in a damned alliance, just set up the diplomacy. By the way, if the scenario isnt finished it shouldnt be here. Nor should it be here with so many inaccuracies that it has. And BTW, who the hell is we? LynxDec 29, 2003, 02:50 AMand if you dont know how to set up diplomacy, thats another thing of the editor you need to learn before you go off and make scenario's that turn out to be filled with inaccuracies. TantorDec 29, 2003, 05:45 AMHey Lynx! Remember Civ is a game where playability sometimes are more important than historical accuracy. The designers of this scenario have done a great amount of work and shoud be spared of criticism that arent constructive. GogfDec 29, 2003, 06:39 AMSorrry for not posting everyone, but the takeover ad kept me out of the forum. If I don't in the future, that's why. The Last ConformistDec 29, 2003, 07:12 AMLynx: The trouble is that civ won't stay neutral. For some reason, Firaxis did not give us the ability to set civs into "locked peace". Even setting them to minimal aggressiveness won't help, since the big powers will attack them. Marla_Singer: What about assigning Norway and Sweden to the Entente, and denying them transports? That way, they can only fight Germany by slogging all the way thru Russia. Deny transports to Denmark too, so they don't invade Sweden. The Last ConformistDec 29, 2003, 07:16 AMOther idea: Merge the Scandinavian countries into one civ, and surround them with impassable terrain. Same could be done to Spain and Switzerland. You'll probably still have to align them to the Entente to avoid the English launching an overseas invasion of Norway. GogfDec 29, 2003, 07:17 AMMarla: PM me your email, so if the ad blocks me again, we can communicate :). I should finish the buildings soon... they're actually really hard. dreadknoughtDec 29, 2003, 07:30 AMOriginally posted by The Last Conformist Lynx: The trouble is that civ won't stay neutral. For some reason, Firaxis did not give us the ability to set civs into "locked peace". Even setting them to minimal aggressiveness won't help, since the big powers will attack them. Marla_Singer: What about assigning Norway and Sweden to the Entente, and denying them transports? That way, they can only fight Germany by slogging all the way thru Russia. Deny transports to Denmark too, so they don't invade Sweden. Just reading a few posts here so Ill post a thought here. Unless they really impacted the war I would not include neutral cities at all as every city slows the turn speed (so why waste speed to include cities who shouldnt be involved) You could re-center the map to mostly not include these neutral areas and spread out on the important territory. Another way to do it would be to make only 1 capitol city to represent the neutral country and give it enough culture to expand its zone the desired amount, but it will never build enough to represent a threat to anyone-even if at war. Kristian95Dec 29, 2003, 09:42 AMHi again, The newest updated Scenario works for me also :) Thank you Marla!! Btw, I looked at the map, I think that Groeningen (in Holland) is misspelled.... but I might be wrong (perhaps a leftover from the french map). Btw, the danish cities are far too small compared to the ones in Norway... Norway was less densely populated than Denmark. Also, the water passage in northern Jutland should be cancelled, as it is too much, and it. And give heck to the fact that Aalborg is has a port, since it's not important for the game. Btw, since Germany suffered from starvation in WWI (they imported food from Denmark), I don't think they should be agricultural... since they had the entire dye market by the beginning of WWI they ought to be commercial instead... and the only country with dyes as luxuries (and have plenty of them). Hope you can use some of these ideas :) GogfDec 29, 2003, 09:46 AMGet rid of Jutland? You do know that the major British/German naval battle of the war accured there, right? Adler17Dec 29, 2003, 11:03 AMI think we must make Firaxis to implement a better Editor to the game. In the meantime the neutral states should remain what they are now. I think Scandinavia should remain with the Central Powers. Both traded with Germany and the British wanted that both would declare war on Germany. Why not having a hypothetical landing of British forces in Norway to take the harbours in which Swedish ore was loaded for Germany in the winter. IIRC Britain considered that also in WW1. But after Jutland and the lack of soldiers on the western front this plan was abandoned. Jutland was the biggest naval battle in history. Germany had at Jutland 99 ships UK 149. Germany lost 1 BC, 1 pre dreadnaught, 4 CL and 5 DD. UK losses were 3 BC, 3 armoured cruiser and 8 DD. 2000 Germans and over 6000 Brits died. 1% of the British artillery were hits, while 3,33% of the German shots were hitting the target. The German guns and the ship design were superior to the British. The strategic position before and after the battle were nearly the same: Germany wasn´t able to crush the British blockade while the British were not able to break through Germany´s defenses into the Baltic to help the Czar. After it no battle between capital ships occured although there were some big attack tries a few months by the German Hochseeflotte. Nevertheless the British ships retreated whenever there was a sign of German capital ships. They also patrolled only near the own shore giving Germany the superiority in the North sea. All in all it was a strategic draw with perhaps a minimal advantage for Germany. Tactical it was a German victory. But this would be another topic. IIRC I had a dispute over this on this forum. I do not know where and when. So if there isn´t any big interest we should stay at this point. Adler ProcificaDec 29, 2003, 12:34 PMThere are ways in the editor to tone down AI aggression (as well as at the start of the game). This could be a indirect way of keeping the neutrals, neutral. Lynx, I think you're being a bit harsh, there are many scenarios on this board that are even worse in historical accuracy, with no attempt made AT achieving it. Here, they are making some progress toward that end, it just needs ALOT of work. Maybe some constructive comments might help. :) One idea which I've liked personally, is giving neutral civ's immobile VERY HIGH defense units, with VERY HIGH cost (so they aren't built). This would still "keep" the neutrals in the game, but would make them effectively useless. Attacking one would be pointless, and I don't think the AI would be THAT stupid, would it? Would lowering aggression on all Civ's help? With regard to Jutland, overall it was a German defeat since it did not accomplish the breaking of the British Blockcade. MarcusSauronoDec 29, 2003, 01:32 PMActually, Procifica, I just added a unit similar to the one you described and gave it to each of four Neutral civs, Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands and Albania, who are allied togetehr and at war with everyone. I'm giving them three in each city at start to scare off the AI. Will soon see how this works out. I'm also removing any ability they have of producing offensive units. Together, it should make the neutral civs remain "neutral" and prevent them from influencing the course of the war. If there are any civs people think should(n't) be neutral let me know and give me reasons why. ProcificaDec 29, 2003, 01:45 PMSweden, Norway, and Denmark should be neutral. None of these had much influence on the war, and none were actively contributing to either side militarily. You might want to experiment with leaving them at war with neither side, see if they will stay neutral. Albania is a wild-card, as it subsequently was mostly occupied by the Germans/Austrians. I would just leave it out of any neutral alliance. Its a shame that countries cannot "join" a locked alliance. It would make Romania, Greece, and Italy more "realistic". Sims2789Dec 29, 2003, 02:13 PMloks great, but i'd reccomend giving Machine Gunners a lot of defence. AloneDec 29, 2003, 02:39 PMOriginally posted by Marla_Singer I've just uploaded a new version with the submarine/type XXX bug being fixed. I also changed the name of danish cities and rename King Peter as King Petar... Actually, I didn't know what title to give to his son (maybe Regent Prince) ? Well Alone, feel free to tell me which one would sound the best to you :). @Marla - Regent sounds better to me:) but Regent Prince is good also. Keep on with great enthusiasm for work on this scenario you people:goodjob: .I was kind disapointed when I heared that people from CivTeam didn't enclude this (WWI) scenario in C3C expansion. With hope that I will be able to play soon your creation I regard you. Alone edit: Marla maybe you asked me wich of two kings are better to be leader of Serbia, sorry if I missunderstood you. If that, King Petar was leader in 1914 "On the Eve of the great war" so maybe He should be the one! But ether way is good. And.. thanks for asking:) Kristian95Dec 29, 2003, 03:03 PMI didn't mean get rid of Jutland, especially since it is alot of the danish territory ;) What I meant is get rid of the "strait" in northern Jutland, since it is not realistic with a "shortcut" for the shipping that way through. Kristian95Dec 29, 2003, 03:09 PMBtw, Russia was, as far as I know, not attacked initially by the germans as it was thought that Germany could defeat France before Russia had mobilized. If this is correct, it could be simulated by letting the russian troops start quite a distance from the border between russia and germany... that is far from the railroad system. As it is, it is a fact that russian troops, during WWI, were of lower quality than other european powers, which they could compensate for by turning out many more of them. Thus I think, perhaps russian troops should have lower attack and defense stats... but be cheaper to produce. These are, of course, just my suggestions, but I think they can add to the flavour of the campaign... which by the way rocks :) As for historical accuracy, I think it's getting quite close without ruining the gameplay.... it's not supposed to be so accurate that players and computer opponents behave exactly as the countries did in WWI.... right ?? Else Russia is supposed to surrender in 1917 having been severely licked. (by the way by german troops, as the austrians got kicked by the russians!!) ZeekaterDec 29, 2003, 03:20 PMMaybe just get rid of the neutrals,since you probably already took out any settler units, and prevent building them? That way, the scenario will run faster, you won't have to worry about the neutrals, and since you already gave em uberunits for protection, they do diddlysquat. Just my opinion of course, map will look pretty empty if you do this. GogfDec 29, 2003, 03:58 PM@Marcus: make the unit immobile, and unavailable to anyone. Position it at the edge of all of the neutral borders, and make it like a fortress of something. Send me what you have done so far, and I'll add on to the idea. You are definately part of the team now :). MarcusSauronoDec 29, 2003, 04:21 PMGogf, the unit is immobile and connected to a hidden tech that only certain nations have at start and no one else can research. I'm placing it in neutral cities in order to allow units to continue to travel through "neutral" territory. Zeekater, using the defensive units I can leave them in and by limiting their production to just that unit they won't flood the map especially given the cost of the unit in sheilds and population. Sims, I have given the MG's a good defence and left the defensive artillery effect. Kristian95, I've made Russia the only nation to skip its first turn and have moved the majority of its units to cities only connected by roads. This is unrealistic but given the way railroads function its the only option. GogfDec 29, 2003, 07:41 PMNo, machine gunners should have no defense. That was an idea of mine, but Marla and I agreed that it should not be done (that's if you mean machine gunners by MGs). Other than that, your changes sound pretty good. MarcusSauronoDec 29, 2003, 08:23 PMI was curious why you set up the MG's (yeah, machine guns) that way. For myself, I set them up as the main defence unit instead of a small artillery unit, which is basically what you made it. I couldn't see any reason to have them as artillery when Howitzers and regular artillery are available. GogfDec 29, 2003, 08:32 PMThey have lethal land bombard. The only other unit like this is the Mustard Gas which is more expensive, and has less movement. Leave it as just bombard. LynxDec 29, 2003, 08:38 PMyup, I see this in the thread all the time. Ever heard of the EDIT button? If you have new stuff to say you can use the edit button instead of constantly re-posting useless information. Useless it is anyway also. Why are you arguing over what a machine gun should do? Its a friggin defensive unit! Its not raken with you on the offensive in ww1, its a stationary thing you use to mow those enemy soldiers down. You cant bombard guys ahead of you because MG's cant move close enough without support. And last time I checked enemy soldiers werent dumb enough to let the enemy set up MG's that would fire directly on them in their trenches. Get some accuracy and stop fooling around with obvious details! Marla_SingerDec 29, 2003, 08:52 PMSorry Lynx. Machine Gunners being used as bombard units was my idea. As I see Machine Gunners (maybe I'm wrong), they were climbing on hills to support WW1 Infantry. I don't want machine gunners to be independant units who could take cities alone, I want them to be supporting units, and the best way to represent them as supporting units is to put them as bombard units. That's my opinion about it. Well, you can edit them and make them as defense units if you want anyway, but they will become a kind of Spak unit. :rolleyes: I don't want to see twice the same unit, units should all be different cause if it's not the case, there's no purpose to add them. I thought considering Machine Gunners as fast moving bombard units wasn't stupid because it could have a strategic value in a Civ3 game. PS : Lynx, I'm glad to see you posting comments on this thread but I would be even more thankful if you were less aggressive in your messages. Insulting me isn't the best way to convince me I'm wrong. :) MarcusSauronoDec 29, 2003, 09:27 PMLynx, I agree with you on the subject but Marla_Singer and Gogf have the last word on the scenario and being nicer would get things to go your way faster and easier. Marla_Singer, I've had the MG's as defence units (0 attack and 12 defence) since I first started play testing and they have NEVER been used on the offence. So, you have no reason to worry. Also, with no defence the MG's could be captured and turned against their original owners, which makes no sence. PS-> Lynx, I'm reworking force deployments currently and trying to make them accurate for the beginning of the war but I don't have anything numbers for Italy. Can you help? LynxDec 29, 2003, 09:32 PMGood for final word, I franky dont give a damn if they want to keep their scenario innacurate well just wait to see who is laughing in the end. And I dont have any numbers for italy that i have for public use as im still resaearching. The MG capture makes sense in one form, but its better a unit rather than a artillery piece as it is defense, not somethong to bombard the enemy's with. It dosent take a genius to figure that out. Marla_SingerDec 29, 2003, 09:36 PMActually, I remember a movie I've seen about World War 1 where elite units were climbing a hill to cut the throats of machine gunners and to use those against the ennemy. So taking over Machine Gunners didn't sound that stupid to me. If you have Machine Gunners with 12 as defence, then there's no more purpose to build infantry. If there's no more purpose to build infantry, then it's (to me) not anymore a world war 1 scenario. Without the guys in the trenches, the machine gunners were defending nothing. Machine Gunners had never been anything else than a support unit. Well, it's true I don't know a lot about warfare, but at least I think I know that. LynxDec 29, 2003, 09:38 PMyou "Think"? your thinking is a bit inaccurate if you asked me. The whole point is to hold your ground with machine guns while infantry try to make assaults on the trenches. Its a purely defensive role, not a support role. Marla_SingerDec 29, 2003, 09:40 PMOriginally posted by Lynx you "Think"? your thinking is a bit inaccurate if you asked me. The whole point is to hold your ground with machine guns while infantry try to make assaults on the trenches. Its a purely defensive role, not a support role. That's exactly what happens when an Infantry attack another infantry defended by machine gunners : Machine Gunners shoots the first to lower the "life points" of the attacker and then both infantries are fighting together. LynxDec 29, 2003, 09:44 PMUltimately the infantry dont fight, they "try" to fight the other infantry, but they have to retreat because thyre getting mowed. I though you may have known something of trench warfare or WW1 in general if you made a scenario. Marla_SingerDec 29, 2003, 09:54 PMAbout Machine Gunners, my point was to make the WW1 Infantry as the main units to build at the beginning of the game. They should be used both for attack and defence. If we make of Machine Gunners a defensive unit, then infantry would be used only for attack. Well, it's a matter of choice, but I'm sorry to say I don't want to fight against 5 machine gunners to take a city... that's the purpose of Spak, not the purpose of machine gunners. As you see the graphics of the machine gunners, they are mobile and can easily move from one point to another, they aren't blocked Spak which can't move and that have as only purpose to defend. Maybe a good compromise would be to increase the defence value of Spaks to 10 (and of course rising their cost). What do you think about it everyone ? Now Lynx, if you really hate that scenario and despise us because we did everything wrong. Do your own one and stop bother us. LynxDec 29, 2003, 10:00 PMOriginally posted by Marla_Singer About Machine Gunners, my point was to make the WW1 Infantry as the main units to build at the beginning of the game. They should be used both for attack and defence. If we make of Machine Gunners a defensive unit, then infantry would be used only for attack. Well, it's a matter of choice, but I'm sorry to say I don't want to fight against 5 machine gunners to take a city... that's the purpose of Spak, not the purpose of machine gunners. Sadly it was the MG that murdered mobility. There were no city fights at all, save if youre looking at Ypres where there was fighting. WW1 was a rural conflict, not a cityfight. Naturally MG nests would be in citites. It is a reality that needs to be accepted. Originally posted by Marla_Singer As you see the graphics of the machine gunners, they are mobile and can easily move from one point to another. MG's arent supposed to be mobile thats the point im trying to make! Originally posted by Marla_Singer Now Lynx, if you really hate the scenario and despise us because we did everything wrong. Do your own one and stop bother us. Dont tempt me, It wont be a good thing to see if I did make one of my own creation. Marla_SingerDec 29, 2003, 10:15 PMIf you look at graphics, Spak isn't a mobile unit, Machine Gunners is a mobile unit. They can easily put their guns on their back to move fast. About the accuracy of the scenario. If you really want to make of it a rural fight (as it was indeed in reality), you'll realize you won't be able to make the whole Europe... you'll have to focus on either the western or the eastern front. That wasn't the purpose of this scenario. As Civilization works, the goal of a war isn't to grab fields but to grab cities. I don't want it to be this way, it's this way. If you're not happy about it, you should whine about it to Sid Meier, not to me. I just like the way it is and I see no reason to change it. The idea of a fast moving artillery unit sounded great to me and I've found that graphic to be the best to represent it. The scenario won't be funnier to play with machine gunners being used as defense units. And please please please, do your own scenario so that I won't hear you anymore. LynxDec 29, 2003, 10:24 PMactually it is very possible, you just cant do it with your scenario and its map. Fast moving artilery would be in the form of field guns, not Machine gus stationed in pillboxes. you can like it, many others probably do (you never know though, you dont have a poll) but whe a scenario is inaccurate those who know it dont post here or did for a time but dont anymore because they found just how inaccurate it was. Go down the lists of who has posted here then check the pages to see who has been here recently. You will notice some of the best mapmakers and creators have NOT posted here in a long time or even at all. I can name many of them. No im not saying you need EVERY one, (ACW probably would be the only one with that title) but a few good makers who have posted recently would disprove my idea. Good luck in doing so. AndrewzDec 29, 2003, 11:09 PMThen just rename machine gunners as field guns and spak as machine gunners so that everyone will agree ! Boy, it's impressive how people can get passionate about just a scenario... MarcusSauronoDec 29, 2003, 11:09 PMMarla_Singer, He's right about the machine guns and field guns and how they were used. The machine guns were meant to support in the defence of the trenches while field guns, pulled by horse, would move forward and provide artillery support for advancing infantry. Adler17Dec 30, 2003, 12:26 AMMarcusSaurono is right concerning the MGs. MGs are used as infantry support in the defense, but useless as artillery. In the war of 1870 France had first MGs called Mitralleuse (spelling?). But it looked more like a cannon ao it was used as artillery with nearly no success. Only a few times they shot at short distance with that weapon against massed German infantry- with the known results. Many battles were won because of MGs in defense positions. An example would be Tanga as I mentioned before. So I would give them a defense a little bit better than infantry but perhaps only a few life points. Alone they were not able to defend very much. Adler LynxDec 30, 2003, 12:46 AMYou have a choice here Marla: accuracy or inaccuracy, Completeness or Laziness. In the end this scenario will fall back into the archives, Its your choice how soon that will be: a few months... or a few weeks. TantorDec 30, 2003, 01:55 AMI totally agree with Marla that MGs should be a support unit. But I have suggestion that might be worth a shot. I believe if the MGs have a bombardement range of 0 they will give defensive bombardement if stacked with another unit. Then give them a very low offensive stat and a somewhat better defensive stat. Their defensive stat and HP shoud be kept low to reflect the low number of troops in MG units. Perhaps its some way in the editor to limit HP achieved from promotions, Im not familiar enough with the editor to know. Unprotected MGs stand little chance vs infantry, but i think its unrealistic that theyre captured by the enemy. In ww1 MG crews were killed on numerous occations after surrender because they were hated so much by the enemy. I think youre doing a great job! :cool: MarcusSauronoDec 30, 2003, 02:54 AMIts possible to give the MG's a negative bonus in hit points so that as they gain xp they would return to normal hit points. Combined with a reduced but still decent defence they would serve as both good support units and passable defensive units. Also, the standard infantry would still be needed on the defensive to augment the mg's. It almost sounds like a compromise. TantorDec 30, 2003, 06:16 AMHas it been discussed to give infantry the ability to build fortifications(trenches) and/ or enslave(POWS). This will increase their advantages over special forces and MGs. If the MGs are given a bombardement range of 0 it will pave the way for horsedrawn field artillery(move 2) to support infantry attacks. MGs not classified as artillery will improve defense of a square by beeing one more unit to kill. Thus a square with one Inf and one MG requires more than one unit to conquer. GogfDec 30, 2003, 06:44 AMTantor: Yes Okay, sorry to jump in a little late, but don't you think giving defense (12) is a good idea. Although WW1 was primarily a defensive, it would seriously underpower the attackers. Based on game strategy, the AI would fill it's cities with them, and then you would need a ton of artillery to take them. Well, based on human intelligence, you would do the same. How would the AI take your cities? They never use artillery. It's too hard even with the intelligence to use artillery. Now, machine gunners could be used as arillery, for example, there is a valley, and above it a machine gunner. Two enemy infantry platoons walk through the valley... they weren't frontally attacking the MG. MGs can be used for defensive bombard, and should have a ZOC, but no defense. It's too powerful. The Last ConformistDec 30, 2003, 07:53 AMDuring WWI, machine guns where integrated in infantry units; if accuracy is the goal, I'd remove them as a separate unit, and give infantry a high defense rating along with a defensive bombard. If they are to be indep units, how about zero range artillery? Give them a highish bombard rating, and they'll usually knock off a HP on any attacker against the stack. Make them cheap, and you can easily have a few in each defensive position. Wouldn't be gamebreaking, and would seem more realistic than either the powerful defender concept or the ranged artillery implementation. Capture can be done away with by giving each side an unique MG unit which isn't availble to the other. They don't need have any different abilities or prereqs, just different names and list of civs they're available to. Lynx: Your attitude is very annoying. GogfDec 30, 2003, 09:09 AMIf we decide to use TLC's idea, we would give a different one to each alliance. That means we only need to make two different units, not one for each civ. AndrewzDec 30, 2003, 10:18 AMI'm against the idea of a specific defensive unit different from the Infantry. In Civ3, defensive units are used to defend cities, it's impossible to make them defend trenches. I agree with the Last Conformist, we can easily consider the machine gunners Lynx talks about as integrated into Infantry... And that's not "inaccurate" to me... Actually, it' the best way to represent it. I like also the idea of Tantor and Last Conformist that if we really need them as independant units, they should be zero range and very powerful bombard units. However, I'm not sure it's quite necessary to do it so. Even if I think Infantry defence rate at 12 is way too much, maybe the unit should be (9.10.1) instead of (9.9.1). That would give a small advantage to defenders against attackers. I think the original Civ3 infantry unit is something like (8.10.1). Why did you change it ? (I'm not against it, just curious :)) GogfDec 30, 2003, 10:36 AMBecause, Infantry is supposed to be the main ground unit in this scenario. We don't want it to be undefeatable, and we want it to be able to win in attack. 9.9.1 has a defensive advantage: defensive bonues (mountains, +100%, grassland +10%, etc.). If you want machine gunners integrated in infantry, why not have tanks integrated with special forces... and infantry? We want all units represented independantly. The Last ConformistDec 30, 2003, 11:11 AMRemind me again what Special Forces represent? Reg'lar CivIII Inf is 6.10.1, which I for one think is way too defensive. This is one of the very few areas in which I think CivIII represents a step back from CivII - gunpowder infantry lost all usefulness on offense. MarcusSauronoDec 30, 2003, 11:24 AMGive the mg's the same defence as standard infantry and standard infantry will still have a good chance of defeating them, even when stacked, and a great chance with artillery support. Also, with as poorly as the AI uses artillery it is sure to use mg's just as poorly if the are left as mobile artillery. However, if they are made as low level defeders (defence of 4 to 6) that need to be supported, the AI will use them and human player will still use regular infantry on the defence. GogfDec 30, 2003, 11:27 AM@TLC: I agree with you about the infantry being too defensive. In the American Civil War, Riflemen attacking other Riflemen won probably around 50% of the time. @Marcus: We want MGs to bombard, and kill, and if you give them defense, it overpowers them. I know the AI doesn't use it that well, but still, we don't want them to be really overpowered. I'm not sure, some defense does make sense, it's just too powerful. The Last ConformistDec 30, 2003, 12:00 PMMove two with lethal bombard sounds fairly overpoweringish to me: build enough of them, and wipe out any defending stack without risking your own units. Sure, bombard of eight isn't too much, but they're fairly cheap and you shouldn't be losing any, so building a huge stack isn't that hard. Marla_SingerDec 30, 2003, 12:16 PMMaybe Howitzer should be lethal bombard units instead of machine gunners... The Last ConformistDec 30, 2003, 12:48 PMWould make more sense to me, but I'd still be worried about it being overpowering. Playtesting is king, as they say. GogfDec 30, 2003, 01:30 PMI think machine gunners should have lethal bombard. I mean, they have a very high chance of a kill... but so does the Howitzer... MarcusSauronoDec 30, 2003, 02:13 PMWhat are we doing about capture? I hate the idea of capturing a bunch of mgs and artillery every time I take a city. I would also like some form of dedicated defence unit. The Last ConformistDec 30, 2003, 02:39 PMUnits can only be captured if they're available to the captors, that is, they have the relevant tech, and are checked on the "available to" list for the unit. Simply make an Entente and a Central Powers variant for each DF=0 unit that shouldn't be capturable. GogfDec 30, 2003, 02:56 PMWhat's wrong with capturing a bunch of mgs and artillery? It's a really boost to your artillery force :). MarcusSauronoDec 30, 2003, 03:09 PMIts not godd when I end up having more artillery from foreign powers than I do infantry. LynxDec 30, 2003, 03:14 PMwell. thats why you SHOULD have the map have far more infantry on the map. an major offensive typically had 1,000-2,000 guns to bombard which is about... 6-8,000 troops compared with an assault force of mabye 100,000 or more. Why the hell do you have as much artillery as you do? Its inaccurate. And dont debate on capturability, the MGs dont get captured as they typically were killed and the pillboxes were burned up, but AT units should be capturable. LynxDec 30, 2003, 03:16 PMOriginally posted by Gogf What's wrong with capturing a bunch of mgs and artillery? It's a really boost to your artillery force :). Its not accurate to take MG's but you can take AT easily. Is this really worthy of debate or are all these people just posting worthless posts that are better off in another thread... as usual. Adler17Dec 30, 2003, 03:36 PMBut all weapons are captureable! You can take the gun of a fallen enemy as well as a tank, MG or even a warship. Only likelyhood of such an event (in reality) is getting lesser the bigger the thing is which is captured. In history many guns were captured and used or destroyed by the enemy side. Also MG. One example: Before the Battle of Tanga in 1914 German troops in East Africa had nearly no good rifles and only a few MG and even less guns. After this battle the Germans got many very good british rifles and MG to equip the soldiers. MGs are captureable. Adler GogfDec 30, 2003, 03:40 PMExactly. LynxDec 30, 2003, 03:41 PMyoure talking about von Lettow-Vorbeck I take it? the guerilla warfare guy in German East? Acceptable capturing those guns in colonial warfare as that is typically not as vicious as the main fronts where equipment was less likely to get wrecked in fighting. But I dont recall seeing German east on this map, this Idea is inaccurate for a Europe-only map. The Last ConformistDec 30, 2003, 03:46 PMThe question isn't whether the things are capturable in reality, but whether they in practice were captured with any frequency, and what effects capturability in the game has on game balance. That MGs were captured in meaningful quantities at Tanga was an exception. Annoying as he is, Lynx is quite right they usually weren't during WWI. ProcificaDec 30, 2003, 06:12 PMI can't believe the debate going on in this thread, and all of the inaccuracies being thrown around all over the place. First, I want to start with Gogf's comment on the American Civil War. In order for an attacker to "win" in the American Civil War, he usually needed superiority of at least 2 to 1 (3 to 1 if assaulting a heavily fortified position). This increased later in the war as rifles became more accurate and rate of fire of said rifles increased. To give a few examples: The Battle of the Wilderness, fought in May, 1864, resulted in 17,000 Union casualties, compared to 8,000 for the Confederacy. Union Army was about 100,000, Confederate Army about 60,000. Gettysburg, fought in July, 1864, resulted in 15,000 Union casualties, and 20,000 Confederate casualties. Union Army was about 90,000 (though outnumbered badly at times on first day and parts of the second), Confederate Army about 75,000. Confederates were the attackers here. Fredericksburg, assault on Maryne Heights, resulted in over 12,000 Union casualties, and a couple thousand Confederate casualties. Union assault force was about 60,000, the defending Confederate Corps had about 30,000. The reason why Union casualties are VERY high here, is because they were assaulting Confederate positions which were heavily fortified, providing mutual fire support, and the Union was attacking across a river, and up a steep bank. I've read over a dozen books on the American Civil War, have done alot of research for the ACW scenario, and have had such research backed up by the best historian on these boards (by far). This is the war which made Cavalry pretty much obsolete. And, contrary to popular belief, Artillery is not what caused this (Artillery only caused 9% of military casualties during the American Civil War). Saying the attacker won 50% of the time is completely wrong. Given equal numbers of troops, the attacker would usually lose unless they executed a daring plan which worked, or were going against a completely inept enemy commander (Chancellorsville is the best example of both). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Machine Gun: Defensive unit, poor range, once gotten to was dead meat. It needs Infantry to survive and do its work. What I would do personally, is this: Assault Infantry - 9/9 (A/D) Machine Gun Infantry - 7/11 (A/D) (defensive bombard, no range, 1 rate of fire) Personally I would adjust these slightly more in favor of the defense, while reducing Civ3's grossly inaccurate defensive modifiers (such as I did for ACW). But, this would be a good step in the right direction, and compromises the 2 conflicting views in the thread, while also preserving 1) gameplay, and 2) some historical realism. You use the Assault Infantry on offense, the Machine Gun Infantry on defense. I would not make Machine Guns lethal land bombard, their effectiveness is highly overrated. The next section on Artillery will state why. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Artillery. Artillery caused almost 1/2 of total casualties during World War I. It should KILL. Also, the quote by Lynx, that only 1,000 to 2,000 guns were used per assault is a bit inaccurate. World War I was an artillery war. Some assaults used over 10,000 massed guns over a small frontage, to try to achieve a breakthrough. However, as he also stated, these guns were used to support an assault by 100,000 men or more (1 or more Armies actually (average Division about 15,000, 2 to 3 Divisions in a Corps, 2 or 3 Corps in an Army so your average Army would be anywhere from 60,000 to 135,000 men, plus support troops, so he's correct essentially)). Howitzers are high-trajectory guns used to bombard enemy positions from a moderate distance. Field Guns are low-trajectory guns used to support an attack. Mortars (haven't seen any debate on these) are VERY high trajectory guns (over 45 degrees). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/10 Civ3 Infantry. Its actually quite accurate if portraying WWI Infantry. However, its the excessive Civ3 defensive modifiers which make it useless on attack. And, the way Civ3 combat is calculated (it should be calculated for "stacks" of units, instead of just 1 unit vs. 1 unit). Being in a large town (metropolis) did not instantly double a unit's defense. A hill did not instantly increase a unit's defense by 50%. The other problem, as I touched upon a second ago, is the way combat is done in Civ3. It's done unit vs. unit. Its like saying, we're only going to attack you with 1 division, and you're only going to defend with your strongest division. When it should be, we're going to hit you with all of our divisions, and all of your divisions are going to have to prepare to meet it. This would make the 2 to 1 numerical superiority a requirement for say American Civil War time period (think of 2 attacking Infantry units as 12 attack instead of 6, going against 1 defending with 10 defense, it starts to make sense), and this requirement should be higher for World War I, as most assaults (especially on the Western Front from 1915-1917) were against HEAVILY fortified positions. Unfortunately, combat isn't resolved this way in Civ, so you have to make some compromises. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lynx, what does your comment about ACW deserving a title mean? Is it meant as a good thing or a bad thing? And what kind of title? Quote: No im not saying you need EVERY one, (ACW probably would be the only one with that title) but a few good makers who have posted recently would disprove my idea. Good luck in doing so. GogfDec 30, 2003, 06:14 PMYes, but they did win about 50% of the time, even though they needed higher numbers. In Civ3, let's see you take out a Rifleman on offense with a Rifleman... TantorDec 30, 2003, 06:19 PMI dont think howitzers should get lethal bombardement. In ww1 the effect of artillery bombardment were often suppression of the enemy. This is reflected in the scenario now as it is with non lethal bombardment. MGs on the other hand were worse if you were caught flat footed in no mans land. One didnt have much of a chance. Regarding the stats of the MGs I think it should be something like 4.6.1 with a high bombard value. Okay the stats are low, but this is to reflect there are very few MG soldiers in MG units compared to infantry units. They are rather useless on the offense and need infantry to stay alive while they give the infantry close range artillery support. All along in C3 Ive found the capture of artillery annoying. I think its highly unlikely that the artillery cannot be destroyed, but if it was like a 50 - 50 chance of capture it would be more realistic. ProcificaDec 30, 2003, 06:21 PMRifleman would be another good example, its a 4/6 unit. If you were able to use 2 at once vs. 1 rifleman, it'd be 8 vs. 6 with no defense modifiers. You'd have good odds of winning in such a situation. Unfortunately, Civ3 doesn't let you do this, so its 4 vs. 6 every time (higher when defensive modifiers kick in), and your chances of losing can get VERY VERY high. Given equal numbers, and taking out the inept commander factor, the defense would win 90% of the time during the American Civil War. With regard to Artillery capture, it didn't happen too often because most Artillery operators and their crews were specifically trained on how to "spike" their guns before being overrun by advancing infantry, which essentially made the artillery useless. As I said, Artillery was the MAIN killer in World War I, not Machine Guns. Though, giving Machine Guns a relatively high defensive bombard is probably a good idea (12?). SarevokDec 30, 2003, 06:22 PMI have a comment on this. I think Lynx meant that 1000-2000 guns were used for assaults and preperation bombardments. Naturally there were more guns in armygroups and army's in general and many more guns were brought up for the main battle.German artillery in The Battle of Verdun had initially 542 guns, 13 Krupps (420mm) and 17 Skoda (305mm) guns with 2.5 million shells. Naturally in genral offensives you had more guns but for the opening bombardments there were around 500-3000 guns. An Idea of having 10,000 guns in an assault is heavily exaggerated. Though it is true Artillery killed more in WW1 than any other weapon. ProcificaDec 30, 2003, 06:27 PMI guess you have to look at it, Sarevok, on the scale of the Civ3 map. The "definition" of assault is certainly open to debate, but even on a very large map of Europe (which this is not), you're still looking at 20 to 30 miles of frontage per "square". The Battle of Verdun if I remember correctly was over a much smaller frontage. When I mentioned 10,000 guns, I meant large-scale offensives over a decent amount of front (say 20 to 30 miles), not necessarily an assault on just a few positions (like Verdun). SarevokDec 30, 2003, 06:31 PMwell, if youre talking about taking a 50 mile front like the Kaiserschlacht offensives then to have a very lasting effect then 10,000 may seem probable but even then not likely that many. I will have no more comment on this as I do not wish to be drawn into the ridiculous debates of this thread. SarevokDec 30, 2003, 06:31 PMwell, if youre talking about taking a 50 mile front like the Kaiserschlacht offensives then to have a very lasting effect then 10,000 may seem probable but even then not likely that many. I will have no more comment on this as I do not wish to be drawn into the ridiculous debates of this thread. ProcificaDec 30, 2003, 06:34 PM10,000 was an extreme number, used as a point. More typically, it was probably closer to half that number on such a large front. I do remember reading somewhere though that in one battle, there were 10,000 guns used by the Germans. I'm not trying to disprove anyone's figures, just trying to state that the real numbers probably is inbetween Marla/Gogf's current EXTREME amount of artillery, and Lynx's much smaller figures (though closer to Lynx). SarevokDec 30, 2003, 07:37 PMGenerally, Lynx knows what he is talking about when it comes to military warfare, strategy, and History in general. He is less "publicized", but his knowledge is not far away from Rocoteh in terms of accuracy of his information. You would do well to listen to what he says as well. I shall depart, I have a scenario to run and 3 scenario's to make. Marla_SingerDec 30, 2003, 07:53 PMOriginally posted by Sarevok Generally, Lynx knows what he is talking about when it comes to military warfare, strategy, and History in general. He is less "publicized", but his knowledge is not far away from Rocoteh in terms of accuracy of his information. You would do well to listen to what he says as well. I shall depart, I have a scenario to run and 3 scenario's to make. Well, I tend to agree on that point. My thing is more geography and general History than warfare. Actually, I've done the map first because I wanted to see if I was able to represent the Europe of Empires of the beginning of the 20th century. It's only because those big things had to fight together that it became a world war 1 scenario. This being said, I'm still a Civ3 player and I'm sure doing a special defensive unit will never work because as much the AI than humans are mostly keeping their defensive units into cities. I would be really glad if there was a way to coordinates more different units, but it's too complicate for Civ3 (not for Call To Power actually). Civ3 only manages "one unit vs one unit" fight. The only coordination you can use is bombard units. So you'll never be able to make an "accurate" WW1 scenario. the only thing you can do is to make a compromise between accuracy and playability. :( LynxDec 30, 2003, 09:14 PMits possible, VERY possible to make it accurate. There are a few small tweaks in the editor I have found that would allow me to do trench warfare accurately and effectively. You agree im right yet you do nothing about your scenario to improve it off the accurate data? I call that laziness. It is VERY possible to do everything correctly to WW1, it dosent really take skill or wierd tricks at all. Its your choice really as doing such a thing does not retract fun from the scenario. I can name a scenario that does it very well, but the creator of that map is too tied up in making his own interpretations rather than helping you figure it out. As I said before, its a question of if you want your scenario accurate so you please the "highly knowledgeble" despite alot of work, or keep it inaccurate alienating the "highly Knowledgeble" and being lazy. ProcificaDec 30, 2003, 10:53 PMSarevok, I'm not far behind Rocoteh either with regard to my knowledge of History, Strategy and Military Warfare. Though, I must admit, Lynx is definitely up there too. So, I will respect what he says. And, as I said, I used an extreme case to point out that Marla/Gogf aren't necessarily as far off as was stated. I think this comment was probably directed toward me? Quote: It is VERY possible to do everything correctly to WW1, it dosent really take skill or wierd tricks at all. Its your choice really as doing such a thing does not retract fun from the scenario. I can name a scenario that does it very well, but the creator of that map is too tied up in making his own interpretations rather than helping you figure it out. While I agree that you have to compromise, you can still make efforts to make that compromise have both historical realism and playability. For ACW, I reduced the defensive modifiers of Cities/Metropolises to 10%/20%. This immediately erases the extreme defense of cities. I also reduced most terrain modifiers by half, as they are excessive. In fact, most of the other modifiers were reduced by about half. Then, I scaled up the defense a little bit on Infantry, to more accurately portray the true attack vs. defense. The idea is not necessarily 6 vs. 10, but where 2 units of comparable strength should be able to win against 1 unit of similar strength, if fighting on say grassland or plains (but not always win). Also, city defense improvements also were cut down by about a factor of 1/2. Basically, its the units which are the main determination of the victor, instead of terrain or cities. ACW also scales up the HP on units (3/4/6/8), which makes Veteran and Elite units harder to kill. This though was done to emphasize the larger units that were later found in the American Civil War in general, and to better set up the initial Order of Battle. I'm not sure how much this information will help, but its how I was able to more accurately simulate realism for ACW. LynxDec 30, 2003, 11:46 PMOriginally posted by Procifica Sarevok, I'm not far behind Rocoteh either with regard to my knowledge of History, Strategy and Military Warfare. Though, I must admit, Lynx is definitely up there too. So, I will respect what he says. And, as I said, I used an extreme case to point out that Marla/Gogf aren't necessarily as far off as was stated. You are for the civil war, but you said earlier not for WW1. Gogf is a scenario designer who's goal is to assist with the 'technical' ideas of a scenario, not the historical creation though he will need to know what type of weapons were used and in what way. That area can be hit hard with inaccuracy, but the real inaccuracy goes to marla, who's interpretation of the scenario as a total european war involving every country and having poison gas at the start is extreme inaccuracies to name a few. Originally posted by Procifica While I agree that you have to compromise, you can still make efforts to make that compromise have both historical realism and playability. Like I had said, One scenario creator has done this very effectively to create an excellent scenario. Too bad it dosent get the attention it deserves as people are too busy here debating over things in this thread long settled before the other scenario was released months before this one was. Originally posted by Procifica For ACW, I reduced the defensive modifiers of Cities/Metropolises to 10%/20%. This immediately erases the extreme defense of cities. I also reduced most terrain modifiers by half, as they are excessive. In fact, most of the other modifiers were reduced by about half. Then, I scaled up the defense a little bit on Infantry, to more accurately portray the true attack vs. defense. The idea is not necessarily 6 vs. 10, but where 2 units of comparable strength should be able to win against 1 unit of similar strength, if fighting on say grassland or plains (but not always win). Also, city defense improvements also were cut down by about a factor of 1/2. Basically, its the units which are the main determination of the victor, instead of terrain or cities. ACW also scales up the HP on units (3/4/6/8), which makes Veteran and Elite units harder to kill. This though was done to emphasize the larger units that were later found in the American Civil War in general, and to better set up the initial Order of Battle. I'm not sure how much this information will help, but its how I was able to more accurately simulate realism for ACW. This is just a note of curiosity to you Procifica: although you were the "creator" of ACW in all area's, I would have to say the bulk of the work came from Rocoteh especially when you disappeared for three months on reasons that you are starting to post up in ACW again. In my opinion Rocoteh did most of the work, but his work and effort was "re-recognized" so that you had been the one who had done all of this work and for that Rocoteh isnt part of ACW anymore. This may seem excessively harsh and "flaming", but I bring it up out of curiosity as these are my observances. AndrewzDec 31, 2003, 12:22 AMYou are for the civil war, but you said earlier not for WW1. Gogf is a scenario designer who's goal is to assist with the 'technical' ideas of a scenario, not the historical creation though he will need to know what type of weapons were used and in what way. That area can be hit hard with inaccuracy, but the real inaccuracy goes to marla, who's interpretation of the scenario as a total european war involving every country and having poison gas at the start is extreme inaccuracies to name a few.Lynx... Why are you so bully on Marla ? That scenario is a huge work. Almost every units are actually edited. I didn't see many maps that has been that accurate. Countries borders are totally respected. It's not that common. Countries strength are quite accurate also. About neutral countries, do you actually know how to read ? Did people teach you that ? If all countries are in alliances, it's because it's the best way to see neutral countries not being attacked !!! Are you enough grown up to get that ? When you compare the size of Denmark and the size of Germany, it's totally natural to see german AI attacking Denmark !!! You can do as many twicks as you want, it won't change that statement ! After all, I'm starting to think you don't care at all about accuracy !! You would like better to see Spain in war against France and Denmark invaded by Germany because "they weren't part of any alliance". You're so childish ! You don't have to watch very long that scenario to realize it needed a lot of time to be created. Instead of directly insulting scenario creators, you should at least recognize it needed time to make it so. Have you already seen other WW1 scenarios ? This one is the best so far ! No... not a nice word, only insults. You should have trouble in your life to not be able to communicate normally. Do you see a therapist ? And I'm not rude against you, I'm totally frank actually. You have big troubles man. Moreover, I consider quite funny the reason why you consider that scenario to be good to trash : "There's no gas shells in 1914", "Machine Gunners are defensive units.... that's a biiig deeeeaaal ! boooooh !"... I really hate people who are despising everyone just like you do. LynxDec 31, 2003, 01:48 AMOriginally posted by Andrewz Lynx... Why are you so bully on Marla ? That scenario is a huge work. Almost every units are actually edited. I didn't see many maps that has been that accurate. Countries borders are totally respected. It's not that common. Countries strength are quite accurate also. About neutral countries, do you actually know how to read ? Did people teach you that ? If all countries are in alliances, it's because it's the best way to see neutral countries not being attacked !!! Are you enough grown up to get that ? When you compare the size of Denmark and the size of Germany, it's totally natural to see german AI attacking Denmark !!! You can do as many twicks as you want, it won't change that statement ! After all, I'm starting to think you don't care at all about accuracy !! You would like better to see Spain in war against France and Denmark invaded by Germany because "they weren't part of any alliance". You're so childish ! You don't have to watch very long that scenario to realize it needed a lot of time to be created. Instead of directly insulting scenario creators, you should at least recognize it needed time to make it so. Have you already seen other WW1 scenarios ? This one is the best so far ! No... not a nice word, only insults. You should have trouble in your life to not be able to communicate normally. Do you see a therapist ? And I'm not rude against you, I'm totally frank actually. You have big troubles man. Moreover, I consider quite funny the reason why you consider that scenario to be good to trash : "There's no gas shells in 1914", "Machine Gunners are defensive units.... that's a biiig deeeeaaal ! boooooh !"... I really hate people who are despising everyone just like you do. I could have made this scenario in 3 hours (not the modpack stuff, but the map and nations given the size, absolutely). I dont have any troubles actually, you are just heavily overreacting and it is you who needs to go and deal with your "ideals". You dont know how to tweak anything in the editor to set it up! THERE IS A SCENARIO THAT HAS DONE ALL OF THE DIPLOMACY AND FIGHTING OF WW1 ABSOLUTELY CORRECT WITHOUT FLAW. Go ask the Experts on History who have played this, they dont play this because of inaccuracy and wish to correct this stain to WW1 maps. The only reason people are here is to debate about units. YOU DO THAT IN THE PREVIEW THREAD, or you shouldnt even have debates about it at all as most scenarios have it all said and done before release. This is a gathering of the unsure which is the only reason this thread has 300 posts in 1 month as all you do is debate between Accuracy and convienience, and its mostly inaccurate. Now, if you think im totally insane and just rambling on about inaccuracy of this scenario, you will know precisely what I mean in 7 days. You will know the true anger the historians feel over this inaccuracy, and it will be the death of this thread to almost certainty! DriftDec 31, 2003, 03:00 AMOriginally posted by Lynx Now, if you think im totally insane and just rambling on about inaccuracy of this scenario, you will know precisely what I mean in 7 days. You will know the true anger the historians feel over this inaccuracy, and it will be the death of this thread to almost certainty! :lol: Well, that was funny, but how about putting things to perspective? It's just a scenario and you don't have to play it. ChieftessDec 31, 2003, 07:16 AMOriginally posted by Lynx I could have made this scenario in 3 hours (not the modpack stuff, but the map and nations given the size, absolutely). I dont have any troubles actually, you are just heavily overreacting and it is you who needs to go and deal with your "ideals". You dont know how to tweak anything in the editor to set it up! THERE IS A SCENARIO THAT HAS DONE ALL OF THE DIPLOMACY AND FIGHTING OF WW1 ABSOLUTELY CORRECT WITHOUT FLAW. Go ask the Experts on History who have played this, they dont play this because of inaccuracy and wish to correct this stain to WW1 maps. The only reason people are here is to debate about units. YOU DO THAT IN THE PREVIEW THREAD, or you shouldnt even have debates about it at all as most scenarios have it all said and done before release. This is a gathering of the unsure which is the only reason this thread has 300 posts in 1 month as all you do is debate between Accuracy and convienience, and its mostly inaccurate. Now, if you think im totally insane and just rambling on about inaccuracy of this scenario, you will know precisely what I mean in 7 days. You will know the true anger the historians feel over this inaccuracy, and it will be the death of this thread to almost certainty! CEASE FIRE!!! Everyone, put down your flame-throwers and stop flaming and bickering before someone gets banned. This is only a scenario, let the scenario designer make the scenario the way they want to. This is a warning. Adler17Dec 31, 2003, 08:03 AMChieftess is absolutely right. Lynx, if you believe you can do it better, do it! Hic Rhodus, hic salta! This critic nears a point which is under the belt line. Adler The Last ConformistDec 31, 2003, 08:44 AMAccording to Keegan, The First World War, 1998, the Germans had a grand total of 14,000 artillery pieces on the Western Front in early '18, and the Allies a bit over 18,000. Couldn't during a quick search find figures for any individual offensive, but given those totals 10k sounds suspiciously high. Lynx: If you find this scen so poor, why do you simply not cease posting in this thread? And shut up about who did what in ACW! Did you see my warning above? I warned everyone to stop bickering and flaming eachother over this sceanario. AndrewzDec 31, 2003, 09:33 AMYou're all right, we should calm down... sorry about my flaming but I think it was necessary. Marla_SingerDec 31, 2003, 09:40 AMHappy New Year to EVERYONE !!! [party][party][party][party] I hope this year will be the best to all of you and don't drink too much tonight :D !! I'll make a little summary about what's questionned in this scenario and how can we smartly change rules a bit later. :) For now people ! HAPPY NEW YEAR !! The Last ConformistDec 31, 2003, 10:17 AMHappy new year, Marla! I thought, however, you were in France? Here (=Sweden, which is the same time-zone as (metropolitan) France) it's till some 6h42m left! GogfDec 31, 2003, 06:35 PMHAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!! Sims2789Dec 31, 2003, 07:26 PMgreat job! it's really fun, but i have a few suggestions: Italy has control over 2 squares in Antolia(because they own Rhodes). I whould recomend turning these squares into coasts and adding an extra Plains square to Rhodes on it's South-Western side, that way, Italy doesn't have a foothold in Antolia. Also, you accidentally put Switzerland in the Triple Alliance(Central Powers) when in fact they were nuetral. I would also reccomend having Italy be in no alliance since I believe they were originally in the Central Powers but never declared war on the Allies(Entente) and in fact attacked Austria-Hungary in 1915. Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain were also nuetral, and I believe Denmark was also, but I'm not sure if they were later attacked by Germany. The only countries in the Central Powers were Austria-Hungary, Germany, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria. The Last ConformistDec 31, 2003, 07:35 PMA quick leafing thru the thread should explain the unexpected Locked Alliance assignments of neutrals. Sims2789Dec 31, 2003, 07:41 PMBTW, if you go into the "Terrain" section of the editor, and find Coasts, you can set Coasts to allow cities, thereby putting Venice on water. It would, however, be impossible to build more cities on the water, unless you allowed a boat to build cities. http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/watercities.JPG GogfDec 31, 2003, 10:43 PMGood idea... Thanks! Marla_SingerJan 01, 2004, 10:26 PMHello Everyone ! Happy New Year again ! :) I've just finished to edit the tech tree !! It's the first time I'm editing such a thing so it took me a lot of time actually... Well anyway, before uploading the new version with the new tech tree, I have also to add other changes. Obviously, many things has still to be changed ! Here's a screenshot of the Industrial Age Tech Tree : It's the same with less technoligies since I've put some of them in the Great War tech tree. Marla_SingerJan 01, 2004, 10:29 PMAnd now here's a screenshot of the Great War Tech Tree : I'm sorry if it's hard to read the names of technologies... actually, I didn't succeed to upload a good image of less than a 100k Marla_SingerJan 02, 2004, 12:31 AMOriginally posted by sims2789 BTW, if you go into the "Terrain" section of the editor, and find Coasts, you can set Coasts to allow cities, thereby putting Venice on water. It would, however, be impossible to build more cities on the water, unless you allowed a boat to build cities.Hey Sims ! That's a great idea !! :D Message Edited : Sorry Sims, I've just quickly tried and it seemed land units couldn't reach it... which means not only that Venice couldn't defend itself... but even worse, it couldn't be taken by anyone... :( Do you know if there's a way to see land units still going in it ? The Last ConformistJan 02, 2004, 04:52 AMIn SMAC marines could attack maritime bases directly offshore from land. You might want to try and see if Marines can attack it. GogfJan 02, 2004, 07:24 AMWell, it still can't defend itself. Too bad though, it was a great idea. ChieftessJan 02, 2004, 07:36 AMMarla, you can use the file upload. Just read the links in my sig. GogfJan 02, 2004, 11:08 AMMarla, if you would PM me the version wth custome techs, I can put in the American support, etc. to see if it will work/disbalance the game. I can also put in the tech "American Friendship" on the tech tree, rather than just having England and France have it, and it be invisible. I'm pretty much done with the buildings, so I'll be able to put them in. Just PM me the biq, and anything else you need for the tech tree. Thanks. TheLastKnightJan 02, 2004, 05:37 PMA few things I don't like: a.) Too high density of cities. Don't you think that this is a bit overkill? Realism or not, it should still be a civ game with reasonable city placement. b.) Why make infantry Unit that display several soldiers? This is completely a-typical for Civ and therefore grahpically very disturbing ( I for one have replaced your infantry with the standard one - which is in my opinion a great unit anyway) c.) You should really work on the leader heads... I'd recommend replacing them through flags or something alike. It's really stupid to have a female face in place of Francis Joseph. And even with Wilhelm II, I'd prefer a flag instead of Bismarck's face...simply because of correctness I would say. d.) Civilopedia contains french entries. Can't be difficult to fix can it? e.) I would rethink Infantry values. Remember that WWI was a very very defensive war and no one dared to attack without conducting massive artillery strikes beforehand. Other than that I congratulate you on a very comprehensive scenario with a great map as its base. GW! GogfJan 02, 2004, 06:13 PMYes, World War One was a very defensive war. Of course, all of the soldiers were entrenched in trenches. A barricaded trench on a grassland offers a 110% defensive bonus, so a 9 defense infantry becomes an 18.9 defense infantry. Quite hard to take out by attacking with infantry, before bombarbment beforehand. Now, the AI doesn't build fortifications on the scale that would be historically accurate, so it doesn't really work out. Also, even if it did, the AI is not smart enough to use artillery bombardment effective, so it would make the scenario too easy for any human. The infantry is a multi-figure unit because it makes you feel more like a butcher when you send five (I think) men to their death at a time then one man, and WWI was a war of attrition. This way, there is a small bit of moral backfire for launching an un artillery/plane supported offensive. The civilopedia will be fairly easy to fix: we just don't include one in the next version. I don't believe we added any entries, did we? This way it will revert to your original (English or French) civilopedia. TheLastKnightJan 03, 2004, 07:24 AMGood point on AI, agreed. As for civilopedia, I think it's more of a mix: there are some english entries and some french ones in the techt tree, strange. Leaves me 2 questions: What about leader heads/flags? Any progress on that? I think we could easily collect some and implement them. I just noticed that Italy is at war with Germany and Austria at the start of the scenario. This is historically inaccurate since Italy actually flipped sides from the three Central Powers to the Entente in 1916. The solution would be to make a locked alliance only between Russia-France-England and Germany-Austria-Turkey, while allying Italy to the middle powers losely. The question is how the infamous Italian backstab can be simulated correctly. GogfJan 03, 2004, 08:48 AMNo, because if Italy goes to the side of the Central powers, it will never leave, and if it declares pecae, and get's out of an MPP (which is unlikely), then the still won't declare war on the central powers. The Last ConformistJan 03, 2004, 09:22 AMHaving Italy free to go with either side is kind of traditional in WWI simulations. It's really the best solution, at least when one doesn't have any events scripting abilities. Marla_SingerJan 03, 2004, 10:05 AMHaving Italy free to go with either side is kind of traditional in WWI simulations. It's really the best solution, at least when one doesn't have any events scripting abilities.Italy had no interests at all of doing the war in the side of the Triple Alliance. They didn't have any serious claimed territories in France. On the other side, Italy was claiming Trentino and Trieste from Austria for long years. Those regions were actually peopled by italians. Italian independantists coming from there were actually feared by the Habsburg family because they were using Terror to rally that part of Italy to the rest of the country. When the war occured in 1914. Italy didn't actively participated to it. It stayed as neutral as it could and finally decided to join the side of the Entente in May 1915 (8 months after the beginning of the conflict). Afterwards, one of the main WW1 battlefront occured on the North East of Italy between Ausria and Italy. That's the famous battlefront on which Ernest Hemingway has been badly wounded. After the war and thanks to the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy got what they claimed before : the italian provinces of former Austria-Hungary (all except the Dalmatian Coasts). All these reasons really make me think considering Italy as neutral isn't the best solution actually. The country had all its interests with the Entente and the former reasons why it joined the Alliance in the 1880's were totally outdated at that time. :) FiskePinnaJan 03, 2004, 10:30 AMhttp://home.no/koseklaus/civerror.JPG What is wrong? GogfJan 03, 2004, 10:59 AMWow, I didn't know we had a legionary... Did you add any units? I'm not really sure, but I'll try to find the error. FiskePinnaJan 03, 2004, 11:22 AMOriginally posted by Gogf Wow, I didn't know we had a legionary... Did you add any units? I'm not really sure, but I'll try to find the error. Of course there are many other units in the unit-folder than the ww1 units. But I can't understand why the progam is asking for that file, there are no legionaries in the scenario. GogfJan 03, 2004, 11:24 AMThat's what I meant. TheLastKnightJan 03, 2004, 12:21 PMOriginally posted by Marla_Singer Italy had no interests at all of doing the war in the side of the Triple Alliance. They didn't have any serious claimed territories in France. On the other side, Italy was claiming Trentino and Trieste from Austria for long years. Those regions were actually peopled by italians. Italian independantists coming from there were actually feared by the Habsburg family because they were using Terror to rally that part of Italy to the rest of the country. That's not entirely correct. Bozen (Bolzano) had a 97 % German speaking majority until 1910. Italy had no right to claim it and the fact that this region was granted to them against Roosevelt's 14-point solution is one of the many sad and unfair decisions in history. Onto the gameplay issue: It's really said that Firaxis has failed to include scripting abilities in the editor :(. Isn't there any possibility to go around this leftout? Marla_SingerJan 03, 2004, 01:12 PMFiskePinna : That's a weird bug : :eek: Actually, I see no reason to see such a thing occuring. Have you modified Civilization folder stuff ? Well, I don't see what I can do for you, you can still download the latest version and see if it still doesn't work. Also, maybe you could erase the "legionary" lines in the PediaIcons.txt file. I don't know that's just guess. :( TheLastKnight : Well yeah you're right. I've a bit simplified the story to make it shorter. The most important to me was that there was italian regions occupied by the Austrians and no italian regions occupied by the french. ;) Marla_SingerJan 03, 2004, 01:21 PMOk, I've just uploaded an upgraded version on the webpage. Latest Changes : There are now two Edited Tech Trees that should make the scenario evolution clearer and more accurate. Now the scenario uses two-week turns instead of one-month turns. The scenario starts on the 30th week of 1914 (the week of the August 1st... when Germany invaded Luxembourg and entered in Belgium). Three German cities have disappeared : Koblenz, Liegnitz and Erfurt. I made that so that other cities around could developp better. Gas shells needed aluminium to be produced when aluminium isn't available during the scenario ! That has been fixed. Gas shells need nothing anymore to be produced Now the machine gunners cost as much as the artillery. There's now dreadknoughts and pre-dreadknoughts boat. And even a dreadknought technology ! Hope these changes go in the right direction. Please feel free to tell me what you think about it. I would really be pleased to know you advice since I'm not sure if all these changes are good enough. :) GogfJan 03, 2004, 01:54 PMYikes. I'll have the version with the AEF depots done on Monday, and I'll see it I can upload it... obéronJan 03, 2004, 08:48 PMsalut a vous joueurs de civilization, et salut a toi marla. bravo pour ton mod qui a l air remarquable, en tout cas la presentation des unités et du scénario m a impressioné. Il faudra juste que je pense a acheter conquest pour pouvoir y jouer un jour : ) j'ai peut etre une solution pour venise, qui flotte sur les eaux. l seul moyen de permettre a des troupes d entrer dans une ville maritime, c'est de mettre un bateaux transport de troupe dedans. il faudrait donc créer une unité spéciale pour venise, qui serait fortifiée par défaut et ne pourrait etre activée, qui aurait les capacités d un large transport de troupes, et un modèle adapté ( style un réseaux de gondoles ) je ne connais pas l editeur de civ3, je c pas si ces conditions sont réalisables... a toi de voir ce que ca donnerai le défaut principal est de savoir si les unités crées tomberaient a l'eau ou auraient pied sur le bateau . . . :undecide: ps : j ai decouvert ce forum et celui de la grenouille ce soir, et j'ai bien apprécié vos messages. surtout les disputes pour connaitre la démographie d'apres guerre de la rhénanie ; ) ce sont ces details qui font le plaisir du jeu obéronJan 03, 2004, 08:53 PMsmart traduction of precedent post ( for gogf specially ) idea : create special unite for venice act like a transport ship, fortified as default, designed will solve entrances matters but dont know if unit created will survive, must be test on civ editor thanks and great work - each detail count GogfJan 03, 2004, 09:17 PMRemercie l'obéron, car je sais seulement le français limité. Merci beaucoup ! Bienvenue à CFC ! J'ai utilisé un traducteur pour ceci :). welsh888Jan 04, 2004, 09:10 AMThis scenario looks fantastic, and from your screenshot the map of Europe looks very accurate. I haven't even bought CIV 3 yet, but I def. am in next few days. I have read on the official FAQ that CIV 3 takes into account nationalism, and I wondered if this is something which you have incorporated into your scenario - e.g. French Citizens in Strasbourg, Romanian citizens in parts of Austria- Hungary for example. Can't wait to buy the game, and Conquests and download your module! :) GogfJan 04, 2004, 11:37 AMobéron : J'avais l'habitude le translater de Dictionary.com pour mettre ceci dans le Français, parce que je ne suis pas à l'aise, et il peut y avoir une certaine issue automatisée de traduction de traducteur. Si vous voudriez être un du quelque (si non seulement) peuple pour examiner un nouveau dispositif qui sera dans la prochaine version, veuillez m'envoyer un message privé. Pour faire vont ainsi l'"utilisateur CP," et cliquent "les messages privés." Que cliquent l'"nouveau message" et m'écrivent votre message. Soyez sûr de compléter "" et "les domaines. I apoligize if the above sounds sketchy, I used an (imperfect) online translator. @Welsh888: We can't wait to get yout feedback :). Also, Welcome to CFC. Rommel8Jan 04, 2004, 11:58 AMI unzipped this file. I'm new and wondering how to set up everything in order to play. Please help. Marla_SingerJan 04, 2004, 12:13 PMRommel8 : It's really easy :).[list=1] Download the file on your computer. Open the Zip file. It should contain one .biq file (called July1914) and one folder (called juillet1914) Paste both folder and .biq file in the ...Infogrames\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios folder. Run Civilization 3 Conquests. Click on "Civ content". You should see the scenario in the window, it's called : "July 1914".[/list=1]It's over ! Obéron : Well thanx for everything :). Venice is actually an important city in the scenario cause it's really close to the Austro-Italian battlefront. That's why I think the city shouldn't be really harder to take over as any other. That's why I think maybe I'll forget about it 'till Infantry couldn't invade it from the land. Moreover, It could easily bug the game (what happens if Venice produces a WW1 Infantry and that there's no boat in the city ?). Thanx for everything obéron. You could send me private message in french if you're not comfortable with english. GogfJan 04, 2004, 02:17 PMMarla, could you maybe give a more sensible version of what I [tried to] say in French? Thanks. Marla_SingerJan 04, 2004, 02:32 PMOriginally posted by Gogf Marla, could you maybe give a more sensible version of what I [tried to] say in French? Thanks. I would like to ! But I don't understand it actually ! Okay... here's an attempt. :) FRANCAIS : J'utilise Dictionary.com pour traduire ma pensée en français parce que je ne suis pas très à l'aise dans cette langue. Toutefois, le traducteur n'est pas fiable et donc ce message peut paraître incohérent à la lecture. Si tu souhaites être une des personnes qui testera le nouveau dispositif (?) présent dans la prochaine version, alors envoie-moi un message privée. Pour cela, clique sur "User CP", puis "New Private Messages". Je suis désolé si mon texte paraît fragmentaire mais c'est parce que j'ai utilisé un traducteur automatique en ligne. ENGLISH : I use Dictionary.com to translate my thought in French because I'm not very comfortable in that language. However, the translator isn't reliable so my message could sound incoherent once read. If you would like to be one of the tester of the new device (?) that will be implemented in next version, then send me a private message. To do so, click on "User CP" and then on "New Private Messages". I'm sorry if my text sounds sketchy but that's because I use an on-line automatic translator. Gogf : what do you mean by the new device ? Are you talking about the AEF depot ? :) GogfJan 04, 2004, 05:46 PMI see a lot of what I said got babbled, but yeah, pretty much. Yes, I do. I think I said improvement, and it mistranslated it, as it does that fairly often. Once tell AEF Depot has been tested, and works, I'll upload the new version (I'm close to done putting in the AEF Depot). Thanks for translating/correcting it :). Marla_SingerJan 05, 2004, 03:11 AMOriginally posted by welsh888 This scenario looks fantastic, and from your screenshot the map of Europe looks very accurate. I haven't even bought CIV 3 yet, but I def. am in next few days. I have read on the official FAQ that CIV 3 takes into account nationalism, and I wondered if this is something which you have incorporated into your scenario - e.g. French Citizens in Strasbourg, Romanian citizens in parts of Austria- Hungary for example. Can't wait to buy the game, and Conquests and download your module! :) Sorry to answer you so late Welsh ! I haven't seen your message before :mad: ! Well... actually, I wanted to put french citizens in Strasbourg, poles in Poland, Romanians in Transylvannia, Italians in Trieste and Trento, etc... Unfortunately, there's no way to do such in the editor. According to most of people in here, there's no way at all to do it (even with user created programs). :( That's why it's not the case... but I find that sad since it changes a lot the thing. It would have given a lot more realism to Austria-Hungary for example that would have been destabilized by regional independantists as it was indeed the case in reality. Wow, It's been 2 days I've post the new version with the Tech tree and I didn't have any feedback about it already ! No one has something to say about it ? Being glad ? Being disappointed ? (Sorry to insist about that silly tech tree but I've spent a long time on it...) ;) VilleJan 05, 2004, 08:14 AMI like the new tech tree. PadmaJan 05, 2004, 09:50 AMJust a reminder, particularly to gogf and obéron: This is an English-language site. Please make all posts in English, or provide a translation with your post. (I know this was actually done, after a fashion. This is just a reminder. ;) ) wotan321Jan 05, 2004, 02:24 PMI have not played the new tech tree, but look forward to it. I know it was a lot of work, and its a great improvement. Thanks. Are there plans to change the leader-heads to flags or to the correct faces? That too, will be a lot of work. KlydenJan 05, 2004, 02:31 PMWow.. took a bit to read all 20 pages, but worth it. I realize I am very new to this forum and while I consider myself a veteran Civ player (and good wargamer in general), I have never had the time to work on scenarios or mess with them very much. I also consider myself a good history buff and I have worked with playtesting other game systems (pretty much board games) and I also was part of a team that published a gaming magazine for several years that included design your own units, scenarios and commentary. (Tech Factory if anyone recognizes the name for primarily Battle Tech). Having gotten all that out of the way, hats off to the designers and workers of this scenario on what is obviously a lot of work. After messing around with the game a bit, I would like to make some observations/suggestions. First, there has been a lot said on naval units. Please let me toss in my two cents worth. I feel there is a place in the game for the pre-dreads as they did play a role in WW1, both in European waters and also overseas. (Someone mention the Battle of Coronel and Cradock did indeed have a pre-dread assigned to his squadron, the Canopus, but it was not at the fight). In game, their values put them too close to dreadnaughts and a move speed of faster than dreadnaughts is not correct. Destroyers seem to be overpowered as well. Finally, the requirement of oil for construction of dreadnaughts means Germany won't be building any more unless they get oil from someplace, despite the fact that pretty much 90 percent of the dreadnaughts of the period burned coal. (Notable exceptions were some US ships and the British Queen Elizabeth class). The Germans can't even trade for any in the game version I have because they don't have trade links to say the Ottomans or to Norway-Sweden. I would remove the oil link to the ability to build dreadnaughts. Speed on various units: (this is an average) Submarines (surface) 15 knots Pre-dreadnaught 18 knots Dreadnaughts-Super dreadnaughts 21 knots Crusiers/Armored crusiers 24 knots Battle crusiers 27 knots Destroyers 30 knots I would make troop transports 18 knots. Given movements in game with Destroyers at 9, I would make the following adjustments to movements. Destroyers-9 Battlecrusers (not in game)-8 Crusiers 7 Dreadnaughts 6 Pre-dreadnaughts, transports 5 Subs 4 Battleships (in the old sense) became pre-dreadnaughts when the Dreadnaught was launched. Dreadnaughts incorporated double the main gun armament of the typical pre-dreadnaught and also showed a speed increase over pre-dreads. Their armor protection was not that greatly increased (and in some cases, was worse than several pre-dreads), however, they were tougher to sink by virtue of being bigger ships (Dreadnaught displaced 20,000 tons vs the typical 15,000 tons of a pre-dread). After dreadnaughts, there came super-dreadnaughts with better protection and gunpower, but no real increase in speed. (Dreadnaughts in the British fleet were 12 inch guns and super dreads had 13.5 inch guns). The term "battleship" reappeared after this and was meant as the next generation of ships after the super-dreads. German ships were better subdivided and in general, tougher than British ships. The Germans were outnumbered 5 to 3 at Jutland, but inflicted losses at this ratio against the British, so ship for ship, the Germans need an edge some way. Two ways to do that in game terms. Make new units or tweak existing ones by giving the Germans a bit higher unit ratings (make more British green and some regulars and give the Germans veteran status). I recommend giving dreadnaughts an extra bubble of health to reflect their tougher status over pre-dreads, even tho their defence might be close to that of a pre-dread. Now, I don't know that adding all these new units to the game adds much to playability, but here are some suggestions. Dreadnaughts: Leave as is for basis of comparison. Suggest adding a bubble of health to them to make them more hardy as far as sinking them goes. I would consider bumping the bombard to 10 perhaps. Pre-dreads: 12(8) 10 5 Cruisers (if you want to include them) 8(6) 8 7 Battlecrusiers (if you want to include them) 16(9) 8 8 Destroyers 6(4) 4 9 Subs 8 2 4 Transports 1 2 5 I would get rid of the ironclads with the major powers. They might be somewhat appropriate for the minor powers like Sweden. The Russians would need to be addressed the most there. Ironclad 5(3) 3 5 I would also consider dispensing with the oil requirement for subs as well or Germany won't be able to build any. Destroyers are way overpowered and rarely achieved any success in WW1 against any "big" targets as torpedos were not that reliable yet (WW2 saw destroyers sink much bigger targets on several occasions because torpedo technology was much better). With their reduced ability, they can still deal with other destroyers and also with subs, which is historically what they did. Subs still have higher attack values, not because of crappy torpedos, but because of poor defences against them and the fact that they did score notable successes in WW1 against larger targets (U9 sinking 3 armored cruisers to name one). Giving battlecruisers an extra bubble because of their size is a toss up.. the German versions should have them if you go nuts and give each side their own version. Their armor was along the lines of the last armored cruisers of the time (much like dreadnaught armor was along the last pre-dreadnaughts). The German BC's were an excellent blend of speed, gun power and protection while the Brits had poor protection (as evidence at Jutland when several British BC's exploded after having their turrets and magazines penetrated). British BC's were literally beer cans armed with sledge hammers. ;) As far as the machine gun debate, I won't go there too much, except to mention that the British used more infantry type weapons (the Vickers version was one of the best versions of the Maxim and Brit infantry weapons were among the best and most reliable in WW1) and less artillery while the French (who used the less reliable Hotchkiss and did not have as reliable infantry weapons) relied more on artillery to get things done. The British also did use heavy machineguns in offensive actions but it was usually to spress German troops on either side of the battle. As an example, one machine gun unit fired off over 1 million rounds in a 24 hour period in support of an offensive action of troops. Overall, I need to spend more time playing around with things to get a feel on the land war side, but I can see the Germans easily taking Paris on the first turn and I can't help but think that really wrecks the French as a power in the game from a playability standpoint because even if they do take it back, they won't be making armies for awhile if ever. Some other issues for strategic resources (port linking seems to be limited or not working) British home isles has no rubber, so can't build WW1 infantry. Germany has no oil, so no Dreadnaughts or subs other oil based items. Would either remove oil as a requirement for dreads and subs or give them one resource, which does not really work from a historical perspective either. Less coal and a oil might be justification for the German coal to oil plants, but I don't know what the status of that was during this time period (not much as I believe it was one of the reasons the Germans did not deploy tanks on an extensive scale, what fuel they had was going to subs and aircraft and they had to make decisons on what to build). Germany does not have horses either, but can usually trade for them with AH. Mainland France does not have oil or rubber. Colonial France does not have iron or coal. Colonial France can build dreadnaughts and WW1 infantry while mainland France can't. Russia does not have oil or rubber. They can build to get to oil, but it will take awhile. Ottomans can build to rubber for WW1 infantry, but don't start with the ability. Italy does not have oil. Austria-Hungary does not have oil. On tech, AH should have dreadnaughts (they had 3 at the start of the war). The Russian and Ottoman navies need some work to get them into the modern times. I would get rid of all the ironclads and go with: Russia-Baltic: 1 dread, 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers Russia-Black Sea: 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers Ottoman: 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers. One other note on the smaller powers like Denmark, Norway, Sweden. I did notice some mention of removing them from the game and creating space on the map. Having no settlers prevents anyone from taking advantage of this space for the most part and prevents them from interfering in the participation of the war. Don't know if this had been given any thought or not, but seemed a reasonable suggestion. Wow! Did not mean to write a book on all this, but guess it wound up that way :) I look forward to playing the scenario more and again wish to emphasis that I appreciate the efforts into putting it together and also working on making it better. Thanks! GogfJan 05, 2004, 02:48 PM@Klyden: Wow! Thanks a ton! @Padma: Sorry. I really should have posted it in English. I couldn't read that.... I used a translator. Sorry. The Last ConformistJan 05, 2004, 04:59 PMDeleted The Last ConformistJan 05, 2004, 05:01 PMHi, Klyden! You have six posts ATM, but I think a "Wellcome to CFC" is still in order, so there you have it. An extra history buff is always handy to have. Klyden wrote: After dreadnaughts, there came super-dreadnaughts with better protection and gunpower, but no real increase in speed. (Dreadnaughts in the British fleet were 12 inch guns and super dreads had 13.5 inch guns). The term "battleship" reappeared after this and was meant as the next generation of ships after the super-dreads. To mess up the terminology further, the term "Superdreadnought" was later resurected to describe the very biggest WWII era battleships. The archetypical example, I guess, are the Japanese Yamato and Musashi, which each mounted nine 46cm (18.1") guns. To a first approximation, the size of a shell goes up with the cube of the calibre ... But that was me going off a tangent. Let's throw a few 15" shells in the pond: Radical Idea: Do away with unit resource requirements entirely. WWI wasn't about denying the enemy critical resources, and despite the 4.5 year blocade, Germany was never rendered unable to produce high class weaponry, and lots and piles of it. KlydenJan 05, 2004, 06:10 PMThanks for the welcome. :) I would agree. Where the blockade hurt the Central Powers the most was in the stomach. Germany was brought to near starvation by the end of the war because they could not import the right chemicals for fertilizer. Couple of other notes: August vonMackensen was a great leader for the Germans in the East. He oversaw the Gorlice offensive and also took care of Rumania when they chose to enter the war. More I think about it, the more I like Switzerland to become impassable. One other thing about the Swiss is they literally do have a Swiss bank account that can make a good addition to whatever power you play as the Central powers. As Germany, I can easily clean him out for well over 3k by trading tech, etc. This allows the Germans to go on a heavy negative money binge to speed their progress up on the scientific front. Rommel8Jan 05, 2004, 07:59 PMI'm sorry to bother, but I still need help. When I unzipped the file, I didn't get a folder and a scenario map. I got dozens of various smaller files. I think that they're supposed to be organized into one folder, such as art. I don't know what to do. GogfJan 05, 2004, 09:03 PMReally? What version? It works fine for me. Rommel8Jan 05, 2004, 09:15 PMWhich version should I download? KlydenJan 06, 2004, 12:20 AMOk.. some play testing reporting as I played the Germans to December of 1914 tonight. The Germans were in a commanding position in both the east and west.. The west line was running from Caen-Orleans-Dijon-Besancon. East line was Brest-Litovsk-Vilnus-Riga. The German army is in good shape with many veteran WW1 infantry units, over 4k in cash. The German fleet is in the Baltic, providing gunfire support for the advancing army. I have 2 armies (one "popped" and one built). The armies are 3 of the special forces (12 attack with 3 movement, yum) and 3 elite WW1 infantry). The tactics I was using were to shell a city to pieces with regular artillery and then move the machine guns in to kill the rest of the garrison when they were down to minimal health. I captured Brest-Litovsk and Riga in this manor (except the fleet was the artillery) and captured each with cav and took no losses doing it. I had stepped up production on artillery and especially machine guns as my infantry losses were down from not using them to really attack with that much, although the battle for Paris was brutal (he probably had 10 units defending or something like that). The Brit and French navy have proceeded to shell the crap out of the coast (the poor Netherlands is getting shelled constantly). The French fleet is gone for the most part in the channel as I captured the port they had their Dreads at. I have been using artillery to try to reduce them and then bomb them with aircraft, but I need to build more aircraft. (Found out machine guns did not work on ships). I have also had to fend off attacks by the Spanish and one of the most annoying are the Conquistador's running around in my rear areas (full move, treat everything as a road, even in enemy territory). They would be hard pressed to take anything, but having them in the game is a pita. As far as the rest of the world goes.. It appears the Italians and the AH's are going at it tooth and nail with one Italian city falling to the AH's. The AH has had the help of the Swiss. No other cities have changed hands. Some thoughts: The machine gun-artillery combo is too deadly and unfortuately it means you build more machine guns (something Marla was trying to avoid) because that and the amount of artillery you build determines how fast you can take territory. You do have to build infantry for garrisons and defence and some minor attacking, but the machine gun-artillery is what makes it go. The Germans are unable to build the cav they start the game with (6-3-3) and have an older knight available (4-3-2 I think). That needs to be tweaked as they should be able to build cav. Not sure what you do about the Royal navy just shelling the crap out of the coast on a consistent basis. I think reducing the shelling range on all ship units to 1 would be a good start and that way at least, they would not be creaming interior cities (impossible to base aircraft there and I had 2 air units destroyed before I could do anything about it). Some thoughts on artillery, because I think fixing that is going to be one of the keys for playability of the scenario: 1. Make it ultra expensive, so there is less of it running around. (Downside is the player will accumulate captured artillery from enemy sources). 2. Lessen the bombard rate so that there is more failure. A person might have a lot of it, but there will be a lot of failure with it as well. By lessing the effectiveness of the artillery, the battles should rely more on attacking with units with the defenders not at 1 pip of life and thus be more expensive in terms of unit expenditure to take a position. The biggest thing that makes the machine guns broken is the speed of 2. They move in and fire right away and the defender never really gets a chance to counter attack/respond to this nasty that just showed up on their doorstep. If you drop it to 1, it will help somewhat, but they are still very nasty . With the AI unable to use artillery tactics, the player can make a set piece assault against a position with the bulk of their forces including liberal amounts of artillery, machine guns and infantry to protect them, but allowing them to kill units wholesale and take positions with little loss to themselves while the computer must do it the old fashion way of trying to take positions strictly with units that have a habit of getting shot to pieces on the way in. Special forces needs to not be an invisible unit. I found a few as unexpected "road bumps". I also figured out where a couple were when something attacked a unit and I did not see them, but heard the sound associated with that unit. I then killed them, even tho I did not see them. They can be very unbalancing in that several, depending on how lucky a person was, could sneak through the lines and attack rear areas.. something that was not going to happen in WW1. I had a lot of fun playing around with the scenario and hope this information helps.. jamesjkirkJan 06, 2004, 12:20 AMBasically what Klyden said all sounds really good, his stats sound fine to get a balanced naval element of the game. Minor nitpick: The spelling is "dreadnought"....just so you can have it right in-game :) Marla: While everything you said about Italy is true, I don't think it's a reason to prevent them from joining the Central Powers. Germany was considering twisting Austria's arm to give up Italian areas in order to get Italy to join their side. And in Italy, it was recognized that the Central Powers would be more likely to reward Italy with territory on the other side of the Adriatic than the Allies would. So while Italy was certainly disposed toward the allies, their joining was not a sure thing, and therefore should be left open in the game. Adler17Jan 06, 2004, 01:32 AM@ Klyden: Welcome. You do have good ideas about the game. Germany did have in both wars synthetic fuel and a few own sources. Also today Germany has a few sources but it is not sufficient to keep Germany roling so we must import it. In both wars however there was synthetic oil made of coal and other chemicals, oil slate form the Messel pit (an area where fossils of Mammals are found, Eocene epoch, ~50 Mio years) and a few own sources made it enough to fight. Since most German ships needed coal and having only a few tanks it was not that problem. Germany had only a few tanks because the commandship made errors. Indeed some German inventors made some prototypes a few years before the war, naming it also land battleships. But because of patent law problems they abandoned it. So the Germans were surprised when they saw the first tanks. Nevertheless They produced an own version in 1918: A7V. However mainly captured allied tanks were the backbone of German tank units. 20 years later the German tanks should become a quite better reputation... Adler SensationalJan 06, 2004, 04:33 AMHello everybody, i have the german version of civ3/ptw/conquest and i still get a simular error (like someone on the first page of that thread). The error asks for the entry for rifleman or so. What can I do? edit: the error message is: Datei nicht gefunden (Data had not been found) Art/Units/Rifleman/Rifleman.INI Spiel wird beendet (Game ends) GogfJan 06, 2004, 04:51 AMWhy does everyone have to have a different error. Um.... I think that's the generic Rifleman. I'm not really sure what's wrong, sorry. SensationalJan 06, 2004, 04:56 AMI think it simply that in my german version Rifleman is not Rifleman but "Schütze". Consequently, there is no Rifleman entry within /Units/. But how can I fix it? Marla_SingerJan 06, 2004, 07:41 AMKlyden : I agree with everything you've said. Actually, about naval units, I didn't edit at all statistics for now and I didn't even realized the dreadknought were slower than the pre-dreadknought ! I feel really stupid now. :blush: I also noticed that the best way to win cities was to build artillery units like a freak. Actually, I did the same as you in my game. Making artillery units more expensive is a good way to reduce this human advantage on the AI you're right. Maybe machine gunners should have only 1 movement instead of 2.... but I think the main trouble with them is that their artillery bombings are lethal (it can kill the others). As we got Howitzer really late with the new tech tree, I was thinking about making howitzer as lethal bombard units instead of Machine gunners. Once machine gunners ain't lethal anymore, then it's losing its main advantage... and ww1 infantry becomes important to "finish" the defensive units. By the way, in my tech tree, I've switched Electronics into transistor. But I don't like that since transistors had been invented in 1955 ! In the scenario the "transistor" technology allow us to get zepellins and is the only requested technology to invent "radio" and "flight". Well... I'm planning to rename "radio" as "telegraph" or "morse code" but I don't see any common technology needed for both telegraph and flight. I may change that in the tech tree. I'll try to edit the game with your ideas later. For now, I don't have enough time for the moment, I'm sorry. :( Sensational : Well, I see a way to avoid bugs for you... for that, I need your version of Conquests PediaIcons.txt. Could you upload it in here ? The path to find should be : ...\infogrames\civilization III\conquests\text\PediaIcons.txt Basically speaking, what I'll do is just take the german version and add few lines about the new units... it's simple but quite painful to explain, so the best solution is simply to attach the german pediacions as a file in this thread. :) However, I must warn you Sensational, once the scenario will work, it will be half english/half german :(. The only way to make it only german would be to translate all names in the editor into german names (that's what I needed to do to translate it from french into english). Actually, if you had some times to do so, it would be great for me :). Then, I would be able to get the scenario in 3 languages ! :D Jamesjkirk : About the spelling... is it dreadknought or dreadnought ? The Last ConformistJan 06, 2004, 08:07 AM'Dreadnought' TheLastKnightJan 06, 2004, 08:48 AMI like the new changes, as well as Klyden's proposals. On a more general note: don't you think that there are _still_ too many cities? Some of the better User Created scenarios could match up with the original conquests, weren't it for the tendency of users to overdo matters. Don't get me wrong, I do like having big maps that are able to display the geography somewhat realistically (btw. your europe map is quite everything you could wish for in this respect, thubms up), but gameplay must not be forgotten. Load times become too high if you plaster the map with too many cities, so... (how many are there?) My request is to further reduce the number of cities with the simple argument of playability. Just look at the Civil War Scenario. It's just too huge in my opinion; by no means comparable to WWI (on a scale of war) and yet the map seems even bigger. That's simply not necessary. You just have to keep it at bay. I also wonder who would have the patience to play that one, for I have not... KlydenJan 06, 2004, 12:11 PMOk.. after giving this some more thought (and doing a bit of research on the naval front), here are some suggestions: On the Navy, I decided to forget the cruisers. There are a ton of them and I don't think it adds anything to the "playability" of the scenario and people counted dreadnaughts and battlecrusiers anyway. I do feel you have to include destroyers because of the subs, which did play a significant part. I also elected to not break out super dreads vs dreads as being a bit more complicated, but this is something that can be considered if you want. I am not sure of the value of the battle cruisers as there are going to be only 3 units start the game and there were not a ton of them build during the war. (You could add them to the Dread totals and I think it would be ok if you want to keep it simple. After all, WW1 was about the land war for the most part) At any rate, here is my naval order of battle. Germany 3 Dread, 3 PD, 7 destroyer, 1 BC UK 5 Dread, 6 PD, 13 Des, 2 BC Russia-Baltic 1 Dread, 1 PD, 2 Des Russia-Black Sea 1 PD, 2 Des Italy 1 Dread, 1 PD, 2 Des Ottoman 1 PD, 1 Des AH 1 Dread, 1 PD, 1 Des France 1 Dread, 2 PD, 4 Des Spain 1 Dread, 1 Des Sweden 1 PD, 1 Des Greece 1 PD, 1 Des Artillery issues: Ok, after giving this some thought, I see a couple of issues in game terms. First is that machine guns are lethal. I think everyone is agreed that is too much. The one thing to consider throughout history is that you could shell a position to pieces, but there were always survivors to defend a position. I think that needs to be reflected in the game when using normal artillery, so I would suggest that the howitzer not be deadly down the road. What I do suggest is reduce the range of the starting artillery to 1 hex and increase the artillery range to 2 hexes later with the new unit. (BTW, howitzer is not necessarily a good term to give it as howitzers are not exactly long range. Perhaps name the start unit howitzer and call the later unit artillery). The net effect is that artillery can't sit back with impunity and shell positions to pieces. They have to move close. This will also have the effect of slowing down advances in the face of determined resistance. As a suggestion, add gas to the tech tree; make Germany the only one to start the game with it, but not have any to start the game. I further suggest that you do make gas lethal. (While it may not outright kill, it does have the effect of incapacitating a position to the point that troops advancing had a much easier time taking the position). With gas being a one shot deal, it won't unhinge the game as it proceeds and players should pick and choose when to use it with great effect because there is going to be a limit supply. (Building artillery-machine guns that once complete, you can use every turn is one thing.. building a gas shell that has a better effect, but only getting to use it once is quite different). One other thing to consider is the addition of storm troopers. Germany went this way instead of tanks and it could be said that Russia also employed similiar tactics at the begining of Bruslov's offense, but it was a forerunner of what the Germans did later in the war. I would make them along the lines of 12 attack or so and also make them rather expensive. This needs to be farther along in the tech tree so it takes a bit to get to. Perhaps make the regular storm troopers 12 attack and a German only unit with 14 attack. (Rambling at this point). Hope some of this makes sense and helps. *edit* Grammer/spelling > me. The Last ConformistJan 06, 2004, 01:15 PMWhat's the ship/ratio with those numbers? 5/1? KlydenJan 06, 2004, 03:18 PMIt varies from ship to ship. DN = 3-4 BC = 4 PD = 6-8 DD = 12-18 I used a Jane's 1918 book I have to try to get rough numbers (among a few other references), but obviously it is not going to go into things like how much of the Brit fleet is on station overseas. Some ships are obviously weaker than others and this is more of a "feel". The other thing is while Jane's might list them as being "available" the next question would be how active some of the ships were (especially some of the older pre-dreds, given their material condition). If someone wants to bump a number by 1 either way, I won't take it too personal. ;) Overall, I was trying to keep a flavor of the naval aspect without bogging the game down with a ton of naval units to move/deal with. GogfJan 06, 2004, 04:55 PMYikes Klyden, you're realyl helpful :). Thanks so much. obéronJan 07, 2004, 01:11 PMsorry for my late, i simply lost my way to there, but i m glad you take care of each poster. your translated sentence give me a great smile at first, but though u can still recognize it s french, and what it aim to mean. Anyway, i m able to take conversation in english, even if it quite ironic to speak england's tongue with a french civilized compatriot ( salut marla so about venice, i suppose it gain realistic on map to be floating on sea ( and it spend one earth square place ; ) my proposition is the same : speacial transportship set fortified as default and skinned for venice only ( if it works of course ) could you try on civ3 editor if unit creation works with a gallion in town ? that s the messy point i still wait a cracked civ3 version on the web to finally play austro-hungarian alliance, but dont seem to happen for some time... Marla_SingerJan 07, 2004, 02:27 PMCheck your private messages Obéron. To do so, click on "User CP" (left button on the upper right of the page). GogfJan 07, 2004, 02:49 PMWell, do you want to test the new version, or not? KlydenJan 07, 2004, 03:39 PMBring it on! ;) GogfJan 07, 2004, 05:54 PM@Klyden: I'll PM you once I have the version ready. I think I'll have it ready tommorow, if not, then the day after. MetacometJan 07, 2004, 08:02 PMWhy Russia has expedicionary troops? KlydenJan 07, 2004, 09:11 PMSounds good Gogf. I will try it when I get a chance and post some feedback for you. MetacometJan 07, 2004, 09:46 PMI still think that Greece is too powerful, in my games Greece can defeat or at least be a serious problem to Bulgaria. And that situation is not real because Greece was able to defent the country only with strong british support. Remenber that in the autumn of 1915 attacked Serbia, an ally of the Entente. The Serbian army was literally mown down just in a few days. The Bulgarians were on the march to Thessaloniki, sweeping away on passing, the French and British divisions which had come to Serbia's aid. The fate of Thesaloniki - the Entente base on the Balkans - seemed to have been decided. However, the Supreme German command had not been very keen on closing the Balkan front as it diverted a million of Entente soldiers from possible engagement in fighting against the Germans on the Western front. The advance of the Bulgarian army was then stopped by the Germans under the pretext of keeping the neutrality of Greece, which, by the way, was I broken by the Entente long before that. A front line stretching from Albania to Aegian Thrace was set up. In the autumn of 1916 Romania entered the war on the side of the Entente. The Bulgarian military command could afford throwing against the Romanians only one of its armies - the famous Third army. The soldiers and the officers, however, clearly saw this battle as fighting for the liberation of their compatriots in Dobrudja, the section of Bulgaria taken only three years before. They made wonders in a series of military exploits. Both the Romanian army and the several Russian divisions which came to its assistance took only two months to be defeated. In the beginning of December, divisions of the Third Bulgarian army invaded Bucharest, the Romanian capital, in the company of several German units. Having advanced to the northeast, Third army divisions opened a positional front against the Russian army along the Seret river. The bulgarian army can defeat Greece and Romania, and they only were stopped when the industrial enterprises in Bulgaria had almost stopped work due to raw materials and energy shortages, and we must blame Germany and Austria-Hungary fail to give what they promised to Bulgaria. NessaJan 08, 2004, 02:24 AMMarla, you're the greatest!.. MetacometJan 08, 2004, 11:28 AMThe tech tree is great:goodjob: . But I think that we must rename Fascism, was a post war ideoligy, and the correct name can be Ultranationalistic Goverment o something like that. GogfJan 08, 2004, 04:13 PMThat may be a good idea, but a bit long for a tech, don't you think? The Last ConformistJan 08, 2004, 04:20 PMSimply 'Ultranationalism', perhaps? MetacometJan 08, 2004, 05:26 PMOriginally posted by The Last Conformist Simply 'Ultranationalism', perhaps? That was the word that I was looking when I post before:goodjob: . Ultranationalism is a better name for a war-era tech MetacometJan 08, 2004, 05:28 PMWhat about the greek and bulgarian army?, any opinion? jamesjkirkJan 09, 2004, 12:06 AMIn the civ2 scenario based on the Great War books by Harry Turtledove, Scott F created a "General Staff Dictatorship" which was supposed to be like the OHL that held the reins in Germany, and allowed the creation of Stormtroopers, so something like that may work in place of Fascism Adler17Jan 09, 2004, 02:44 AMFascism was a phenomenom of post WW1 history (I know it existed already but was only a small problem). In WW1 Racism had no chance in Germany at least. Africans and Jews fought bravely and got the honour they earned. But I know about some British resentiments about Africans. General Aitken, invader of Tanga, thought only a few bayonets were sufficient to surrender the "huns" and " bare feet negroes". How wrong he was... Jameskirks thoughts of this dictatorship is far better. Adler Marla_SingerJan 09, 2004, 06:03 AMDuring world war 1, all countries used africans as cannon fedder... the french people the firsts (the famous "tireurs sénégalais" have made the pride of "Imperial France"). Whatever are the honnours we gave to them afterwards, I still consider that as something we shouldn't be really proud of. Well, that's just my opinion... but why taking them out of Africa to put them on the front line during murderous assaults ? :( Anyway, I'm getting quite a bit off-topic in here ;). I'm sorry if I can't work on the scenario right now, I have a lot of work for now !! By the way, I've created the "Propaganda" technology just to make it harder to get to fascism. Fascism is post war but its roots is directly linked with the war, Mussolini were in power in Italy only 3 years after the cease-fire with Austria-Hungary. However, I like it to rename it as "ultranationalism" since that's exactly what ww1 was about ! "Ultranationalism"... By the way, maybe we should create an improvement or a small wonder we could build after Propaganda... something against war weariness or maybe campaign for volunteers to get on the front (some freaks actually went there by choice). What do you think about it ? steviejayJan 09, 2004, 09:25 AMOriginally posted by Adler17 Memel is now Lithunian and called Klaipeda. After the peace "treaty" of Versailles, Lithunia occupied Memel and the allies legalized this! The small German army was even not able to defend the country against a state like Lithunia! This was one point of many which lead to Hitler. Adler I was under the impression Memel was made a free city under the protection of the League of Nations..... anyway, awesome scenario. I'm really into the history of the world wars and this is just amazing! The Last ConformistJan 09, 2004, 09:39 AMIt was a "free city" under French "protection" for a few years, and then it was annexed by Lithuania. The Western Powers were apparently fine with that, and Berlin couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it. MetacometJan 09, 2004, 11:36 AMOriginally posted by The Last Conformist It was a "free city" under French "protection" for a few years, and then it was annexed by Lithuania. The Western Powers were apparently fine with that, and Berling couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it. In fact Memmel remained within the German Reich until the end of World War I. Germans constituted a majority of the city's population while Lithuanians predominated in the surrounding countryside. The Treaty of Versailles severed Memel and the surrounding district (2.828 sq.km. - population 140.000) from Germany without a plebiscite or other input by the inhabitants. Lithuanian representatives to the Paris Peace Conference had asked the Allied Powers to grant them possession of Memelland but the unstable situation in the newly independent state stayed the Entente's hand. Memel was instead placed under a French administration that governed under a League of Nations mandate. ============================================== TREAY OF VERSAILLES JUNE 28, 1919 SECTION X. MEMEL.ARTICLE 99. Germany renounces in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all rights and title over the territories included between the Baltic, the north-eastern frontier of East Prussia as defined in Article 28 of Part II (Boundaries of Germany) of the present Treaty and the former frontier between Germany and Russia. Germany undertakes to accept the settlement made by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in regard to these territories, particularly in so far as concerns the nationality of the inhabitants ============================================== Ethnic tensions persisted during the French era. Lithuania having lost its capital city, Vilnius, in a territorial dispute with Poland, was not about to give up its chief port without a fight. That Memel was as German as Vilnius (polish Wilno) was Polish, i.e. 80% of the population, made little difference to the Lithuanians. An Allied commission recommended establishing a "Free City" under League of Nations supervision in the fall of 1922. Memel's German and Polish communities favored the proposal but local Lithuanians responded by forming a Committee for the Salvation of Lithuania Minor. The Ruhr Crisis gave the Lithuanians an opportunity to act while the French were distracted. An uprising began in January, 1923. Memel Lithuanians were supported by troops from Lithuania proper. They gained control over the entire region in a week and forced withdrawal of the French garrison. The move drew sharp diplomatic protests but within a month the Allied Council of Ambassadors accepted it as fait accompli. Lithuanian sovereignty over Memel (Lithuanian Klaipeda) was internationally recognized with the signing of the Memel Statute by France, Britain, Italy and Japan in December 1923. Memel was formally incorporated as an autonomous region of Lithuania on March 8, 1924. The local assembly (Landtag) was given extensive power over internal affairs subject to the approval of a governor appointed by the President of Lithuania. The German community remained unreconciled throughout the decade and a half of Lithuanian rule. Martial law was imposed in 1926 and again in 1938. The National Socialists gained favor and anti-Semitism grew steadily during the 1930s. The Nazis won 26 of 29 seats on the local council in December 1938 elections and Memel's Jews began a mass exodus. Memel was returned to the Reich on March 23, 1939. The Lithuanians had bowed to Hitler's inevitable demands and turned the region over without a fight. The Kriegsmarine was deprived of a chance to launch a planned amphibious assault but was accorded the honor of delivering the Fueher to the city for a celebration of his last bloodless conquest. The Last ConformistJan 09, 2004, 11:44 AMThanks for the summary, Metacomet. But did I say anything to suggest Memel was not under German sovereignty till the end of the war? MetacometJan 09, 2004, 12:57 PMOriginally posted by The Last Conformist Thanks for the summary, Metacomet. But did I say anything to suggest Memel was not under German sovereignty till the end of the war? No but I remenber that the Memel affair was and old one, or am I worng?, and I suposed that a brief summary can help everybody to understand the subject. I was only giving more information to the disscussion:confused: , I hope it's ok.:crazyeye: Edit: I just realized taht is my post 333:eek: I only need 333 more to be the Beast:satan: Adler17Jan 10, 2004, 01:15 AMMemel was founded by the German Order in 1252. German settlers populated the town. It had the law of the Hansestadt Lübeck (Lübsches law). In the surrounding areas Lithunian settlers lived since the 15th century while German settlers lived there since ~1700. It became Prussian in 1525 and was the last refuge of King Friedrich Wilhelm III. and Queen Louise of Prussia in 1807/08 when Prussia was occupied by the French. That´s the main history of Memel until WW1. The further history is known by Metacomet. Adler Kristian95Jan 10, 2004, 06:08 AMI've played the newest version of the scenario as the germans. I have discovered all the techs and was well on my way to conquer all of mainland Europe when I got the following error message "Load Error FILE NOT FOUND 'Art\Units\Type XXX\Type XXX.INI' The game will now exit" see the attachment for a screendump. I haven't installed any other things for my Civ than this scenario. I hope the information I give you guys help when working with the scenario. The scenario btw is very, very nice!! :) GogfJan 10, 2004, 06:18 AMTry redownloading the ewest version. I know that sounds bad, because you have to restart your game, but I believe we fixed that error in the latest version. Kristian95Jan 10, 2004, 06:21 AMIf the newest version of the game is the version where Marla added the new tech-tree, then I've been playing with the newest version of the scenario (the onw uploaded on January 3rd) GogfJan 10, 2004, 07:10 AMOh. Then that's a problem... I'll try to find out the problem, and a solution. The Last ConformistJan 10, 2004, 07:33 AMOriginally posted by Metacomet No but I remenber that the Memel affair was and old one, or am I worng?, and I suposed that a brief summary can help everybody to understand the subject. I was only giving more information to the disscussion:confused: , I hope it's ok.:crazyeye: It's not merely OK - it's appreciated. And yes, Memel's been discussed before here. It was only that I read the first bit of this post as saying I was wrong on that point; apparently a faulty interpretation by me. Kristian95Jan 10, 2004, 07:37 AMCool, thanks gogf!! :) I'm always happy to help in any way I can :) steviejayJan 10, 2004, 08:40 AMtwo main things I've noticed about the scenario. Played as the British for a bit but decided that I wanted to try a German game. Anyway, I've noticed that conscripts have been given an extra hp. I really like this considering the amount of conscripts actually being used but they also have the same hp as regular units which you start the game with, this means when they get promoted then they don't get anymore health. could you change the hp so that con's get 3, reg get 4 etc? or would that unbalance the game? I get the feeling that the British, French and German fleets should be alot bigger and also the majority of the British fleet should be stationed up in the Orkney Islands, I think thats where Scapa Flow is. But I'm nit picking here. the scenario rocks and I'm enjoying playing it more than some of the conquests that came with the game, congrats on a job very well done! MarcusSauronoJan 10, 2004, 12:05 PMKristian95, Copy the original sub from the civ3 art/units folder into the july1914 folder and rename it TypeXXX and rename the .ini to TypeXXX. This will fix your problem and let you continue from where you are at. MarcusSaurono ZuberbulerJan 10, 2004, 12:18 PMI have the same problem like Robin95.Do you know how can i fix it.Thanks. And its great scenario,good job Marla_Singer Marla_SingerJan 11, 2004, 12:51 AMSorry if I didn't come earlier to answer to all of you. Kristian95 : Here's what to do. - Open the "juillet1914" folder that goes with the scenario. - Open the "Text" folder in it and then open the "PediaIcons.txt" file. - The notebook is opening. Go in "find" or press "control+F". - Type "XXX" as the thing you want to find in the text. - You should see the lines like this : #ANIMNAME_PRTO_Submarine Type XXX - Just write "Submarine" instead of Type XXX so that it looks this way afterwards : #ANIMNAME_PRTO_Submarine Submarine - Save and quit. I'm not sure what will happen next. Maybe your savegame will crash again once you'll create your submarine, maybe it won't. However, it shouldn't crash anymore once you start a new game. It looks like an impressive game by the way. How long did it take you to invade both France and Russia ? Steviejay : Well actually I'm aware of that. I added an extra point to conscript because most of troops were made of conscripts during the war and 2 hp make them too weak to worth to be built in the scenario. However, I would have liked better to make conscripts being automatically Standard. We can't do that unfortunately and Elite units at 6 sounds too powerful to me. However, it's still open to discussion. To everyone : Today, I'll work on a new version (again) including Klyden's change. I will lower the value of all artilleries and raise their costs. I know it sucks but it's true you can beat so easily the AI with them... especially the machine gunners and their lethal bombings. I hope I'll be back later. Marla_SingerJan 11, 2004, 02:45 AMOkay, I've just uploaded a new upgraded version. FiskePinnaJan 11, 2004, 04:52 AMKristian95: I got the following error message "Load Error FILE NOT FOUND 'Art\Units\Type XXX\Type XXX.INI' The game will now exit" see the attachment for a screendump.When I got this error message, I simply created the missing unit "type XXX". I renamed an existing unit and all its co-files. It worked in someway ! Kristian95Jan 11, 2004, 04:53 AM@Marla: thanks, I will try your solution... I'm just puzzled because I didn't build any submarines hehehehe. As for the length of time it took me to conquer France and (most of) Russia, I think I had it done by approximately middle of 1916. It was slightly delayed though as I pursued an italian campaign, to clear my back.... I was stupid enough to let the italians keep a few cities away from the railroads, so I am currently shipping troops to get rid of them. Also I am finishing my russian campaign and conquering Spain and Portugal... after that my armies will go to Great Britain and some to North Africa... from there the game will be finished soon hehehehe :) The danes (!!!) conquered one of the small italian cities and the Austrians conquered Florence because I bombarded it alot on the turn before my infantry and machine gunners were close enough to finish the kill. Btw, I trade alot of my tech with my allies for money and luxuries (and even the few ressources that I don't have)... this makes my allies much stronger and they send out alot of units which pester my enemies hehehehehe :) GogfJan 11, 2004, 07:57 AMOkay, I have pretty much all of the adding problems worked out with the buildings, so I'll add them to the next version over the next few days. TheLastKnightJan 11, 2004, 12:49 PMYou might want to include SprincuS' flags. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71187 http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71322 But be sure not to use his Austrian one. Instead you could use the one Firaxis has created for the Napoleonic Conquest. Or mix them to find the best ones! KlydenJan 11, 2004, 01:38 PMOk.. played the newer version as the Germans to start with. (Only about 5 turns or so thus far). One of the deals I do is to give right of passage to other countries to keep them from screwing up my production and to let them get to the front. As a result of this, the Swiss managed to take Liege on the first turn. Fortunately for me, a French counter attack took it back. After all my wheeling and dealing, the Germans had 7800 cash. This allowed me to go to 100 science running at -246 a turn. Radio will be along in 8 turns. The opening turns saw the Germans make a heavy drive in the west, move the fleet east and basically also stand on the defensive there. Artillery is much less effective and I was probably suffering a 50 percent wiff rate against the larger PC's. I wound up using some gas in key places to get moving. The Germans took some nasty losses, but manage to take Lille, Brussles, Liege, Nancy, and Besancon on the first turn. Lemnos fell to the Ottomans. T2 The Russians manage to capture Mernel and I took it back on a counter attack. The Bulgarians captured Constantina and Galati in Rumania. I used artillery to hurt some of the French ships in the channel and promptly had my fighter sent to sink one of the ships shot down by cap. The French ships head into Rouen. T3 The Russians tried to take Mernel again and lost about 6 units trying it. It was a close fight, but the Germans managed to hang on. Part of the Russian fleet showed up and sank one of my ships and was sunk in turn. I also captured Liepaja and Rouen. The English and French were once again playing target practice along the coast and were just ripping up units. I had beefed up the defences in anticipation of this and a cav attack failed in the rear area. I pushed hard to take Rouen as part of the French fleet was there. The French dread was in the channel and after shelling it with artillery, tried again to bomb it with aircraft only to have it miss. I used a gas shell to finish it off. No other cities changed hands anyplace. The Spanish launched a counter attack in the middle with Cav and some infantry, but they are destroyed. T4 The Brits leave a dread in the channel and it goes for a swim along with a Portigese wooden vessel that were both shelled down with artillery and then bombed by my aircraft. I spend the turn dealing with yet another Spanish incursion in the middle of my line and also dealing with a Russian attack in the east. No other cities changed hands elsewhere. T5 The Germans consolidate and deal with yet another Spanish attack and get ready to launch new attacks in both the East and West. This is where I am at now. NOTES: 1. Germans can build Midevil Infantry, Bowmen and Knights. These units say they upgrade to either Cav or Guerillas. They in fact can't and the Germans still have the issue that they can't build the normal Cav (6-3-3). I suggest removing those three units from the game. There is no reason to have them there. Further, the Germans need to get the ability to build the normal Cav. 2. French Dreads had a move of 5, while German can move 6. Recommend all Dreads move 6. Pre-Dreds also move 6 and this is not historically accurate. They should not move as fast as Dreads. 3. Don't have a firm opinion on artillery yet, except it is not nearly as deadly, especially against the larger cites, as it was in the earlier versions. 4. The Swiss (and other small powers) need their cash reduced. Allowing Germany (or any of the human run major powers) to clean out all that money skews the science badly, particularly since the Germans can't use it to speed production anyway. Will do some other checking and post again in a bit as I check on some resource availability issues. Overall, I think things are moving in the right direction. Marla_SingerJan 11, 2004, 01:56 PMWell I've thought about it The Lastknight... but actually, I really didn't like at all the french one. As France is my country, that's the main reason why I gave up the idea of using those flags. I'll try to ask to Sprincus to re-do the French one and maybe some new for the scenario. ;) KlydenJan 11, 2004, 02:58 PMOk.. did a lot of loading and observing: There is still a major problem with resources being available and connecting through ports and such. English issues: Gibraltar: Shows no resources, Nicosia, has rubber and is the only place that the English can build WW1 infantry. England: No rubber. French: No rubber-oil in mainland France (can't build steam transport). Racked up 2470 in cash and went max science and +56 cash after making deals. AH: No oil, can't do steam transport. Had 7990 gold after dealing and coughed up 5980 to Germany for flight (AH should start with flight, but no aircraft). Noticed Ragusa fell, so started watching it and it fell again when I loaded up Italy. It needs a stronger contingent of troops as Serbia has too easy of a time taking it. Italy: No oil, so can't do steam transport. Missing Dreadnaught unit. Fleet should start at Brindisi. Russia: Missing a lot of tech. Replaceable parts, Combustion, Dreadnaught, Transistor and Flight (with no starting aircraft) should be available to the Russians. No Rubber means no WW1 infantry. Greece never fielded cavary units of any size. (Given their geography, this should not be a suprise). I would replace the Greek Cav with infantry and remove the horse unit in Greece, so they can't build more. I have not looked at Serbia yet, but they had no cav either (same reasons), so if they do, it probably should not be there. Overview of units: All the medieval units should be removed along with long bowmen, Dromons, Frigates, Galleons, privateers. I would leave the rifleman as smaller states should be building these and they help for garrisons, etc. Pre-dreads should not be upgradeable to Dreads. Steamship needs to not be oil dependent. Rifle unit (4-6-1) costs 40. Expeditionary trops (7-4-1) costs 30. I don't know that expeditionary troups should be so offensive oriented and also be so cheap. The Ottoman (and some Bulgarian starting cav) 8-3-3 unit is very powerful and probably needs to be removed and replaced by regular cav. This will help address some of Bulgaria's early power. Map issues: The Isles of Rhodes and Lemnos are in fact connected to the Ottoman mainland. This sees them falling easily to the high offensive Ottoman cav and historically, neither fell, due to lack of troops and command of the sea by the Allies. Order of battle: The Russians had one of the largest cav forces in the world at the beginning of the war, yet they start with very little. They should get more cav to start with and this will help with their offensives into Germany and A/H. (A/H probably needs some more infantry in the east as well to compensate). Hope all this info helps. GogfJan 11, 2004, 03:25 PMThanks Klyden! steviejayJan 11, 2004, 06:16 PMI've been playing it for a few days now, I'm really enjoying my Germany game. Its not 1915. Belgium is no more, crushed under my boot in the opening moves of the war. Unfortunately the Great German Navy was ripped a new one by the British fleet almost as soon as it left port, then I found out that Germany had no oil!! I was not pleased!! anyway, after taking the Belgian cities I fortified all of them them with WW1 Infantry, keeping my artillary behind to move into whatever position they French tried to break through. Just to be different from the history books I moved about 30 WW1 Infantry and Machine Gunners to Italy and started to take their cities, getting to Florance before having to stop to move troops to the Russian Front, their infantry were beginning to hurt my border cities. I'm now in week 16 of 1915, I'm pushing the Russians back on the Eastern Front, having just taken Bialystok. I have to always attack with WW1 Infantry because in my opinion the Cavalry isn't as effective as it should be. I have never taken a city with Cavalry, even against the serbian riflemen they retreated, oh well, I suppose thats just the RNG going against me. I'm playing on Regent Level but it seems to me like its getting a wee bit easy, the French use their Dread's to bombard my cities but they rarely move troops into a positon where they could realistically take any city. My main problem with the scenario as a whole is with the Hasburgs. I'm attacking Russia at the moment along with the Austrians and together we've got an army of at least 100 WW1 units on the border. They just seem to powerful to me. Although my knowledge of WW1 is not as vast as some people that have posted in this thread my undestanding was the Austrians weren't very good in terms of fighting force. their army was multi national, with language problems and they were also not as modernised as the British or Germans yet they have almost as much WW1 Infantry as I do, if they weren't so bogged down fighting the Russians they'd move south and wipe out everything in the Balkans. Also I ask (or plead) that Romania be given a oil deposit. there's none anywhere in eastern europe that I can see and if I remember correctly during WW2 Romanian oil fields were very important to the Germans so I'm assuming the oil fields would still be there in WW1. I can't build any form of navy without oil and the only way I can effectively get oil is by invading British held Norway or the Shetland Islands and I can't do that because I only have two Steam boats and no fleet! apart from that its quite well done, I'm gonna try and take Paris, see ya. Marla_SingerJan 11, 2004, 07:25 PMYeah Steviehay, I encountered the same problem about Austria-Hungary :(. My main problem has been that playing as France, my main opponent in Germany was actualy Austria :eek: !! Austria was much more powerful than Germany when both were AI. The thing is that in Civ3, the larger is your country, the more powerful you are. About Spain, I just gave them few technologies so that their attack wouldn't really matter (They should be neutral after all !). However, we can't do that with Austria. Maybe a solution would be to give them an austrian infantry less powerful than the current WW1 infantry. We should work on that point. Moreover, I just realized, I've forgotten to change Bulgaria vs Greek army. I might remove one greek city so that it would be less powerful (same thing... the larger is a civ, the best it is). Klyden : Thanx for the new tips. :) I'll see what I can do. jamesjkirkJan 11, 2004, 09:18 PMYou could always take out many of the Austrian cities, but give them culture to fill the gaps. How many Austrian cities were that productive anyway? You could focus on their major cities, like Vienna, Budapest & Prague, then have important border cities, like Trieste, Serajevo (of course) and then a few cities from poland, ukraine, and the sort. KlydenJan 11, 2004, 10:48 PMI played the Greeks for a few turns and as a human player, I had my hands full as both the Bulgarians and the Ottoman came after me. Getting the coast beat up by the Ottoman navy is going to happen and in that scenario and there is nothing the Greeks can really do about it. I am guessing as the Bulgarian, you are going to have to deal with the Romanians and the Greeks and will have your hands full there as well as the Serbs. You have to hope the Ottomans will take some pressure off of you and on top of it, the Russian Black Sea fleet is going to stroll over and since you are the first bit of hostile coastline they see, they are going to shell you silly. I don't know that there is a historical perspective on this because the fact is that if the Romanians, Greeks, and Serbs do commit their armies to attacking Bulgaria, it should get crushed. Historically, I have the following approximate information on eventual troop size and dead suffered: Bulgaria 950,000 with 49,000 dead Serbia 1,000,000 with 322,000 dead Greece 200,000 with 5,000 dead Romania 1,000,000 with 158,00 dead AH 9,000,000 with 1,050,00 dead Italy 5,600,000 with 533,000 dead France 8,200,000 with 1,500,000 dead Russia 13,000,000 with 1,700,000 dead England 9,500,000 with 1,000,000 dead Germany 13,250,000 with 1,950,000 dead Belgium 380,000 with 41,000 dead Ottoman 2,850,000 with 325,000 dead You will note that the Greeks did not mobilize a big army compared to Bulgaria and Serbia, but this is in part because they really did nothing in the war and did not enter it until 1917 anyway. Bulgaria only launched two major attacks in the war and that was a combined attack against Serbia (2 Bulgarian armies attacked along with 1 German and 1 AH army) and Serbia was quickly overwhelmed (Up to that point, they had been holding their own against AH). The other attack was when Romania entered the war and Romania was also attacked in overwhelming numbers from several directions. Almost every other combatant had at least 10 percent of their mobilized forces die. (This does not include other casualties). The Bulgarians and Greeks are very obvious exceptions to this. Some of the mobilized numbers can be misleading when it is realized that the Italians entered the war with less than 1 million in uniform and the British had even less in uniform, so mobilized numbers should not be equated with starting numbers, but the potential is a good reference to look at. As far as the AH armies go, the big issue is that this game does not simulate what happen from a historical perspective. Upon mobiliziation, AH put most of their army in the field against the Russians and some against the Serbs. (Italy was a treaty partner, so did not get much military on that border). The AH and Russians went at it big time in 1914 and there was severe fighting and a lot of casualties for both sides. The Russians managed to prevail and had the AH armies backed up into the mountains. The Germans spent a lot of time in the east launching offensives to keep the Russians from concentrating on the AH army. This is what happen historically. In the game, the AH has 3 infantry units east of the mountains and the Russians have almost zip in this area as well and the end result is that both leave each other alone for the most part. The Russians wind up concentrating most of their effort on the Germans and the AH winds up concentraiting most of their effort on the western allies. You get the Russians and AH duking it out some and I think that AH will probably have their hands full enough to have better things to do than to go visit France. I don't know if there is a way to change the action in the east, but I think it needs to be looked at if part of the goal is to give the game a historical "feel". The Ottomans are going to be tough in this game, because historically, most of their forces are off the map either busy fighting the Russians in the Caucasus or the Allies in the Middle East and in Palestine. Only defensive forces were kept in the on map areas and some troops were brought in for the Gallipoli campaign. The Ottomans launched no attacks into Greece or anyplace else east of Constantinople. How to reflect this in game, I am not sure as it would make the Ottomans very boring to play, but that is the case. As another note, the Italian force structure (from the stand point of support items like machineguns and canon) is about right because when they did go to war, they had very little artillery and most of it was not very modern and they did not have much in the way of machine guns. What they had for the most part was infantry armed with rifles and that was it. Changing the infantry around is certainly an option and while it would require a lot of work, it might be worth while for playability in the long run. Sorry for the book.. :D steviejayJan 12, 2004, 02:40 AMI almost forgot to ask, I think that some nations (mainly France, Brtain and Germany) should have some for of army. Britain could have an army unassembled and on the British mainland rather on Europe, but France and Germany certainly should have some armies. just my opinion. GogfJan 12, 2004, 05:05 AMDoes the AI really understand hos to use armies? If so, then that might be a good idea. MarcusSauronoJan 12, 2004, 10:49 AMActually, yes the AI does use armies and sometimes well. The Last ConformistJan 12, 2004, 02:16 PMAnyone know if the AI's learnt to not mix different movement units in armies in C3C? That used to be a major problem with it's Army usage. Grey FoxJan 12, 2004, 03:03 PMOriginally posted by The Last Conformist Anyone know if the AI's learnt to not mix different movement units in armies in C3C? That used to be a major problem with it's Army usage. Although, that shouldn't be as big a problem in C3C, as the minimum movement an army can have is 2. The Last ConformistJan 13, 2004, 12:02 PMTrue. But mixing Inf and Modern Armor into the same Army is still fairly dumb. Marla_SingerJan 14, 2004, 10:58 PMSo should I add armies at the beginning ? If so ? How many of them ? :) steviejayJan 15, 2004, 03:18 AMmy bet is- France - 1 (or 2.... probably 2) Germany - 2 (maybe 3, 2 on Western front, 1 on Eastern) Britain - 1 (unmade if you know what I mean, an empty army on the british homeland) Russia - 3 (not WW1 Inf armies though, riflemen probably. Russia had alot of troops, just not very up to date ones) I don't think I'd give anyone else an army, what does anyone sle think? aeldrikJan 15, 2004, 03:40 AMdon't forget you can't fill the armies in the editor, the AI then chooses what units to put in the armies... steviejayJan 15, 2004, 04:04 AMis it? :hmm: oh ok, my bad sorry. GogfJan 15, 2004, 06:02 AMWhat? You can't? That needs to be fixed. KlydenJan 15, 2004, 08:48 AMIf considering the armies, I would suggest probably 3 for Germany (one at Berlin, 2 on the western front near Belgum), 2 for France (one near the Swiss-German border, one at Paris). Russia should probably have 3 (1 vs Prussia, 2 against AH). AH 2 (both in the east). One thing is to "provide" troops at the PC's for the AI to load them into the army (no guarentee it will happen tho). The issue with an army in England is that when played by the AI, it will stay there. The initial English forces in 1914 were not very large at all, but were of very high quality (of the major powers, they had the only all volunteer army and their training was excellent). The Russians deployed 2 armies against the Germans and 4 against the A/H. A/H had 3 1/2 deployed against the Russians and a 1/2 against the Serbs. Germany had 7 armies on the western front against 5 for the French. The Germans had 1 in the East. This all adds up to about 2 armies = 1 army counter. wotan321Jan 15, 2004, 09:56 AMWon't the addition of Armies take away the "Defensive" nature of this scenario? GogfJan 15, 2004, 09:58 AMThat makse some sense. Hm.... aeldrikJan 15, 2004, 10:39 AM@wotan: good artillery fire takes care of the largest armies, it should still allow for a defensive scenario @Gogf: yes, one of many things that should be fixed about the editor.... maybe also the fact that you can't have war weariness on the scenarios should be fixed, as well as the fact the AI goes around razing cities... The Last ConformistJan 15, 2004, 10:59 AMBut the AI doesn't do good artillery fire, and on open grounds armies are quick enough to avoid the worst of it anyway. I'd worry that human players would be able to exploit Armies to break thru the best AI lines (we all know how good they are ...) at little cost. Having to attack one-on-one with infantry units drives the losses up for the attacker, which seems it should be a goal in a WWI scen. Just my .02€ Grey FoxJan 15, 2004, 11:11 AMI agree with the Last one. KlydenJan 15, 2004, 11:39 AMI agree as well with TLC. My earlier post was if you wanted to include armies, then that should be where they are placed from a historical perspective. Having armies also opens the door to some issues (like a human putting special forces in them). While the special forces lose their "stealth' ability, a unit that is big and has a 12 attack factor that moves at 3 is absolutely deadly. I think the proper "feel" for the scenario is a lot of units are produced and also die as the game moves along, so that means lower hp units for the most part. eric_AJan 15, 2004, 11:48 AMOn the version I downloaded about a week ago the battleship units are mixed up. The pre-dreadnought ship graphic actually displays a dreadnought class ship and the dreadnought unit is portrayed as a pre-dreadnought type. The Last ConformistJan 15, 2004, 02:15 PMI might also mention that ACW experience has shown it's very hard to get the AI to build Army-type units sensibly. You'd not unlikely end up having to have them auto-built. kuff-damJan 15, 2004, 03:17 PMwhat fun i had killing millions, 9/10 keep it up, a decent scenario is so hard to find these days................. lest we forget:nuke: xternalJan 15, 2004, 06:01 PMwow good map i had fun, and can't wait for another update:goodjob: bede25Jan 15, 2004, 06:30 PMThanks for a truly great scenario. I had alot of fun playing. Awesome job! GogfJan 15, 2004, 06:37 PM@eric_A: looking into that now. @xternal: New version coming soon (er... eventaully). Marla_SingerJan 16, 2004, 08:09 PMOriginally posted by Klyden I agree as well with TLC. My earlier post was if you wanted to include armies, then that should be where they are placed from a historical perspective.I also agree with TLC. Human players will take advantage better than the AI of such an attack bonus. It goes backward from our purpose to make it hard to advance.I think the proper "feel" for the scenario is a lot of units are produced and also die as the game moves along, so that means lower hp units for the most part. You're right about it Klyden, that's I think what a WW1 scenario should be. Your idea about lowering HP is actually a good one. The only trouble I see about it is simply that with less HP, then it gives back to Artillery more efficiency. By the way that makes me think. Did people play already with the weaker Artilleries ? Is it better ?Originally posted by Eric_A On the version I downloaded about a week ago the battleship units are mixed up. The pre-dreadnought ship graphic actually displays a dreadnought class ship and the dreadnought unit is portrayed as a pre-dreadnought type.Actually, the idea of doing pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts came later... that's why there are no good graphics. Predreads use actually the graph of cruisers when dreadnoughts use the graphics of WW1 battleships. If you want I can see how to change that, but as it is, predreads are smaller than dreads (which sounds logic to me). Thanx for the note. :) kuff-dam, xternal, bede25, thanx for the support ! Actually it's people like you who makes me feel I should contrinue to improve it ! :) GogfJan 16, 2004, 08:30 PMUhg. I am bogged down in PCX after PCX. The buildings are coming pretty well. I believe, that after a lot of false alarms, I may actually be nearing the true completion of this task (which was a lot harder than I thought). An idea that would make some sense is to use the WW1 Battleship as a pre-dread, and the Civ3 battleship as a dread, primarily because the people who will play the scenario will understand that better. Kristian95Jan 17, 2004, 08:37 AM@ Marla & Gogf, I was wondering, wouldn't it enhance the whole "butcher" feeling if all military units cost pop points to complete ? In that sense you will also see the decrease in population the war meant to the warring countries :) I've not yet downloaded the new version with less powerful artillery, but I'm sure it will be much better as it will turn the war into a much more static one, which, at least on the western front, it ought to be :) Once again, I'd like to express my gratitude for a great scenario!! :) kuff-damJan 17, 2004, 08:52 AMthe best way to replicate the slaughter in this scenario would be to alter infantrys att def mov stats from 9.9.1 to say 6.9.1 changing the bef's from 7.4.1 to 4.7.1 would encourage mass slaughter for very little gain. maybe an update for this scenario would be to stick N.Africa on aswell for the whole larry of arabia effect with maybe a army down there filled with 'camel?' tye units. just an idea GogfJan 17, 2004, 08:59 AMKristian95: The only problem with that the AI has no recognistion of how many pop points something costs. It would commit suicide by bringing all of it's cities down to size one, while the humans would not to that. This is especially important on the higher levels, like sid, where the AI can produce one unit, per city, per turn. It's a good idea, but the AI just isn't equipped to handle it. Frozen_LavaJan 17, 2004, 09:31 AMThanx for such a brilliant scenario. :) Marla_SingerJan 17, 2004, 09:34 AMI agree with what Gogf said and moreover I should add it would be pointless to build infantry since drafting units will cost also one point of population but directly without any shields cost. However, I agree units draft should be enhanced and that's why I added one hp to conscript units. Actually, I wanted to consider drafted units directly as standard units but that's not possible. We are currently attempting to make it useful to create infantry units for attack purpose. As it is now, the winner of the scenario will be the one who'll build massively artillery. It's not that stupid except one thing... the AI doesn't use artillery for attack so it gives a great advantage to human players. That's the main reason why I think 9/9/1 are good stats for infantry. I'm currently wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to give one hp more to each kind of units (3 for conscripts, 6 for elite). This way, artillery units would be less efficient in attacks. Well, there's not only advantage about it since units would be harder to kill... and mass soldiers casualty was widely spread during WW1. That's the whole dilemma about promoting in the same time defence and the "butcher" feeling. kuff-damJan 17, 2004, 09:53 AMyou've got me thinking on a saturday now, oh dear. what if you changed the machine gunner units from the 'artillery' units they are at present to a 'mg battallion' type unit found in the wwII-in-the-pacific scenario in conquests with stats of 4/12/1? this'd create a 'dug-in' feeling and sending infantry 'over the top' to destroy them quite costly GogfJan 17, 2004, 03:35 PM@Marla: I would say 4 conscript, 4 regular, 5 veteren, 6 elite, so that we can keep the feeling of draftees being as good as regular forces. An idea to stop city razing: I'm not sure if we have it on, but if we put on keep culture, or whatever it is called, that would probably stop a ton of city razing. That is like in the Rise Of Rome, how when you capture a city, you keep the non-wonder culture buildings, and the city's culture. This does not happen in the epic game. Because of the added culture, the AI might keep more cities. This is just an idea, of course. Kristian95Jan 17, 2004, 03:45 PM@Gogf: regarding the "keep culture" feature I'm quite convinced that it was on in the version from january 3rd (I haven't tried the version with downgraded artillery yet). The computer doesn't care for the loss of cultural borders. I found that out in a game where I "played" the french. I disbanded all my military and more than 2 of 3 cities the germans took from me, they razed!! The AH's though kept most cities.... so there may be some civs who don't raze so much (?). Could the city-razing be kept in check by assigning VP's to all cities ?? I hope you bear over with my questions, as I don't know the editor too well. I think razing should be disabable in the editor, but then again, there're alot of things (or so I hear) which the editor lacks.... still it's alot better than no editor :) It's really too bad that the AI can't handle pop cost of units, 'cause I feel that it's wrong that it doesn't cost pop to build units. If the AI could handle it, and the editor supports it, I would've made conscripts cost 2 pop units and all built ones cost 1.... that would make whoever makes alot of military feel like a true butcher!! Btw, is it possible to assign a big maintenance cost of artillery ?? If that is possible, that is one way to reduce the amount of artillery human players will build :) Hope some of my ramlings turn out inspirational or even useful :) GogfJan 17, 2004, 04:06 PMNo, VPs to all cities doesn't work, we already tried it. I do think we should turn on keep culture, just because it seems more realistic, but that's not really that important, IMO. Too bad about the razing though. aeldrikJan 17, 2004, 04:46 PM@all: About the razing cities, please all go and post in the Patch improvement post about this, I already did as well as some other guys, but the more the better to make sure Firaxis fixes this issue!!!!! http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=71487&goto=newpost Marla_SingerJan 20, 2004, 10:53 AMOkay, a new version is now on-line. :) - Few cities had been deleted (Laibach, AH, Larissa, Greece). - There is +1 HP for each unit. - Graphics of Dreadnoughts and Pre-Dreadnoughts had been changed. - Most of outdated units shouldn't appear anymore. - Most of units don't request any ressources anymore so that there's no trouble about who can build what. - Russia has more Cavalry to fight against the Germans. TheLastKnightJan 20, 2004, 11:58 AMDid you try implementing the flags yet? Be the model for the French flag ugly or not, it can't be worse than leaderheads that are apparently misplaced, can it? Please consider doing so.