The Great War [Archive] - Page 11 - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

dreadknought

Oct 13, 2004, 07:28 AM

Hi Rocoteh,

I will pass along a new discovery that I believe you would like to be aware of. In playtesting a version of a game I was working on an accident occured with the navies in the game. At one time a huge British fleet was bombarding one of my cities (30 ships) and then something occured in the ai where those ships and several others nearby vanished. When this occured the turn speed increased a great deal , and this on a very large world map with alot of cities.

My conclusion must be that the (amount of total units) is the biggest factor slowing down the turn speeds , however city count and map size still are a factor. To play on very large maps limiting the troop count is very important as the ai seems to think about each piece 1 at a time.

Using supersize armies, division units,fleet units,air squadrons, and highly limiting how quickly new units can be built could produce a much faster game. I would try to get rid of small units that you and the ai can build quickly and have every unit built represent a larger force, for example for ships (1 unit represents a small fleet). Then add the hit points these large units should have. If you have small hit point units in the game (guards ect..) have them as immobile and not replacable.Worker units should also cost alot more to build.

I think you can have a large amount of cities as long as their production of units is slow including the ability to draft which I would take out. In regards to artillery it should cost alot to build to discourage stacking it.

Another factor is the speed (moves) these units make. It it were possible for every unit to have a 1 speed I think there would be quite a difference as the ai should move much quicker . Placing the land masses closer to where ships can move at 1-2 speeds but still be effective might be an idea. I think many large maps are putting in more water than needed and closer land masses in the maps would help the function of the ai, so while it might not look quite as good it would play better.

regards.....dreadknought

dreadknought

Oct 13, 2004, 07:29 AM

dreadknought,

Yes all cities have a Recycling Center (with removes population pollution
and reduces building pollution flagged).

Thank you anyway.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Rocoteh, That is good but I would check those flags for all structures in the cities and I think you see no pollution at all.

regards.......dreadknought

Adler17

Oct 13, 2004, 08:08 AM

Turn 2, Week 31:
I decided not to attack Nancy but to attack the invading forces of Russia and France. Since the French already crossed the border and are very near to Brussels I decided to bomb them and then to attack them. Only new unit shall be transferred to the eastern front to take out the Russians. There at crucial positions I built hastly 2 fortifications as base. One near Königsberg, the other near Posen as defending base. Although I don´t think the enemy will attack them directly they are good bases to attack incoming enemies. In the west near Nancy I occupied the left French fortifications.
At sea I sent my subs to Flandern in order to attack bombing units.
My last action before quitting this turn is attacking with my only marine division near Brussels- and a new commander is generated.
But now it is the PC´s turn.
The British are very near to the border but they don´t bomb me. Only the French do. 21 of their units are now in my territory. As well 13 Russian infantry divisions crossed the border near Posen. It seems to be the units near Königsberg were a feint. Useless. My railroads working. The Russian Brusilov corps appeared. I think I have to do everything to conquer Nancy. The units there must be used elsewhere.
Now it is my turn.

Turn 3, Week 32:
I sent the Infantry corps Falkenhayn to the Eastern front and took out the Russian Brusilow corps and addtional another infantry division. Then I throw everything available to the eastern front to stop the Russian invaders. I think I have to use my not totally healed corps, although this is not really a good idea with the BEF nearing my border...
But back to the west. Massive artillery support blow the vast number of French infantry units to peaces. Only badly damaged units remain. A newly formed cavalry corps is riding them to dust. 4 damaged infantry units are killed by bullet and sword.
In the Channel a British predreadnought is mined and sunk. He was part of a convoy consisting of a further armoured cruiser, a destroyer and a transport. My Uboats arrive just in time to make an early example of what later became known as wolfpack. All ships are sunk without own casuality. In the Baltic a Russian light cruiser is sighted and after being bombed by my predreadnoughts sunk by an own light cruiser. Then I can spot 2 Russian armoured cruiser. One has no chance and is sunk by the BC Derfflinger which is immedeatly brought back to Memel to repair. The other one is sunk due to an armoured cruiser. Then the shock: A destroyer spots nearly the whole RN on the way south: Do they want to turn east and attack my forces there or do they want to go through the channel? I have to consider further actions of the Hochseeflotte.
The fights at both fronts are heavy but luckily not very costly. Only at Nancy I suffer bigger casualities. The French and Russian invaders get a bloody nose. And finally after long and heavy fights Nancy falls. with this units now free I´m able to beat the incoming Russians. Although I destroyed every Russian soldier on my territory 4 divisions are still at the border as well as two badly damaged French troops. Done. Done. Also a small force near Besacon was destroyed. But unfortunately I got unsuspected losses there. Now I´m nearing Besancon and Verdun.
At the end of the turn a few remarks. In open field cavalry is still a might, German at least. In the fights against weaker enemies resp. hurt ones they are excellent.
Attacking fortified units without artillery support is dangerous and only luck can give you success. Unfortunately when bombing a town it is not clear if the enemy forces are destroyed or "only" collateral targets as buildings and population is hit.
At sea Uboats should have a better flavour unit. I suggest Uboat of the type VII, since it is based on ww1 models. Also the attack ability should be higher. Capital ships should be in danger to be sunk by them! The war at sea seems to be very similar to the old versions. It looks however very much better with the new designed ships.
It is over to the PC.
A British light cruiser sinks a Uboat and Ypern is bombed by British battlecruiser, while the other ships bomb my minefield, not very successfull. It seemed to be a wise decision to retreat my Hochseeflotte and not to try to catch the enemy battlecruiser.
The French are attacking with their last forces, at least it seems to be. But there is also the corps Foch... And the damn Brits...
20 dreadnoughts, 12 armoured and 7 British light cruiser are near to Helgoland.
In the East 20 Russian divisions make some trouble. Now it is over to me.
I stop here and for the next turn I will open a new post.

Adler

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 13, 2004, 08:26 AM

Rocoteh

Oct 13, 2004, 08:30 AM

Rocoteh

Oct 13, 2004, 08:35 AM

To keep the AI from wasting time processing the ability to build Landwehr, Border Patrol and Garrison plus other small and ineffective units should be removed if it hasn't already in version 1.4... Just my opinion. However, I feel that conscription of troops is too important...especially in any new Multiplayer Versions that you develop.

Just my thoughts,
BK

BkGreatWarnut,

Again, in the fast version waiting time should be no problem.

BTW: Border guards are on the map for one reason only:

To prevent AI from making unhistorical infiltration moves
after diplomatic agreements.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 13, 2004, 08:47 AM

Adler,

Thank you for the very interesting report.

On the West Front:

Maybe more French units should be flagged defend.
I doubt this aggressive AI-play will pay off (for AI).
Its positive to hear about the mine-attack.
Mines are underestimated.

I agree with you on the U-boat graphics.
Notes have been taken.

"At sea Uboats should have a better flavour unit. I suggest Uboat of the type VII, since it is based on ww1 models. Also the attack ability should be higher. Capital ships should be in danger to be sunk by them! The war at sea seems to be very similar to the old versions." Adler17

Its possible attack ability should be higher.
However I do not want to change it into a "superunit".

What changes with regard to the war at sea did you expect
from version 1.3?

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

dreadknought

Oct 13, 2004, 09:03 AM

dreadknought,

Based on experiments with personal mods,
I still think number of cities, map-size and number
of Civ:s are most important factors with regard to
load time and waiting time between turns.

Thus when CellKu have resized the map and that
have been the base for a the new fast version of TGW-DIV
I think no one will be disturbed by long long waiting time
between turns.

I will not remake the scenario on a new map.

"Rocoteh, That is good but I would check those flags for all structures in the cities and I think you see no pollution at all." dreadknought,

Yes, I will do that.
Notes have been taken.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Rocoteh, Thx for the thoughtful reply and I will give you one more thought to ponder. In many games the turns are at first fast as you get started, then as time goes on ,they get slower and slower and slower until they become just too long to wait. In many of these games the map is not getting bigger with time nor are the cities increasing as the map is often built out. The only thing that is growing is the ai is building more and more units each turn which must be slowing the turns as its the only thing increasing as the game goes on. I will continue to think upon this.

Best regards....dreadknought

Rocoteh

Oct 13, 2004, 09:15 AM

Rocoteh, Thx for the thoughtful reply and I will give you one more thought to ponder. In many games the turns are at first fast as you get started, then as time goes on ,they get slower and slower and slower until they become just too long to wait. In many of these games the map is not getting bigger with time nor are the cities increasing as the map is often built out. The only thing that is growing is the ai is building more and more units each turn which must be slowing the turns as its the only thing increasing as the game goes on. I will continue to think upon this.

Best regards....dreadknought

dreadknought,

I do respect your opinion on number of units
as important for waiting time.

However, my own experince still tells me map-size, number of cities
and number of Civ:s will be of heavy importance when it comes
to load time and waiting time between turns.

Of course a huge RAM-memory is best of all :) .

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

dreadknought

Oct 13, 2004, 09:25 AM

dreadknought,

Of course a huge RAM-memory is best of all :) .

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Thank you Rocoteh, Yes , I really need to get a new computer and a lot of problems in the game would go away. Maybe at tax time! :goodjob:

Best regards.....dreadknought

Wyrmshadow

Oct 13, 2004, 10:19 AM

Rhye,

I have no info on the Zeppelin unit.
However I assume Sarevok can give you info on
where to find it.
He will probably be on-line within 12 hours from now.

Rocoteh
I made the Zeppelin a long LONG time ago.

Adler17

Oct 13, 2004, 11:05 AM

Turn 4, week 33:
First I have to beat the RN. With newly produced Uboats I can catch 3 armoured cruiser out of the RN fleet next to Helgoland. Then the attack of my battleships. In this fight the German ships are far superior to the British. Although partly heaviled damaged, my ships are able to crush the Royal Navy. The British are suffer a defeat very near to the position where they lost the battle of Jutland in reality.
In the baltic a Russian predreadnought is sunk by one of mine.
I think the floating mines should get one or two more HP. Mines were very dangerous in ww1. Due to the idiotic defensive bombard (at least against mines and subs it is idiotic) I loose too many mines to be successfull. In the Helgoland battle I used all my mines available. And although they sunk the battleships HMS Dreadnought, HMS Iron Duke HMS Superb, an armoured and a light cruiser the impact should have been a bit bigger. Nevertheless I shouldn´t complain much. Nearly the whole attacking fleet is sunk Only 5 light cruiser survived this tremendous British defeat. My own losses are negliable. When I used mines without the enemy defense fire they were okay in their abilities.
In the west the Corps Foch is anhiliated. Then I attack the British forces with a full artillery strike. All are damaged. Most of them are destroyed now as well as the Russian cossacks in the east. I have to stop now and will continue another time.
Oh, I don´t think shortening the number of units and super armies are such a good idea. The speed is okay so.

Adler

Wyrmshadow

Oct 13, 2004, 11:53 AM

If you are using my Nevada,then you should update your gfx with the new one I just made.
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=7787

I don't have any more WW1 ships in my list so unless you will be using any ww2 USN ships, you should be fine.

Rocoteh

Oct 13, 2004, 02:00 PM

Rocoteh

Oct 13, 2004, 02:05 PM

Adler,

The outcome of the naval battle seems to be realistic,
when one consider the quality-edge German dreadnoughts
had compared to the British.

Yes, I will give mines one more hitpoint.

Rocoteh

Download: TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Adler17

Oct 14, 2004, 12:22 AM

I think also the light cruiser variant should be updated. It seems to have here problems with the funnels. This had been patched.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 14, 2004, 12:54 AM

I think also the light cruiser variant should be updated. It seems to have here problems with the funnels. This had been patched.

Adler

Adler,

I will check it up.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Adler17

Oct 14, 2004, 09:07 AM

Turn 4, week 33 part two:
My turn is over.
The British bomb Calais and some mines quiete unsuccessfull. Therfore they sink 3 of my submarines in the Channel. This first attempt to break through the channel is nevertheless only a small defeat. The BEF looses in attack one unit and has only one infantry division. Unfortunately the other destroys a MG division but is badly damaged. Only one HP left.
The French are able to destroy 2 further divisions with no casuality. And the Russians cross the border with some divisions. Same tactics as before.
Now I can attack...

Turn 5, week 34:
In the channel 2 British destroyer are mined and sunk, 2 further sunk by damaged Uboats. At the Skagerrak minefield I sent 3 Uboats and a new destroyer to intercept these British predreadnoughts. I bomb 2 destroyers and damage them badly with Zeppelins. Unfortunately one is shot down. Perhaps it would be better to replace the SAM animation. Such an animation is doubtfull in ww2 scenarios but with a bit good will acceptable since some SAMs were used at least in the last days, but not in ww1! No further actions are at sea because I have to heal my units after this big victory. London and his harbour are like a mosquito. The RN attacks Calais and immedeatly retreats without the possibility of punishing them.
The British BEF is history: A quick cavalry attack kills it. The remaining 2 corps retreated to Gibraltar, as I assume. I attack Verdun with my 4 available corps and infantry. After a long and bloody fight Verdun is mine! My casualities are low. But still I´m not able to make a fast offensive. It is indeed a Sitzkrieg instead a Blitzkrieg. But with Verdun I hope I can break through the enemy lines now a bit faster. I will now prepare my next turn and will attack Arras, Reims, Châlons, Besancon and in the East Lodz.
Rebasing cities: I think Posen should be a bit more (2 tiles) NNW. Then you could add a city 2 tiles SW of it and name it Breslau. The city which is now Breslau should be Oppeln or Gleiwitz or Ratibor. Breslau is the Capital of lower Silesia and not upper Silesia where the town is now.
Now to the PC:
The British are bombing Calais and the Skagerrak minefield and Ypern.
Austria destroyed Montenegro by capturing the only city of them.
The French send 5 units over the border. Another is destroyed by tring to retake Calais. And although they bombed it, the attacking unit was destroyed
Now my turn begins, but I stop now. The only thing I did was mining and sinking a French armoured cruiser. And conquering Lodz in the east.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 14, 2004, 02:22 PM

Adler,

Thank you.

I saw a risk 1.3 would be balanced toward Germany,
but balance seems to be good so far.

Notes have been taken on proposed changes.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Rocoteh

Oct 15, 2004, 03:38 AM

2 weeks from now hopefully 3 different versions
of TGW-DIV will be available:

TGW-DIV 1.3 The "full" version

TGW-DIV Fast 1.0 resized map with low waiting time.
Some fronts excluded.

TGW-Multiplayer 1.1 Multiplayer version that will
be supported by 1.3.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Oct 15, 2004, 08:15 AM

Turn 6, week 35:
As mentioned I sunk already a French cruiser by mines and captured Lodz.
In the west my first major offensive since the starting one on Nancy and Belgium takes place: Arras, Reims, Châlons and Besancon are attacked. The units I prepared to take Arras were a bit weak, so I decided to refresh them with the corps of Ludendorff and Hindenburg. At last a cavalry divison is able to take the city. The three other cities make some trouble but the resistance is broken and the towns captured. Now I have to prepare for the toughest fight: Paris. But therefore I need my corps and now I´m not able to do anything else than heal, regroup and occupying strategic positions for this strike. Perhaps I attack Amiens. This would give me free forces of Belgium... I do it. The MG gunner is taken out by the corps Moltke. Then cavalry to take out the conscripts defending Amiens. Done. Amiens is mine. And the way to Caen is free! And an addtional leader. And also Caen is not a big problem. I mobilize my corps and despite of being damaged they can capture the city. Now with the Normandy in my hands I can send warships into the channel! Also my North flank is secure. The French and British are unable to threaten my harbour towns. They can not invase my territory and attack any town. Now I´m positioning my troops for the battle of Paris. All squares with roads and/ or fortresses next to my territory are occupied. Paris is sieged! But not encircled.
In Italy my reconnaissance spots a heavilied damaged corps. And my Zeppelins are able to kill it!
At sea I prepared my Hochseeflotte for the next actions. But I have to see that 7 battleships are not totally repaired yet. So I have to wait for the next turn. Also the Markgraf is ready the first built battleship. Kronprinz is ready in the very next turn, but it will remain first in the Baltic. At the Skagerrak minefield the British predreadnoughts retreated out of the range of my mines. So I have to use Uboats and destroyers (new built). They are all 4 sunk by 3 Uboats and a destroyer. In the next turn I will send forces into the Channel.
But now the fights are over. My offensive was a bigger victory than expected. France is not able to retaliate.
In the east my units heal. The battle for Warsaw will take place in the next turns. Or will the Russians attack? I will see.
Now it is the turn of the PC:
The Portuguese bomb Cherbourg.
The British bomb Cherbourg and Calais and Invade Holland! Perhaps I should use my Zeppelins to bomb the ships in the London harbour. Luftschlacht um England in 1914 but not 1940! But their invading forces stopped the very next tile north off Ypern! There are two mines and in Antwerpen 2 Uboats. I will do everything to sink them.
The French bomb Calais and attack one of my borderguards. No success for them.
The Russian counterstrike is not worth to be mentioned.

Now it is my turn. Perhaps I should give at last a review over the known armed forces:

Germany:

6 predreadnoughts
1 transport
2 submarines (not 1914)
6 destroyer (not 1914)
11 Biplanes
8 corps
4 armoured cruisers
1 FlaK
3 siege guns
11 MG gunners
10 light cruiser
4 battlecruiser
5 combat engineer
8 Zeppeline
4 armoured cars
1 railgun
3 flamethrower
67 A infantry
57 R infantry
11 Kavallerie
10 Landwehr
11 210 mm guns
4 fortress divisions
1 coastal battery
3 garrisons
11 minefields
18 floating mines
2 German MG gunners
1 German marine
17 Uboats 1914
3 1914 destroyer
4 Nassau class BB
4 Helgoland class BB
5 Kaiser class BB
4 König class BB
1 counter battery

France:
4 worker
3 predreadnought
1 transport
10 subamrines
8 destroyer
4 armoured cruiser
10 A infantry divisions
21 MG gunners
5 combat engineers
3 observation planes
1 fortress division
39 R infantry
4 trench infantry
5 semi dreadnoughts
17 garrison
1 French colonial soldiers
4 Courbet class BB

Russia:
17 worker
1 predreadnought
5 submarines
9 destroyer
16 cossacks
5 light artillery
3 Entente MG gunner
1 light cruiser
3 combat engineers
5 observation planes
22 fortress divisions
41 A divisions
36 R divisions
3 other Russian infantry units

Italy:
3 worker
4 cavalry
1 transport
4 submarines
1 destroyer
1 corps
2 light artillery
23 A infantry
23 Entente MG gunner
1 Italian R infantry
1 Cavour class BB

Arabia:
1 worker
7 Guerillas
9 Entente infantry

Ottomans:
4 worker
1 Corps
1 Sipahi
2 light artillery
39 Turkish infantry
20 Alliance MG gunner
1 Battlecruiser
2 combat engineer
3 coastal batteries
7 garrison
10 floating mines

Portugal:
3 worker
6 Infantry
1 submarine
1 destroyer
1 armoured cruiser
6 floating mines

Austria:
6 worker
3 cavalry
1 corps
1 armoured cruiser
4 light artillery
3 siege guns
6 Austrian Infantry
32 alliance MG gunner
1 light cruiser
5 combat engineer
5 observation planes
1 armoured car
4 fortress divisions
20 Austrian A infantry
35 Austrian R infantry
3 semi dreadnoughts
3 garrison
9 Tirol frotress divisions
2 Tegethoff class BB

That´s it for today.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 16, 2004, 12:39 AM

Adler,

Thank you for the very interesting report.

I think your reports give good insight on how to
play this scenario.

The review over the armed forces is also of high value.
It gives a good picture of AI build-strategy.

I am looking forward to follow this playtest.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Oct 16, 2004, 06:32 AM

Turn 7, week 36:
My artillery shoots at the Paris defenders. Then the first assaults. I think I have to wait for the next turn before the conquering, only weakening the defenders seem possible. In the meantime the british invasion force is anhiliated, but my losses are surprisingly high. No wonder with a defence value of 14. In Paris I was able to defeat the last defending unit with a brave cavalry charge! Paris is fallen! After 7 weeks the battle of the Marne river is successfull. Now the front is in the west the line Brest, Orléans, Versailles, Lyons. I will now attack Versailles.
In the channel I attack the retreating invasion force. 2 of the three escorting predreadnoughts are mined and sunk. My Zeppeline were able to damage a British destroyer badly but my artillery or air ships aren´t able to sink him! I think artillery and planes/ air ships should get lethal sea bombing! My Uboats can easily sink the rest of the invasion force BTW.
I have to stop now.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 17, 2004, 01:21 AM

Adler,

Thank you.
An impressing victory in France!
I would say it could been possible in reality.
The outcome of the Marne-battle was in no way
a sure thing.

I also think this playtest shows that mines can be deadly!

Rocoteh

Adler17

Oct 17, 2004, 01:57 AM

Mines can be deadly. No doubt. But these mines I used were veteran and elite. And I nearly lost them (both 1 hp remaining). Also historically floating mines were seen as danger to shipping that all powers in all wars warned each other for detected floating mines. Nevertheless it is in civ 3 the only possibility to use mines... I hope for civ 4.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 17, 2004, 10:04 AM

Adler,

OK, mines will get one HP more in version 1.4.

With regard to Civ 4 I hope they will include a strategic
warfare system.
I would be of great value in scenarios.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 18, 2004, 12:31 AM

TGW-DIV Multiplayer 1.1 will probably be completed
within 1 week from now.

It will only work with TGW-DIV 1.3.
For that reason TGW-DIV Multiplayer 1.0 will still
be available for download after the release of version 1.1.

Rocoteh

Arvin

Oct 18, 2004, 06:22 AM

Hm. You can easily capture London as German in the beginning of the game and on major difficulty level. I needed three or four normal A-Infantry units and a corps. In the first turn I put them into a transport and sent them across the Canal. The British fleet wasn't a great problem: It was stationed in the North and needed a turn to come down, besides, the AI didn't even attack my transport (I think I left it uncovered by accident!). In the second or third turn, when the units have been disembarked, you can capture London with not much effort, as the AI doesn't see the necessity to stationate more troops in their capital city, even if the enemy is at the gates. I don't know if the AI is that stupid in higher difficulty levels. But if that's the case, you can repeat the action by just attacking with a few more generals. I know it isn't a big unbalance aspect, but it's kind of bizzare at least, so I mentioned it as a litte curiosity. But - If I think of it again - you capture with London the ANZAC reinforcements. And you get the airport, so reinforcements are no problem. Could really have a bad influence on the balance. But playing multiplayer it isn't relevant anymore, because a human player won't let you capture his capital city that easily.

Adler17

Oct 18, 2004, 07:55 AM

Turn 7, week 36, part 2:
I conquered Versailles with not many problems. In the east I was able to take Kaunas. No with no units able to attack I decided to prepare my offensives. In the west with the loss of Paris the conquering will be not a big problem. So I commenced my offensive and try to attack Orléans as well as Lyon (in the area between them there is no city. I suggest adding a further. If Germany gets another one (Breslau, renaming Breslau to Oppeln), this is no unbalancing. Strong defence forces are protecting the ways to my territory. The French won´t have good chances to go through these defences...
In the east I started my first major offensive: Warsaw, Grodno and Wilna will be attacked the very next turn.
At sea I'm sending the Hochseeflotte to the Channel.
That´s it for this turn for me.
Portugal is bombing Cherbourg with their armoured cruiser. The Brits are bombing Calais. These raids from London are ennoying! Also Cherbourg is bombed. I think I have to bomb London to peaces... Please give Lethal sea bombardment to the planes...
The French were attacking these forces. I lost 4 units for the price of 10 enemy divisions.
The Russians are invading with some cossacks. Boy, I´m doomed. 4 Cossacks! ;)
Now it is my turn.

Adler

Adler17

Oct 18, 2004, 10:52 AM

Turn 8, Week 37:
I send a destroyer first before I send the rest of the fleet. In the tiles next to London and North off Calais I detect the British sub fleet! Sub chasing. This time it is the Germans who throw water bombs to sink the subs. Destroyer, light cruiser and Uboats sink them. Because of the air defence my bombing offensive is aborted. But my fleet is near. But I doubt the rest of these pity fleet is engaging an open combat...
In the west I could take Lyons with no real problems. Orléans is another chapter as I find out I have not sufficient troops there to fight. So I have to use artillery... A tough fight, but nevertheless I´m through their lines. It is indeed now a Blitzkrieg. Tours and Nantes are fallen. Brest has to be supplied via sea! And with the help of a corps of mine is Poitiers taken. NE off Lyons the first real combat between Italians and Germans. An A division each is fighting each other. The Italians loose. Only 2 HP of my untis were lost.
In the east Wilna is taken after a heavy fight. The same with Warsaw. I think the Russians are a bit too strong. Finally, after a long and bloody fight I take Warsaw. And Grodno is also in my hands.
Now I clean my territory from enemy units. Should not be so difficult... Done. 2 Corps in Lege are ready but not totally healed. I decided to attack Brest with them next turn. Also I will attack Minsk and Bordeaux. My last action for this turn is bombing Riga with my warships.
The PC turn:
The Portuguese bomb Cherbourg as well as the British. Also they do not engage my fleet directly but bomb them. Only one bombing is successfull. A bombing rate which is historically correct (Jutland).
The French can destroy one of my artllery units I forgot to protect. But nothing more.
The Russians are quiete.
It is now my turn.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 19, 2004, 12:33 AM

Adler,

Thank you.

Notes have been taken on proposed changes.

Do you think it will take longer time to defeat the entente
this time compared to the previous playtest?

I am looking forward to coming reports.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 19, 2004, 12:36 AM

Rocoteh

Oct 19, 2004, 06:11 AM

From the ongoing PBEM-game

there are indications that its to hard to play the Central Powers.

Should this holds true, its possible I will
delay Multiplayer 1.1, so I can see which changes
that shall be done to counter this problem.

Suggestions on changes to Multiplayer 1.1 are welcome.

Rocoteh

Link to PBEM-game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96368

Adler17

Oct 19, 2004, 06:18 AM

I think it will last longer now. Also I´m a bit lucky in this game. My losses are not so big I have to stop my offensives to regroup. Indeed I will soon control France totally and then will take out the Italians. After that or within I will send a part of my army to destroy Portugal and Gibraltar. France is easy to beat when Paris is taken. In the East I think I have to fight a bit more than the ast time. Also the defences are very enhanced. Heavy fortified places with MG gunners need several veteran A divisions and artillery support to have a chance. All in all I think the enhencemants are very good. I try to use the same strategy I played before to see differences. But I have to reread my standings after this turn in the game before before I can really make conclusions.

Adler

Adler17

Oct 19, 2004, 10:20 AM

I just read my report on page 48. I´m now a bit faster. Nevertheless I think the fights were more difficulty this time. Perhaps I´m now more aggressive or I have a bit more luck in the attacks...
But back to the game:
Turn 9, week 38:
I took Brest with ease and bombed the ships in London. All British ships base there are heavilied damaged. But I can´t really catch them... At Brest a French armoured cruiser is scuttled when taking the city. Also Bordeaux is taken.
In the east Riga is bombed by my ships and taken by cavalry. In the east I can attack faster because there are not so many reinforcements who the Russian could send against me. That´s why and because of sending a bit more troops to the east I´m faster there. Minsk and Brest- Litowsk surrender as well.
I must come to an end now. But before I will give the units of Russia, Germany and France:
Russia
13 worker
1 predreadnought
5 submarines
9 destroyer
18 cossacks
3 light artillery
1 entente MG gunner
1 Light cruiser
3 combat engineer
2 observation planes
26 fortrss divisions
26 A divisions
33 R divisions
3 Ruusian infantry divisions
1 Russian MG gunner

France:
8 worker
3 predreadnoughts
1 transport
10 submarines
8 destroyer
3 armoured cruiser
6 A divisions
12 Entente MG gunner
18 R divisions
3 T divisions
5 semi dreadnoughts
9 garrison
1 colonial
4 Courbet class battleships

Germany
6 predradnought
1 transport
2 submarines
5 destroyer
12 Biplanes
8 corps
4 armoured cruiser
1 FlaK
3 siege guns
10 alliance MG gunner
10 light cruiser
4 battlecruiser
6 combat engineer
9 Zeppeline
4 armoured cars
1 railgun
5 flamethrower
73 A divisions
46 R divisions
11 Kavallerie
10 Landwehr
11 210 mm artillery
3 fortrss divisions
1 coastal battery
3 garrisons
11 Minefields
18 floating mines
1 Marine
17 1914 subs
4 1914 destroyer
4 Nassau class BB
4 Helgoland class BB
5 Kaiser class BB
5 König class BB.

Adler

P.S.:
Britain:
14 worker
1 marine
1 cavalry
2 predreadnoughts
4 transports
7 destroyer
2 corps
1 armoured cruiser
4 FlaK
1 light artillery
2 British infantry
35 Entente MG gunner
9 CL
8 BC
4 observation planes
1 armoured car
1 fortress division
17 A divisions
12 R divisions
1 Indians
1 Canadians.

Rocoteh

Oct 19, 2004, 01:20 PM

Work on TGW-DIV Multiplayer 1.1 have been halted.

No new target date.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 20, 2004, 12:41 AM

Adler,

Thank you for the report and the very interesting
unit list.

Its positive to hear that you think 1.3 is an improvement.

From the unit-list I can see that AI goes for defensive
units: Russia-AI builds fortress divisions and British-AI
builds MG-units.
It seems to be hard get AI to produce A-type infantry.

Due to the excellent work done by CellKu with resizing
the TGW-map I will soon be able to release TGW-DIV Fast 1.0.

Load time have been reduced from 21 to 4 minutes
(with 1.2 Ghz Celeron and 512 MB RAM).

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 20, 2004, 04:52 AM

TGW-DIV Fast 1.0

VERY IMPORTANT:YOU MUST HAVE INSTALLED TGW-DIV
TO PLAY TGW-DIV Fast 1.0

Credits for TGW-DIV 1.0: CellKu for resizing the map.
Without the excellent work of CellKu this fast version
of TGW-DIV would not have been possible. Other credits:
Closed after 751 downloads.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 20, 2004, 05:15 AM

The most important changes in TGW-DIV Fast 1.0:

Resized map reduces load time (with 1.2 Ghz Celeron ad 512 MB RAM)
from 21 minutes to 4 minutes. Waiting time between turns 1 minute.

Map excludes North Africa, Egypt-front, Mesopotamia-front and
the Caucasus-front.

Number of Civs reduced from 22 to 18.

Romania and Portugal starts as neutrals.

All cavalry have move reduced to 2.

All artillery have range reduced to 1.

Fortifications defense bonus now 60.

River defense bonus now 70.

Note: TGW-DIV 1.3 will remain the main version of TGW-DIV.
Its not sure that changes implemented in TGW-DIV Fast 1.0
will be included in TGW-DIV 1.4.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Oct 20, 2004, 06:01 AM

Turn 9, week 38, part 2:
The only thing to mention is that I prepare to attack Bayonne, Lublin and Tallin next turn and some divisions are on the way to Marseilles. France is lost, but due to the territory my offensive is slowed down. In the east I have similar problems. Since most units have only a movent of one...
I don´t know what to do after the fall of France. Attacking Britain? Or Italy and Portugal?
I´ll see. The PC is now on turn.
The Portuguese armoured cruiser bomb Brest and the English Cherbourg. A British convoy is spotted and some warships leave Portsmouth.
A few French and Russians cross the border- Nothing too serious... Indeed it seems to be that I stopped a Russian offensive on Krakau...
Now it is my turn...

Adler

Nazbol

Oct 20, 2004, 06:04 AM

Rocoteh

Oct 20, 2004, 06:17 AM

Adler,

Maybe its a good idea to knock out Italy,
after that France have been conquered?

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 20, 2004, 06:26 AM

In you scenario you can't model Russian Revolutions, German Revolution, Hungury (in Russian Vengrian) Revolution and Antanta Entervention in Russia, so I don't think, that this scenario isn't realistic, but I think it is interesting

Nazbol,

That would call for edit-functions that does not exist.

One have to remember that CIV 3 was not created
with very realistic scenario-creation in mind.

The main idea with CIV 3 (and I guess also CIV 4) is to
create a general abstract strategy game that spans 6 000 year.

If a scenario is good or not should be judged within this context.

Rocoteh

Aeon221

Oct 20, 2004, 07:10 AM

@Nazbol- go away, crazy man. your words are fubar! ;p

@Rocoteh- speakin as the Russian Player in the PBEM TGWDiV-Multi1.0 game goin on right now, I can tell you that Russia is pretty well balanced against Austria.

The only real fear is that the RR in the balkans will be cut, leaving me open to a german strike of doom.

cossack weak attack values are nicely balanced by the ability to produce 2tile arty.

however, I think u should enable tech trading in multi. Russian research is so low that I have not bothered with it. instead, I save up money over two or three turns (golden age) and simply steal it from france or one of my other allies. Since they are in a locked alliance (and humans ;p) it doesnt matter if I fail or not.

Why not make it so that only techs with buildable stuff are non-tradeable, so that we are still forced to research the techs with buildable stuff (like siege guns and dreads).

I understand why you do not give Russia conscription (the ability to conscript so many men makes me drool ;p), but I must say it left me VERY scared those first turns when I lacked sufficient arty and the Germans had a LARGE number of disposable troops with nothing to do...

Sorry if this is long (and includes spelling problems, broke my hand but it hasnt slowed me down much ;p) but I have noticed a lot of things as Russia.

Has anyone bothered to switch to communism as Russia? I do not know what it will do to my production (vis a vis corruption) since I have such a massive empire.

Also, I considered building a RR through the mountains behind the Caspian so as to hit the Turks from the rear. For a while I was certain that they were doing the same thing. Could you... perhaps... remove those mountains so as to eliminate that kind of exploit in later versions?

It seems that my cities on the open water parts of the Volga produce destroyers with the bonus dock... this is kind of a waste of time... same is true of the caspian cities...

This might not be worth including, but whatever. I read a book recently by an american journalist in japan during the russo-japanese war (i would recommend it to you as someone who is clearly an aficionado of period warfare, except that it seems to have been very limited in printing...). he describes the destroyer raids made by the japanese on port arthur as having been extremely disruptive, but also extremely risky. the japanese would swing through the port, launch torpedoes, and flee. there is no way to do this with the destroyers in the game, except with bombardment... so perhaps you could give the destroyers a very low 1tile bombard?

this would allow the weaker sea powers (russia, turkey, etc) to do a little damage with their fewer and weaker ships.

Ok, my hand wants to die, so no more.

THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR THIS AMAZING SCENARIO!!!

If Sarevok sees this, he should know that I have a little shrine to the two of you (kidding!) ;p

Rocoteh

Oct 20, 2004, 08:16 AM

Aeon221,

Thank you for your comments.

In fact I have halted work with Multiplayer 1.1,
waiting for suggestions from Multi-players that can
be implemented in the new version.

I think your idea on tech-trade is worth to try.
Russia have conscription in TGW-DIV 1.3. My thought
is to give them that in M-P version 1.1 also.

On infiltration in the mountains East of the Caspian Sea:
I consider to make mountains impassable again
to make such move not possible.

On auto-production of destroyers.
I will remove it.

Yes, I will give back Bombard cap to destroyer-flotillas.

I am really glad to hear that you like TGW.

Much time and knowledge have been invested into the scenario.

Its my intention to continue to make updates for TGW-DIV as long
there is interest for.

Its my opinion that a game/scenario no matter if its commercial
or like this scenario non-commercial always can be refined.

If a day comes when one say:"This is a 100% finished product.
No reason to make any changes at all". Then I think the game/scenario
will die within some time.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Oct 20, 2004, 08:27 AM

Turn 10, week, 39:
At first my Navy bombs London. There is a British invading force of a predreadnought, 2 destroyer and a transport with 6 infantry divisions 2 tiles SE off Portsmouth. One tile west is another predreadnought. My air force attacks them. Uboats and mines can sink the escort vessels (the predreadnought out of the real convoy is mines and sunk) while one of my new destroyer can sink the transport.
In France Bayonne is taken after heavy shelling by artillery. Then twocorps attack and capture Toulouse with ease.
In the East Tallin (= Reval in that times) is bombed by my Navy. So my infantry can take the town with ease. Also the central finland region should have got a city´s name IIRC. Then also with artillery support Lublin is taken. And Pinsk is also no more Russian. A quick corps attack/ cavalry strike and the defenders are no more.
I will stop now. France is nearly beaten. Only Marseilles and Nice are French (in continental Europe). In the east my troops have reached a line Tallin, Riga, Minsk and Pinsk. I have now 50256 VP.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 20, 2004, 10:17 AM

Adler,

Amphibious assaults are a big problem for AI.

Central Finland Region should be Kuopio.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Oct 20, 2004, 10:46 AM

I know. We can only hope for civ 4... But how the Romans said: Spes saepe fallit. (often the hope betrays).

Adler

Aeon221

Oct 20, 2004, 12:02 PM

Nazbol

Oct 20, 2004, 01:52 PM

Nazbol,

That would call for edit-functions that does not exist.

One have to remember that CIV 3 was not created
with very realistic scenario-creation in mind.

The main idea with CIV 3 (and I guess also CIV 4) is to
create a general abstract strategy game that spans 6 000 year.

If a scenario is good or not should be judged within this context.

Rocoteh

I know, I know. (sorry for my english) I'm waiting for Civ4. And I think that in Civ4 these programming-functions would take place. For this reason I prefer WW2 scenario )))

Let the Luck be with you and your scenario

Rocoteh

Oct 21, 2004, 12:37 AM

I know, I know. (sorry for my english) I'm waiting for Civ4. And I think that in Civ4 these programming-functions would take place. For this reason I prefer WW2 scenario )))

Let the Luck be with you and your scenario

Nazbol,

Thank you!

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 21, 2004, 12:39 AM

AWESOME!

Thanks a boodleoodle ;p

Clearly I have the old version, not likely I will upgrade until after we finish... and then hopefully we will start again with the new map!

Aeon221's Seal of Satis-smaction awarded!

Aeon221,

That PMEM-game will be interesting to follow also.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Adler17

Oct 21, 2004, 08:07 AM

Turn 10, week 39, part 2:
Much didn´t happen since yesterday. I only brought my soldiers to attack the enemy. Next turn I will attack Marseilles, Pskov And Belgrad, while parts of my troops are marching on Smolensk and Zhitomir. I decided to help the Austrians against the Serbs and from Serbia I have a ggod base to attack Greece and Rumania.
Now the PC:
The Portuguese are bombing Brest, the British Cherbourg and my fleet near London. Also they sink three Uboats on their way through the channel and two mines by the loss of a light cruiser. Fot the British the first real sea victory, for me only a small setback. Therefore I spotted a British invasion fleet consisting of HMS Lion, HMS Invincible, a light cruiser and a transport off Hull!
The French and Russians are silent more or less.
Now it is over to me.

Adler

Adler17

Oct 21, 2004, 10:06 AM

Rocoteh

Oct 21, 2004, 10:19 PM

Turn 11, week 40:
In the east Pskov is taken without problems. I had to wait long for new generated commanders and now the 2nd within such a short time is generated!
At sea the convoy off Hull is taken out by my fleet. Lion is sunk by a uboat, Invincible has the bad luck to meet SMS Kaiserin. Another battleship, SMS König Albert, takes out the light cruiser, while another uboat takes out the transport. Then London is bomed and the ships damaged there. Oh another suggestion: try to give the British battlecruiser a lower value for attack and especially for defence! I mean they were indeed 5 minutes ships in Jutland!
In the west Marseilles is first attacked by my rail gun and then by a Zeppelin, which destroys the bomb shelters.
I have to stop here. I had trouble with my internet.

Adler

Adler,

I had thoughts on splitting battlecruisers into 2 groups.

Then I choosed the current solution: German battlecruisers
starts as elite. However, in 1.4 there will be a split since the
difference in quality was so large.

The British battlecruiser was not a good idea.
I think few argue against that fact.

Rocoteh

There is now a fast version of TGW-DIV available.
TGW was released January 25 this year. Since then people
have posted here and sometimes stated the scenario is to slow.
If you think so there is now a very fast version (with resized map)
to download:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Adler17

Oct 22, 2004, 02:08 AM

British battlecruiser in ww1 were in no way successfull. The only battle they won was Falkland against obsolete German armoured cruiser and perhaps Helgoland and Doggerbank, but there they were not facing an equal strengenthed enemy. 2 years later at Jutland they were facing an enemy. Also still outnumbering the enemy they lost three ships. The loss of the Lützow is can not credited them since she was scuttled and might have come home. Nevertheless the German ships suffered heavy hits by heavy British guns but were still in the battleline until the very end.
The German predreadnoughts were nicknamed in the Hochseeflotte 5- Minuten- Schiffe because 5 minutes was the time they would survive in a clash of the battlefleets. After Jutland it seems to be that this nick was better a designation for the British battlecruiser. Because of structural errors the ships exploded. And although having bigger guns than the enemy the construction of the shells was also not the best. So German guns could penetrate the armour while British didn´t. So I think a lowering of the British battlecruiser is a very good idea.

Adler

tonevdik

Oct 22, 2004, 03:31 AM

On my PC I'dont need fast version. Very good work. Historicaly Bulgaria and Romania are neutral from the begining. You are my only favorites. Barbarosa is a amazing scenario! Next??

Rocoteh

Oct 22, 2004, 03:51 AM

On my PC I'dont need fast version. Very good work. Historicaly Bulgaria and Romania are neutral from the begining. You are my only favorites. Barbarosa is a amazing scenario! Next??

tonevdik,

Thank you.
I am very glad to hear that.

As it looks now Barbarossa was the last Sarevok/Rocoteh project.

I will continue with 1830 as my own project.
Its also possible I reactivate my 60% completed World War III scenario.
In fact I did some work on it as late as today.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Adler17

Oct 22, 2004, 07:00 AM

Adler17

Oct 22, 2004, 09:36 AM

I have to hurry so only a short post. Nice, Smolensk, Zhitomir, Nish, Novi Pazar, Carajova, Jassy and Galatz are taken. The battleship sunk, my spy sais the British has built 5 further. I have to rethink about the Austrians strength.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 23, 2004, 12:09 AM

First another question: When does this WWIII scenario take place?
But back to the fight:
I attacked and finally took Belgrade. A long and tough fight. I had to use nearly all corps available and all artillery. Nevertheless I´m through the Serbian defences. For the Austrians Belgrade is nearly not conquestable. Too many MG gunners!
In France Marseilles is taken. Unfortunately I can´t take out Nizza with my units available. So I have to wait another turn.
In the Channel two British light cruiser are sunk by destroyer an a light cruiser.
With the rest of my units I will prepare for the next turn.
In France the very next turn I will attack Nice. In Serbia Novi Pazar and Nish. In Russia Smolensk, Chernigov and Zhitomir.
Now the PC turn:
A newly built British battleship is spotted. Cherbourg and Brest are bombed by the British and Portuguese. In the Channel one of my light cruiser is sunk by a British battlecruiser.
The Serbs attack Austria but are rebeaten.
The Russians remember to have a fleet in Petrograd and try to break into the Baltic. At Zhitomir they try to make a counter offensive. 13 units are attacking.
Now it is my turn.

Adler

Adler,

Start date is 2010. There will be no tech-tree. The reason:
I do not want to mix reality with science-fiction.
(I like science-fiction though.) Thus there will be Eurofighters
and JSF at hand, but no spaceships dropping bombs to research.
Contrary to what many people think China is not military strong.
Then I had to speculate in a future where a aggressive Russian
nationalist have come to power and that there is a alliance
between Russia and China. I also assume a there will be a strategic
nuclear exchange within 5 years after WWIII have started.
Thus all Civs have settlers and after that the nukes have been used
the battle-cry of Social-Darwinism can be heard over the whole world:
"Might is right!"

Back to TGW-DIV:

I have increase the cost of MG-units even more.
Its not good that AI produces them in huge numbers.

You are advancing very fast in Russia compared to the
previous playtest. Is that observation correct?

Its very interesting that British AI rebuilds the navy so fast.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Adler17

Oct 23, 2004, 12:47 AM

I am more advancing in this time because of two reasons. I attacked Russia earlier and I had more free troops because the Russian attacks are usually smaller and not 50+ R divisions come to attack me. The MG gunner in Serbia are a bit too high for Austria. You need many good troops to take them out and heavy artillery. Both Austria does not have. I know the Serbs were not occupied until 1915 or 16 but this is a bit too strong.
The British RN seem to heal quickly. It is good to have sunk most of their ships. I have to see what they will do. Later I will make an invasion in Britain to get rid of them. But this will last until I took Italy and Portugal. Now I´m engaged on the Balcan fighting Serbs, Greeks and Romanians. Then I attack Italy and Portugal.
To the new ww3 scenario: Why not a scenario based in 1990? A coup d´état shortly before the reunification. The Red Army leaves Germany to regroup behind the Oder river. The new Russian president makes and Ultimatum and on October 3rd the Red Army crosses again the Oder...

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 23, 2004, 03:04 AM

Adler,

Yes, there is only one way to get AI cease overproduction
of MG-units and that is to increase cost heavy.

The change done in TGW-DIV Fast 1.0 on Portugal and
Romania (they now start neutral) will be implemented in
version 1.4 also.

On the WWIII-scenario:
Its possible I will do a 1990-mod when the main-scenario is completed.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 23, 2004, 05:56 AM

Sarevok,

Can you set up this link on the front page?

TGW-DIV Fast 1.0

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Adler17

Oct 23, 2004, 06:17 AM

I make a quick report on the last turn. I finished off most of the enemy units in my territory. I took strategic positions to take Kiew and Bukarest. Then the PC bombed some of my towns and the Russians make a small counter offensive near Kiew/ Zhitomir. Now It is my turn. But this time my yards were very busy giving me destroyers in nearly every coastal city! Nevertheless my spy gives me infos of 9 British battleships. I think when Serbia and Romania are finished I will have to invade Britain first before I have to deal with the Italians and Portuguese. 9 dreadnoughts are a mighty force. Nevertheless I damaged one of them in London last turn. Another bombed Ypern and is still only one tile away. So I use my mine there and sinks him.
Another spotted on the way to Skagerrak.
But now back to the normal reports:
At sea I have to deal with strong enemy forces in the Irish sea, Channel and North sea. In the Baltic the Russian Navy was anhiliated but due to the new destroyer refounded. In the Mediterranian 2 new destroyer are the first ships of me. One of them sinks a French destroyer just off Marseilles. In the Irish sea and the North sea my Uboats sink 2 British dreadnoughts, but two boats are lost. Uboats and destroyer take out the convoy in the Channel destroying a full transport, 2 light cruiser and two destroyer.
Skopje falls after an artillery shelling. Serbia is no more! The 3rd Entente member totally occupied. And also Bukarest is after heavy fighting mine!
In Russia Kiew is taken by cavalry. My small forces I sent to take Zhitomir were ablt do do such a great deed! My corps take Odessa and Cherson. They attack also Poltawa. I have to use two damaged Kavallerie divisions to take the town.
I have to stop now. A last remar. Yes, I´m faster than the last time. But I think that´s mostly why the hundreds of Russian soldiers attacking are not here.

Adler

zeon252

Oct 23, 2004, 09:14 PM

I've played 10 turns in as Germany and I've invaded the Netherlands and captured Verdun, Calais, Nancy and all of Belgium. I've let the russians do their thing since they always get killed at the hands of my gunners.
Anyway great scenario, one of the best out there :goodjob:

Rocoteh

Oct 24, 2004, 12:30 AM

Rocoteh

Oct 24, 2004, 12:35 AM

Adler,

Thank you for the interesting report.

Do you think Russia now is to weak or do you think its strenght
is accurate?

Rocoteh

zeon252

Oct 24, 2004, 10:24 AM

zeon252,

Thank you.

I am really glad to hear that you liked TGW.

Rocoteh

Sure, I always show my praises for a great scenario.

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 24, 2004, 07:38 PM

Rocoteh

Oct 25, 2004, 01:25 AM

Just a couple of observations from the current PBEM that I am involved with. I know that in the real war, Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire were weaker compared to Germany, France, and Britain. However, I propose that techs...especially all techs up to the Great War Era be able to be TRADED, if not giving all civs all techs up to the Great War Era. I suppose that techs even in the Great War Era should be tradable in the MP version except for a few key techs such as American War Entry and also WW1 Experience.

Rail guns are much too powerful for the ease of their building. Two of my cities can produce them in 5 turns...I guess all other cities take 10 turns so this is reasonable. Still, the range of 4 bombard seems slightly unbalancing especially considering the strength. I suggest a range 3.

I still think you should be able to build coastal defense mines with movement of 1 but weaken the defense. I suggest a defense of 100 with no offense. About 3-5 times the number of shields to build as opposed to that of floating mines.

And although this is a huge advantange to me as Germany, I feel all civs except for maybe Britain should have conscription to start with. I don't know for sure, but didn't all nations except for Britain use conscription in several instances before WW1? Anyways, just a playability concern. I suppose Russian conscription could be a pain in the butt! Maybe make the city size larger (10 or so ?). I suppose metropolis could still be 13 or higher.

Well, I suppose most of the changes are up to you, but I feel that the ability to trade techs has to be made (except key techs-American War Entry & WW1 Experience) AND WITHOUT QUESTION, ALL NATIONS SHOULD START WITH ALL TECHS UP TO THE GREAT WAR ERA (Except Britain with Conscription).

BkGreatWarnut,

Yes, with regard to Multiplayer version 1.1 much more
techs will be open for trade.

Rail guns have their range set to 3 in version 1.3.
In 1.4 and Multiplayer 1.1 no artillery will have a range more than 2.

On mines with defense 100. That is OK in the MP 1.1.Will not work in
version 1.4 though, since AI will "think" its "normal" naval units
that should be attacked.

In version 1.3 all major powers except Britain, Italy and The Ottoman
Empire starts with conscription.

Britain for historical reasons. The other two due to the fact they
did not enter the war July/August 1914, but later.
However I consider to change this, so that only Britain will
start without conscription.

"ALL NATIONS SHOULD START WITH ALL TECHS UP TO THE GREAT WAR ERA (Except Britain with Conscription)."

It sounds reasonable.

Rocoteh

TGW-DIV Fast 1.0

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Rocoteh

Oct 25, 2004, 04:11 AM

Ottoman Empire November 1, 1914.

Italy May 23, 1915.

Bulgaria October 14, 1915.

Portugal March 9, 1916.

Romania August 27, 1916.

U.S.A. April 6, 1917

Rocoteh

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 25, 2004, 07:19 AM

Rail guns have their range set to 3 in version 1.3.
In 1.4 and Multiplayer 1.1 no artillery will have a range more than 2.

On mines with defense 100. That is OK in the MP 1.1.Will not work in
version 1.4 though, since AI will "think" its "normal" naval units
that should be attacked.

In version 1.3 all major powers except Britain, Italy and The Ottoman
Empire starts with conscription.

Britain for historical reasons. The other two due to the fact they
did not enter the war July/August 1914, but later.
However I consider to change this, so that only Britain will
start without conscription.

"ALL NATIONS SHOULD START WITH ALL TECHS UP TO THE GREAT WAR ERA (Except Britain with Conscription)."

I'd say leave Rail Guns with Range of 3 but maybe reduce their bombard strength some (35 down to 30) and/or make them more costly (800-900 shields?).

I knew you had to make them ridiculously high for SP, but for MP around 100 or so should work. The biggest thing that I am in favor of is the ability to build them to securely defend coastal ports (not sure on shield cost, but I suggest making them 3-5 times as costly as floating mines.

I knew Britain should have no conscription to start. And the reprsentation of entering the war later by making Italy and The Ottoman Empire start without conscritption also makes sense.

And like I said on techs...make most tradable. I advise to make sure that these techs are NOT tradable: Tear Gas (Possibly) , Dreadnoughts (Possibly), American War Entry, Chlorine Gas (Possibly), Marines, Advanced Flight, Propaganda, Kaiserschlact (Possibly) and WW1 Experience. I am debating on Tear Gas, Chlorine Gas, Dreadnoughts and Kaiserschlact...

Anyways, thanks for taking suggestions/recommendations for the MP Version. That is what I meant them for.

Regards,
BK

Rocoteh

Oct 25, 2004, 08:53 AM

"I knew you had to make them ridiculously high for SP"

Yes and it does work. Even if AI is not smart, its not so dumb
it will attack those minefields!
3-5 times the cost sounds OK.

Notes have been taken on all your ideas and suggestions.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Oct 25, 2004, 09:56 AM

Here is the rest of my turn report of turn 13:
I only placed my troops to attack for the next turns: Kirovograd, Kharkow, Nowgorod, Konstanza.
A Portuguese destroyer sinks one of mine. I loose 3 further destroyer and 2 Uboats to the British and another to the French. A Russian and two British destroyer are sunk. Nevertheless the cruiser and the battleship based in London were bombing my positions but are now in range of my fleet. Another British invasion fleet is spotted. Several Russian and also some British troops crossed the border.
Now it is my turn.

Adler

Adler17

Oct 25, 2004, 10:46 AM

Turn 14, week 43, part 1:
2 Portuguese destroyer are sunk by 2 of mine. At sea this turn seems to be a heavy fighting one, especially against destroyer. In the Mediterranian the French submarine that sunk my destroyer there was a victim of my last destroyer in this sea. The Queen Mary is torpedoed and sunk by a Uboat. A destroyer takes out an armoured cruiser escorting the invasion force.
In the east Nowgorod is taken. This means Russia is torn into two seperated parts: Finnland, St. Petersburg and the Ice Sea harbours, and the rest from Moscow to the Ural. Then Kirovograd is shelled and then taken by artillery.
I have to stop now.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 26, 2004, 01:34 AM

Adler,

Thank you for the reports.

It seems that you a great chance to knock out Russia
early in the war this time.

On Portugal:

It will start neutral in TGW-DIV 1.4.
I think that will be a better solution than the current one.
One can always hope with regard to CIV 4 that there will be possible
in the editor to write "declare war on turn X on Coalition Y" for
a given CIV.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Adler17

Oct 26, 2004, 05:01 AM

Portugal fought in the colonies earlier against the Germans. here were fights in South West Africa in 1914. IIRC a German officer was murdered in Portuguse Angola. So German troops destroyed a Portuguese fortress as revenge. In ww1 the Portuguese forces were very weak and not able to crush the Germans. Instead even with very small forces they lost fights even when they were outnumbered. Lettow- Vorbeck in East Africa was able to conquer half of Mocambique when Portugal declared war. I think they should be in as a fighting nation.
I have to admit in my fights I was very lucky. I didn´t lose any capital ship nor an offensive. Instead of being anhiliated more units than normal survived, mostly with only 1 hp. So I was able to heal them and send them back to the front. Also I have 12 corps. I use them for Blitz attacks. If I was a bit less lucky I would still be in France and Poland instead of Balcan and Russia. Nevertheless I have normal mobilisation and not full one.
The units are okay in so far (except MG gunners; especially Serbains).

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 26, 2004, 05:16 AM

Adler17

Oct 26, 2004, 09:15 AM

Hmm, okay, make them neutral.

Adler

Adler17

Oct 26, 2004, 10:39 AM

I just finished the turn. I had to use every soldier available to stop the Russian offensive. Nevertheless they are beaten and my corps can take Dnepropetrovsk (sp???). But so the naval invasion of Finnland has to wait... In the Baltic and channel were tough Naval actions sinking many allied ships, including a dreadnought. Now the PC:
The British retreat the battlecruiser from London. A British battleship attacks my battlefleet and is sunk by SMS König. They sink a Uboat off Brest but lose 2 destroyer (the last one has only 1 HP and is sunk by one of my destroyer). The Russians send over a dozen divisions to the front, mostly cossacks.
Now it is over to me.

Adler

Adler17

Oct 26, 2004, 10:46 AM

A short addition: Constanta and Sevastopol are taken without any problems.

Adler

Rocoteh

Oct 26, 2004, 12:44 PM

Adler,

It seems like Russia is in heavy trouble!

Collapse within 15-20 weeks?

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 27, 2004, 01:35 AM

The different versions of TGW and TGW-DIV have been
downloaded 6 548 times! I do not know if it is a record but it
is very good stats. TGW was launched January 25 this year.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Adler17

Oct 27, 2004, 09:32 AM

I have now ended the turn. Indeed Russia is in severe trouble. Last turn harkov fell. I had heavier losses than expected but I had no artillery in range. Nevertheless with Kharkov I was able to take Orel and Tula with Corps and Cavalry. then I took on the same way Moscow, which was not very well defended. Rjäsan was the next city to be conquered. The I destroyed the remaining Russian units on my territory.
The fight at sea was heavier. I could sink two British dreadnoughts with Uboats with the loss of one Uboat (one of them was shelled by artillery before), Uboats could also sink 2 British battlecruiser. My destroyer squadrons in the Biscay could sink 1 Portuguese destroyer and submarine and a French submarine with no losses.
In Italy I shelled Turin and could kill a MG gunner with a R division (only one HP of the MG gunner was left).
In the East I send 10 divisions on their way to St. Petersburg.
The PC was very weak this time. Britain sent a dreadnought and two battlecruiser from Portsmouth into the North sea and a british invasion force consisting of a dreadnought, a battlecruiser, a destroyer and a transport appear off Brest. The Protuguese make a fierce destroyer fight but mine is victorious. Also 4 French destroyer appear. And there are the French subs...

Adler

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 27, 2004, 06:42 PM

Rocoteh

Oct 28, 2004, 12:14 AM

Adler,

Thank you for the very interesting report.

I am looking forward to follow what happens next.

If Russia do collapse an very early victory should be possible.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Oct 28, 2004, 12:18 AM

I'd say that Adler should see if he could play as well against an AI who effectively uses Artillery, Corps, and better manages his/her Navy.

Also, Rocotech, I was just thinking...it would be relatively easy to put in names of Great War Generals/Leaders in the box instead of names like "Napoleon" or "Barbarossa." It would add a further touch of realism and even be somewhat historically educational. There is a list of each countries key leaders at http://www.firstworldwar.com/index.htm. I will post some of them for you and you can let me know what you think...

BK

BkGreatWarnut,

Adler is a very competent player.

On names for Generals/Leaders.

That is a very good idea. Notes have been taken.
I will implement it in the next version.
Thank you for the link.

Yes, post them.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Rocoteh

Oct 28, 2004, 06:59 AM

TGW-DIV Fast 1.0 is doing very well in terms of downloads
despite that the fact there are still no link on the front-page
of this thread to the scenario.

I hope that there soon will be comments and/or playtest-reports
on this very fast version of TGW-DIV.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.0:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

CellKu

Oct 28, 2004, 10:18 AM

It's great to hear that TGW-Div Fast is appreciated. I hope that someone could comment on it - especially those with a slow pcs who can really observe the differences.

CellKu

Rocoteh

Oct 29, 2004, 12:38 AM

It's great to hear that TGW-Div Fast is appreciated. I hope that someone could comment on it - especially those with a slow pcs who can really observe the differences.

CellKu

Since TGW was released January 25 this year people
have posted in this thread, now and then declaring TGW
have to long load time and waiting time between turns.
Some even said TGW was uninteresting to play due to
the waiting time.

CellKu resized the map and made TGW-DIV Fast 1.0 possible.
On 512 MB RAM, 1.2 Ghz Celeron load time was reduced from 21 minutes
to 4 minutes. Waiting time is now less than 1 minute.

Thus I hope there will be reactions on this very fast version.
(Including reactions from them that earlier said TGW was to slow.)

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Rhye

Oct 29, 2004, 06:56 AM

Adler17

Oct 29, 2004, 08:51 AM

BK, we all know the incapabilities of the AI. Of course I would have much more problems then.
Now I have turn 17, week 46. My troops will next turn attack Petrograd and Helsinki, but now I took Turin. I shelled it and so killed one MG gunner per turn until the last died. The AI did nothing against it. Oh I have to stop now.

Adler

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 29, 2004, 12:48 PM

I was trying to get you to ask about joining/starting a game...I love playing WW1 scenarios, in particular TGW series against human opponents. Plus, I am in a very unfavorable position right now as Germany in the PBEM I am currently playing...Overextended early on and it kicked me in the butt. However, the territory you have covered is still very, very impressive. Perhaps I should ask you for some advice.

Anyways, I suppose I would want to wait until the next multiplayer version is available to start another one, not to mention finishing or getting close to finishing the one I am currently playing. Either way, if you think that you would eventually have time to play in a PBEM, let me know.

BK

Post of General Names (especially the playable Civs Generals) to come soon!

Rocoteh

Oct 30, 2004, 01:08 AM

Thank you!!!

Rhye,

I hope you will like the fast version.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Adler17

Oct 30, 2004, 04:25 AM

Adler17

Oct 30, 2004, 05:18 AM

I continue my report of yesterday:
Spain declared war on Portugal! The allies declare war on Spain. This means I have a clear back in France. Other meanings will show me the time...
In the Biskay I can send 2 battlecruiser to intercept the convoy consisting of a BB a BC a DD and a TR. The battleships and the battlecruiser are sunk (SMS Von der Tann sinks HMS Indefatigable!). The rest is sunk by a destroyer and a Uboat. Off Belfast an elite Uboat sinks a British dreadnought. The huge RN is now only consisting of 2 Dreadnoughts and 4 destroyer and two transports.
In Italy I attack with my corps. So Genua and Milano are taken.
I must stop now.

Adler
In Finnland Helsinki is attacked by my forces: The Marines kill the fortrss division. Then I land two infantry divisions and go further.

Rocoteh

Oct 30, 2004, 06:27 AM

dreadknought

Oct 30, 2004, 09:07 AM

Adler,

Its positive that an elite Uboat now can sink a dreadnought.

That was my intention.
It should give players a reason to build destroyers.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV Fast 1.0:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2272400#post2272400

Hi Rocoteh, I dont know the assigned ship movements in this scenario but in a scenario Im playing in I find I really like to have the very large powerful ships (dreadknoughts-carriers-pre-dreads) move 1 less than the destroyers-submarines and that the ai builds destroyers more with those conditions. It makes the smaller ships much more useful to have the extra movement over the larger ships and the ai seems to adapt to this well with its destroyers. It actually helps the ai gain a naval advantage in some areas as ai destroyers destroyers are harder to catch, and thus the human player cant just build the big warships and mass them. It changes the entire strategic build planning for the navies and help the ai play better.

In doing this though, I would give the larger ships an extra hitpoint.

Its better to think of ships as LARGER=STONGER=SLOWER / SMALLER=WEAKER=FASTER. This is the formula the ai can adapt to.

By forcing the human player to deal with a class of faster ships it diverts time he would have been building just dreadknoughts (big ships). Its hard to make the ai fight well with its navy but this change helps quite a bit at least making the faster part of the ai navy around longer. Of course you can still hunt down these quicker destroyers with subs and that requires you build more subs. Subs should have a very nice off. stat but little defense.

I still advocate overall large ships move at a rate of 2 and smaller faster ships move at 3---all pre-modern ships at 2. This keeps ships in the same area longer and adds strategy to the game. It greatly helps the ai in several ways.

ai masses ships better (keeps them in the same area)

human cant quickly move all its navy to different fronts thus makes you keep defensive ships in more areas

ai gets more time to re-build its forces as you re-deploy yours
thus its harder to destroy the ai forces as it takes longer to reach them

meaning you cant fight the entire war with just 1 large stack of ships (or a couple) and you must build a bigger variety to cope with the ai

You tend to see ships more spread out and in smaller groups with the slower movement

The ai tends to have a better chance to win these more spread out battles

ai destroyers are very pesky to deal with (movement 3)---subs more useful

Likewise transports that move 2 are more vulnerable to subs-destroyers and I would require an escort for enemy transports. I do like to up the transport amount to 3-4 though so you dont need quite as many.

These are just some thoughts to chew on for future scenario editions. I like to give you the best possible ai information available as you work very hard on so many scenarios and I know you like to see the ai navies more effective on the battlefield.

regards ......dreadknought

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 30, 2004, 09:52 AM

Sorry BK I have very little time now. An advice. First try to be victorious in France. Taking France is one key. You have then many troops free for the east or elsewhere. The Russians do not attack with the numbers in earlier versions. The Hochseeflotte is a potent opponent to the British fleet. A clash between these giants will ever be a good chance to get rid of the enemy ships.

Adler

I did very well in the first week of the war capturing Liege, Brussels, Antwerp, Ypres, and Calais (Corps are awesome...especially in MP!). However, as I started my push into France the British reinforced their troops their. When I was near Arras, I realized my stack would never take the city so I retreated. I also then tried to destroy a few French stacks between Metz & Nancy but lost many troops (15+ Divisions).

During the 6 week of the war the British launched what was a very effective offensive easily recapturing Calais and 2 weeks later taking Ypres (Where he captured all of my Arty :( . I had 14 Inf Div defending, but British A Inf has 2 movement points and he had 20+ Divisions to attack with.

Knowing that he had used the Royal Navy in both the 2nd Battle of Calais and the 2nd Battle of Ypres I sent the High Seas Fleet to attack him because he was most likely going to bombard Antwerp. Unfortunately, he was keeping his fleet in the English Channel and in order to get a chance to hit him I had to get within 3 squares of Antwerp. He spotted the High Seas Fleet with a Destroyer and after the loss of 8 Dreadnoughts he had defeated all 14 of my Dreadnoughts.

So now I have no real navy (the Baltic Fleet & some 1914 Subs/Destroyers) and am faced with an immenent threat of a combined British & French Offensive in the West. Meanwhile in the East, Russia has been able to hit every preparatory offensive (repairing roads & railroads before I have even started them). I guess you would need a copy of the save to really give effective advice...plus if I give you too much more info and an Entente member checks out this forum he would know too much!!! Thanks for the advice though...I am hoping I can halt and push back the British & French Offensive soon!!! Otherwise this war might be much shorter than it was in real life!!!

BK

LouLong

Oct 30, 2004, 10:04 AM

plus if I give you too much more info and an Entente member checks out this forum he would know too much!!!
BK

Now who would dare to do that ! :p

And hopefully the war will be shorter otherwise we will still be playing it in 2 years !!

Sarevok

Oct 30, 2004, 10:36 AM

Ok, ive put that fast version on the front page Rocoteh :)

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 30, 2004, 10:58 AM

And hopefully the war will be shorter otherwise we will still be playing it in 2 years !!

I don't mind the war being shorter...actually for me to win it has to be done by about 1917 (American War Entry), but I want to WIN!!! Right now things don't look the best...

Rocoteh

Oct 31, 2004, 02:05 AM

Adler17

Oct 31, 2004, 08:23 AM

BK, what Version do you play? And concerning the Uboat I was VERY lucky that it was victorious. Infact I ever lost at least one veteran boat before when attacking with Uboats.
I suggest you play the newest version BK. Also it is very usefull to bomb a city first, when there are heavy defenders in like MG gunner. Or you have at least Elite divisions or corps...

Adler

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 31, 2004, 10:31 AM

I only play the Multiplayer Version now. It is too easy to just fight the AI cause all you have to do is bombard the crap out of a position then attack it with a large stack and a corp or two...

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 31, 2004, 10:54 AM

WW1 Leaders (Full name, Position held):

-German Military Commanders:
August von Mackensen, Field Marshal
Remus von Woyrsch, Field Marshal
Berthold von Deimling, Field Marshall
Otto von Below, General
Fritz von Below, General
Karl von Bulow, General
Felix von Bothmer, General
Duke Albrecht, General
Hermann von Eichhorn, General
Karl von Einem, General
Hermann von Francois, General
Alexander von Freytag-Loringhoven, Dep Chf of Gen. Staff
Max von Gallwitz, General
Baron von der Goltz, Field Marshal (Turkish Army)
Wilhelm Groener, General
Max Klemens von Hausen, General
Josias von Heeringen, General
Max Hoffmann, General
Oskar von Hutier, General
Alexander von Kluck, General
Kress von Kressenstein, General
Prince Leopold of Bavaria, General
Otto Liman von Sanders, General
Alexander von Linsingen, General
Georg von der Marwitz, General
Maximilian von Prittwitz, General
Ferdinand von Quast, General
Hans von Seeckt, Chief of General Staff

Next to come is France...

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 31, 2004, 10:59 AM

WW1 Leaders (Full name, Position held):

-French Military Commanders:
Francois Anthoine, General
Jean Augagneur, Minister of Marine
Noel de Castelnau, General
Marie-Eugene Debeney, General
Franchet d'Esperey, Marshal
Auguste Dubail, General
Pierre Dubois, General
Denis Auguste Duchene, General
Marie Fayolle, General
Joseph Gallieni, General
Fernand de Langle de Cary, General
Charles Lanrezac, General
Paul Maistre, General
Charles Mangin, General
Louis Maud'huy, General
Michel Maunoury, General
Joseph Alfred Micheler, General
Paul Pau, General
Pierre Ruffey, General
Maurice Sarrail, General
Maxime Weygand, Chief of Staff

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 31, 2004, 11:13 AM

WW1 Leaders (Full name, Position held):

-British Military Commanders:
Arthur Edward Aitken, General
Sir Edwin Alderson, General
Sir Edmund Allenby, Commander-in-Chief, Palestine
Sir William Birdwood, General
Sir Louis Jean Bols, General
Walter Braithwaite, General
Edward Bulfin, General
Sir Julian Byng, General
John Charteris, General
Sir Philip Chetwode, Field Marshal
Sir Alexander Cobbe, General
Sir John Cowans, Quartermaster-General
Sir Henry de Beauvoir de Lisle, General
Sir Charles Dobell, General
Lionel Dunsterville, General
Bernard Freyberg, General
Sir Alexander Godley, General
George Gorringe, General
Richard Haking, General
Sir Alexander Hamilton Gordon, General
Charles Harington, Deputy Chief of Imperial General Staff
Sir Henry Horne, General
Archibald Hunter, General
Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, General
Hugh Jeudwine, General
Sir Launcelot Kiggell, Chief of Staff to Douglas Haig
Sir Percival Lake, General
Frederick Lambart, General
Sir William Marshall, Commander-in-Chief, Mesopotamia
Sir Frederick Maude, Commander-in-Chief, Mesopotamia
Sir Frederick Maurice, General
Sir Ivor Maxse, General
Sir John Maxwell, General
Sir George Milne, Field Marshal
Lord Alfred Milner, Minister of War
Sir Charles Monro, Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean
Sir Archibald Murray, Commander-in-Chief, Palestine
Sir John Nixon, Commander-in-Chief, Mesopotamia
Lord Plumer, Field Marshal
Sir Henry Rawlinson, General
Sir William Robertson, Chief of Imperial General Staff
Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, General
Sir Nevill Maskelyne Smyth, General
Sir Frederick Stopford, General
Sir Ernest Swinton, General
Sir Charles Townshend, General

Seems the Brits had quite a few on the web page!

BkGreatWarnut

Oct 31, 2004, 11:16 AM

I will do the other remaing powers soon. The rest of the lists should not be quite nearly as long. I guess either pick several of the names from the abover list based on whom sounds somewhat familiar as I do not have the patience or time to rank their actual importance of the war. I suppose you would want a fairly long list anyways...at least 10 if not more for each countires Great Military Leaders List.

Rocoteh

Oct 31, 2004, 05:16 PM

BkGreatWarnut,

This really looks good!

Thank you.

This will be implemented in the next version
of TGW-DIV.

Rocoteh

dreadknought

Oct 31, 2004, 07:14 PM

dreadnought.

Thank you for the very interesting ideas.

I have taken notes on them all.

I have made a special file for TGW-DIV 1.4 which I will
go through when work starts on that version.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Sounds good, Im very involved in a long game that Im having fun with but I hope to work with you again in the future. Your historical knowledge is very impressive and your dedication to this game is amazing.

Rocoteh

Oct 31, 2004, 11:56 PM

Sounds good, Im very involved in a long game that Im having fun with but I hope to work with you again in the future. Your historical knowledge is very impressive and your dedication to this game is amazing.

dreadknought,

Thank you.

Yes that would be interesting.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 01, 2004, 04:03 AM

For some reason many people miss the links to
the 3 versions of TGW-DIV on the front page.

I have now changed Post 3 to include links to the
different versions.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Adler17

Nov 01, 2004, 11:22 AM

I would add as German commander Paul von Lettow- Vorbeck, general. If Aitken is in this list Lettow- Vorbeck is a must!

Adler

BkGreatWarnut

Nov 01, 2004, 11:43 AM

I would add as German commander Paul von Lettow- Vorbeck, general. If Aitken is in this list Lettow- Vorbeck is a must!

Adler

Since you are German and therefore probably have far better knowledge of German History, I'll agree with you. I was just going based upon what was posted at the web site mentioned in one of my previous posts.

I have a Geography paper to write by the end of the week and am very active in several PBEMs, but the Russian, Austrian, Italian, and Ottoman Lists are all soon to come...

surferbob644

Nov 01, 2004, 01:25 PM

Rocoteh

Nov 01, 2004, 10:58 PM

Okay, I know this one is on me but I don't know how. I've subscribed to this thread because TGW is a great scenario and I wanted to keep up to date. I tried playing TGW-DIV Fast but while loading I got "Text\PediaIcons.Text": ANIMNAME_PRTO_ENDEN is missing. ???? I downloaded TGW-DIV 1.3 so I'm not sure where I went wrong. Please correct my bearings. A Big Fan.

surferbob644,

Have you installed the TGW-DIV Folder?

TGW-DIV Fast 1.0 will only work with the TGW-DIV Folder
installed. Thus it will not work with the TGW-folder.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 02, 2004, 10:25 AM

Since you are German and therefore probably have far better knowledge of German History, I'll agree with you. I was just going based upon what was posted at the web site mentioned in one of my previous posts.

I have a Geography paper to write by the end of the week and am very active in several PBEMs, but the Russian, Austrian, Italian, and Ottoman Lists are all soon to come...

BkGreatWarnut,

I appreciate your help with this.
Credits will be given.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 03, 2004, 12:38 AM

Right now I am working with WW2-Global to get
it complete for download November 15.

After that I will make the new multiplayer-version
of TGW-DIV.

My question to multiplayers thus:

Do you think a MP-version of TGW-DIV 1.3 should
have priority, or should a MP-version of TGW-DIV Fast 1.0
have priority instead?

Rocoteh

Dazz_G

Nov 03, 2004, 03:42 PM

Rocoteh

Nov 04, 2004, 01:45 AM

I would say give 1.3 MP priority ... the main reason, if I understand it correctly, for a Fast version was to cut down waiting time between turns for those with slower PCs ... in my mind, this is immaterial - in PBEMS there is no waiting time other than waiting for other humans to play and I would imagine that most people who play turn based MP etc. probably would have more powerful machines anyway ( could be wrong on that though ) to cope with their personal gaming preferences as that type of game probably needs faster machines to be able to stop things grinding to a halt.

Besides, I like the large theatre of operations and would like to see the new MP version to retain all current areas of operation as per 1.3 Div MP.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

Dazz_G,

Yes I agree. As you say waiting time between turns is
not relevant in multiplayer games.

Also: In the fast version the Ottoman Empire is almost
reduced to an minor power. That is not good for an MP-game.

Thus, TGW-DIV 1.3 will probably be the base for the new
multiplayer version.

Work will start after the release of WW2-Global November 15.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Nov 04, 2004, 04:40 AM

Do you use the units for SOE also in ww2 global?

Adler

Rocoteh

Nov 04, 2004, 04:57 AM

Do you use the units for SOE also in ww2 global?

Adler

Adler,

Yes I do.
Most of the custom units in WW2 Global have been done
by Wyrmshadow or ripptide.

I also try to replace most of Firaxis standard naval units
with Wyrmshadows graphics, since these in my opinion
are clearly superior.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Nov 04, 2004, 06:22 AM

In week 47, turn 18, I had three setbacks. I took Florenz and Tver, but my forces attacking Saloniki, Helsinki and St. Petersburg were way too small. Helsinki was left with only one garrison the last turn so I attacked with only two further. Nevertheless the Russians had now 4 units in. Even my marines couldn´t take the town due to this damn conscript. So I made a full landing. My planned invasion of Vaasa had to be postponed. The resistance of the other two were uderestimated. Nevertheless in Petersburg are only conscript divisions defending. Next turn I should be able to take the city with my divisions left there. In Saloniki however I could kill one of the MG gunners but lost two divisions. the rest of my divisions are now fortified awaiting the 20 divisions I sent. They will attack in two turns.
In Italy I sent via Austria a huge group of 25 divisions to take Venedig. 3 more corps I sent additionally. The fight at sea was not worth to be mentioned. Some French ships were sunk.
The Spanish send a small convoy to England while the English sink one of my Uboats. The Russians also attack with some cossacks. I lose an armoured car. The Arabs seem to be in trouble. They lost at least 2 cities.

Adler

Rocoteh

Nov 04, 2004, 11:30 PM

Adler,

Thank you for the report.

Do you have any info on how much is left of the Russian army?

Rocoteh

Adler17

Nov 05, 2004, 06:57 AM

Pkay, I can give you the OOB of the nations where I have spies in:
First myself (Germany)
6 predreadnoughts
7 transports
1 submarine
19 destroyer
11 Biplanes (not very usefull since the PC doesn´t bult planes :( )
16 corps
4 armoured cruiser
1 FlaK
3 siege guns
10 alliance MG gunner
12 light cuiser
5 Battlecruiser (the time for the technological advance is way too long)
8 armoured cars
2 railguns
12 flamethrower
106 A divisions
117 R divisions
13 Kavallerie
10 Landwehr
11 artillery (210 mm)
3 fortress divisions
1 coastal battery (I suggest a few more batteries at Helgoland)
3 garrison
11 minefields
16 floating mines
7 German MG gunner
1 German marine
39 1914 submarines
9 1914 destroyer
4 Nassau BB
4 Helgoland BB
5 Kaiser BB
10 König BB

Greece:
4 worker
1 transport
3 destroyer
1 light artillery
11 Entente infantry
25 entente MG gunner
4 combat engineer
5 1914 destroyer

Italy:
7 worker
10 cavalry
1 transport
11 destroyer
10 A divisions
17 MG gunner
1 R division
1 Conte di Cavour BB

Russia:
11 worker
2 submarines
10 destroyer
11 cossacks
33 frotress divisions
4 A divisions
24 R divisions

France:
7 worker
1 predreadnought
2 transport
2 submarines
8 destroyer
1 armoured cruiser
1 light artillery
24 MG gunner
28 R divisions
4 semi dreadnoughts
8 garrison
3 French colonial troops
4 Courbet BB

Britain:
24 worker
1 cavalry
1 transport
4 destroyer
2 Corps
4 FlaK
1 light artillery
2 British infantry
43 MG gunner
3 observation planes
1 armoured car
1 fortress division
37 A divisions
10 R divisions
12 garrisons
4 Iron Duke BB
5 Indian Infantries
1 Canadian

End of turn 19, week 48.

In this turn I was able to take finally Petrograd, Helsinki, Viipuri (Wyborg), Voronesh, Tambow, Penza and Venice in Italy. My troops are attacking Rome, Saloniki and Taganrog the very next turn. Additionally I am advancing on Nishny Nowgorod and cetral Finland. Also I sent a invasion fleet to take Scapa Flow. 5 1914 destroyer 4 destroyer, 4 light cruiser, 1 battlecruiser and 5 battleships escorting 2 transports. This should be enough... Also I destroyed a British landing force with a transport escorted by a battleship. Also I sent several divisions through Spain to take Portugal.
The Spanish seem to invade Ireland. At least their convoy is en route. Some British battleships, one of them just in fron of the torpedo tubes of a Uboat :D. Some Russians attack.
That´s it for now.

Adler

Rocoteh

Nov 05, 2004, 11:39 AM

Adler,

Thank you.

I agree: Battlecruiser research must be corrected.

The unit lists also show that corrections must be done
so AI cease with its "build MG gunner units only" policy.

Rocoteh

BkGreatWarnut

Nov 05, 2004, 03:17 PM

One comment on Machine Gunners...I think that the AI building primarily Machine Gunners is very accurate...especially considering Adler has them on the Defensive...That has been my primary production as of the last 5 or so turns as Germany in the PBEM that is being played. The defense combined with bombard before attack is extremely tough to defeat...especially if one can survive to elite status!

As far as techs for the which ever version of multi player you make I think they should be a little bit faster. Average should be around 8-10...Leave max at 26...techs are just way too slow in multiplayer. That or as I mentioned earlier and you acknowledged, you can leave them as they are and just make most tradeable. I suppose that would through off the correct timing of events and even hinder Germany's abilities, but it would speed up the game some.

Also, TGW v1.3 should be the basis for the newest MP version since turn time is not an issue when playing PBEM games which are the only ones that I think anyone in their right mind would try to play for this scenario.

Rocoteh

Nov 06, 2004, 01:19 AM

Adler17

Nov 06, 2004, 05:29 AM

The MG gunners are produced too much, especially in countries which were not so indutrialized.
In the 20th turn, week 49, 1914, I was able to take Taganrog, Rostow, Saratow, Saloniki and Rome. The next turn I attack Naples, Bari, Nishny Nowgorod and Tzaritsyn, the new Russian Capital. My Troops are also en route to attack Samara, Novorossiysk and Yannina. Russia is de facto defeated!
At sea I was able to bomb the French semi dreadnought Voltaire, which was finished off by my destroyer in the Med. In the North sea I lost a Uboat to a British dreadnought. Nevertheless another Uboat sunk it and became Elite. At the western entrance of the Channel the Kaiser sunk another British battleship.
The Spanish land a single division on Ireland and then declared war on me!!! Their destroyer attacks one of my Uboats but is sunk! Did they lose their conscience?!?
Some Russians attack and the French bomb Rome.
Now it is my turn.

Adler

Rocoteh

Nov 06, 2004, 09:19 AM

Rocoteh

Nov 07, 2004, 01:56 AM

I hope I will complete WW2 Global November 15.

Then I will make TGW-DIV Multiplayer 1.1.
Should Sarevok be short on time I am prepared to take
over Barbarossa 1.2.

As some of you know I also have a World War III project
60% completed. I should like to finish that project.

There are many interesting aspects:

US have 7 620 M1A and M1A2 tanks.

The regular US Army consists of 10 divisions (3 brigades each)
and 3 independent brigades. These units have 1 900 tanks deployed.

The US National Guard have 10 divisions and 17 independent brigades.
These units have 1 800 tanks deployed. Then as you can see about
50% of the US tank force is in reserve for the so called:
"come as you are war".
That is: The next war shall be won with forces on hand.

Now in my coming WW III scenario, how do you reflect all
those US tanks in reserve?
My plan is to give US units (Armour and Mechanized) a large
number of HP-points.

Scenario will probably start 2008-2010.
One reason is that US Army just have started the largest
reorganization in 50 years!
Soon 39 Artillery battalions and 10 Air-Defense battalions
will cease to exist!
That will give each of the existing regular divisions one
more combat brigade.
The logic behind this is "that US do not need AD-units anymore".
With regard to Artillery the thought is that the Air Force can
do the job instead.

In some way I hope I can simulate the above in the scenario.

Rocoteh

CellKu

Nov 07, 2004, 04:49 AM

Rocoteh

Nov 07, 2004, 06:50 AM

Rocoteh, great to hear that you are still thinking about completing your WWIII scenario! :) Will it be on brigade level?
With the air force becoming more important, it seems that you have to give bombers quite a lot of power. As it should be a WWIII scenario, who will be the major opponents, beside the U.S.?
CellKu

CellKu,

WWI started with corps as the basic unit. When WWII started
division had become the basic unit. The unit one counted a nations
military strenght in. Number of divisions are always more
interesting than stats like nation x had an army of 200 000 troops.
This is because a so large part of modern armies are non-combat
troops. Thus during the Vietnam war US reached a "teeth to tail ratio"
of 20/80. That is: Only 20% of the US soldiers were in combat formations.

The large reorganization of the US army that now have started
indicates that the brigade soon will be the new basic unit.

Thus US and some NATO nations will have the brigade as basic unit.
Germany can for example after mobilization only field 6 "real" divisions!
France and Italy even less.

The gigantic importance of airpower will be reflected.

Since China still is a weak military power (Thousands of obsolete tanks
and an Army at 1985 level is not military strenght.
Remember the Gulf War 1991.) I assume a reunited Soviet in a
strategic alliance with China. The new leader in the reunited Soviet
is something of a new Stalin.

Rocoteh

CellKu

Nov 07, 2004, 08:14 AM

Rocoteh, thanks for the info! That is really interesting! So, do the other nations turn to the brigade, as well?
Do you also consider NBC-weapons - countries striving for atomic bombs etc.?

CellKu

Rocoteh

Nov 07, 2004, 08:53 AM

Rocoteh, thanks for the info! That is really interesting! So, do the other nations turn to the brigade, as well?
Do you also consider NBC-weapons - countries striving for atomic bombs etc.?

CellKu

CellKu,

Since I want to restrict the number units I think only these
nations will have brigades:

USA,Canada,Australia, Britain, France,Germany,Italy, Spain
and Sweden.

Edit: Nukes will only be available to those nations
that have them 2004.

Rocoteh

CellKu

Nov 07, 2004, 04:24 PM

Rocoteh

Nov 08, 2004, 12:21 AM

Thanks for the information, Rocoteh. Sorry that I went off-topic, but I got so interested. Perhaps, you could start a kind of preview thread in the main C&C-forum? :) To keep people (like me) from asking TGW-unrelated questions ;) and of cause to enhance interest in the WW3 scenario. :)

CellKu

CellKu,

Now and then I will give info about the WWIII scenario.

To be honest I am skeptical concerning preview-threads.
For example I think that in general TGW took damage
from the preview-thread on it. I had to veto and stop
an idea that would have meant TGW had been a
Regimental-size scenario!!! (= 4x the number of units in TGW-DIV).

Also: The preview-thread on "The Rise of Wei" in fact killed
the TKK-scenario.

I have read many preview-threads. Some 90% of those
who post some idea or opinion there never show
up when the scenario is released!

Rocoteh

Adler17

Nov 08, 2004, 08:32 AM

Rocoteh

Nov 08, 2004, 09:30 AM

Rocoteh, what about Germany and Japan. Do they have nukes or not? Infact both nations have the knowhow and technology to build up a nuclear arsenal very fast. But they decided not to do it. Nevertheless in Japan there are voices to build up a nuclear program because of the despot Kim Yong Il. In Germany the JaboG 33 has Tornados in the role of a nuclear bomber, although the warheads are under US administration. I suggest to give both the ability to build the bomb but no warheads.

Adler

Adler,

I agree. Germany and Japan will start the scenario without
nukes, but will be able to build them.

I really hope that I will find time to complete this scenario
since I have all the research that is needed.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Nov 08, 2004, 10:39 AM

In turn 20, week 50 I was able to take Tsarytsin. Then my two cavalry corps were able to take Astrakhan in a brave attack defeating two fortress divisions. Now Russia is divided into three parts: A Finnish one without Helsinki and Viipuri (Wyborg) but with Archangelsk and Murmansk, an Ural one with Kazan, Samara, Ufa, Serapul, Perm, Izhevsk and Magnitogorsk and a Caucasian one with Stavropol, Novorossiysk, Vladikawkas, Petrowsk, Derbent, Batum, Tiflis, Karsk, Yerewan, Tiflis and the Capital Baku.
In Italy I was able to take Naples and Bari. This breakthrough gave me the opportunity to take also Lecce and Taranto. The Italian Peninsula is in my hands!
In Spain my invasion force for Portugal was near Pamplona, well, the town is mine.
At sea I was able to sink two British battleships off London and a further was torpedoed in the Irish sea. Unfortunately I lost three U-boats there. The Portuguese are losing their minefields to my destroyer and also the Spanish transport, which brought a single unit to Ireland is sunk.
Next turn I will attack Saragossa, Yannina, Kazan, Samara and Stavropol. Additionally I make a naval assault on Scapa Flow. Also my forces are advancing on Novorossiysk and Central Finland. 25 units are now in reserve. I won´t use them this turn because no city is near to attack. I have to wait. When Spain and the Iberian Peninsula is mine I will invade Britain.
I have now 149.495 Victory points.
The Spanish attack on Cork is a complete failure. The British sink a U-boat by a dreadnought, but is damaged heavily. Another is stopping just in front of a U-boat. The Russians attack desperately with no success. The Greeks return to their home base when they saw my troops nearing Yannina.
It is now my turn. I do have 150.545 VP.

Adler

CellKu

Nov 08, 2004, 04:16 PM

CellKu,

Now and then I will give info about the WWIII scenario.

To be honest I am skeptical concerning preview-threads.
For example I think that in general TGW took damage
from the preview-thread on it. I had to veto and stop
an idea that would have meant TGW had been a
Regimental-size scenario!!! (= 4x the number of units in TGW-DIV).

Also: The preview-thread on "The Rise of Wei" in fact killed
the TKK-scenario.

I have read many preview-threads. Some 90% of those
who post some idea or opinion there never show
up when the scenario is released!

Rocoteh
You have a point here. :blush: I forgot to think about the additional site-effects: It is not always helpful to have too many people involved. And those really committed to the scenario will give their opinion while playing it.

CellKu

Rocoteh

Nov 08, 2004, 11:27 PM

You have a point here. :blush: I forgot to think about the additional site-effects: It is not always helpful to have too many people involved. And those really committed to the scenario will give their opinion while playing it.

CellKu

CellKu,

I think there should be a special preview-section.
Right now previews are "drowned" in the general C&C.
In such section people also could launch not completed
test-scenarios to get feedback.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 08, 2004, 11:32 PM

Adler,

Thank you for your reports.
I read them with great interest.

I think it must be nearly impossible to win faster as
Germany than you will do this time.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Adler17

Nov 09, 2004, 09:20 AM

Turn 21, week 51:
Yannina, Saragossa (heavy casualities due to the lack of artillery), Kazan, Samarra, Stavropol and Vladikawkas were taken. I lost two U- boats to a British dreadnought, but that was finally sunk by a third. In the next turn I will attack Scapa Flow, Ufa, Novorossiysk and hopefully Barcelona. Also troops are nearing central Finland, Izhevsk, Petrovsk, Kars and Batum. Also I will make a Naval assault on Vaasa.
The Brits sink a destroyer, bomb Cherbourg and my troops near Scapa Flow.
Now it is my turn.

Adler

CellKu

Nov 09, 2004, 01:14 PM

CellKu,

I think there should be a special preview-section.
Right now previews are "drowned" in the general C&C.
In such section people also could launch not completed
test-scenarios to get feedback.

Rocoteh
A preivew section would be nice and probably used by many. I have seen a lot of "test-scenarios" in the main forum. However, the probability that such a sub-forum will be implemented is not that high.

CellKu

Rocoteh

Nov 10, 2004, 02:48 AM

Rocoteh

Nov 10, 2004, 02:51 AM

A preivew section would be nice and probably used by many. I have seen a lot of "test-scenarios" in the main forum. However, the probability that such a sub-forum will be implemented is not that high.

CellKu

CellKu,

I do agree.

However one can always hope for a sub-forum.
The problem with "drowning" of preview-threads is clear.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Rocoteh

Nov 11, 2004, 03:06 AM

Since WW2 Global have been delayed, it will also
mean TGW-DIV Multiplayer 1.1 will be delayed.

Its my goal that both TGW-DIV Multiplayer and
Barbarossa shall be released before this year ends.

Still no answer on PM send to Sarevok, but as I
have stated earlier : Should he be short on time I am
prepared to take over BRB 1.2.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Rocoteh

Nov 11, 2004, 03:09 PM

Multiplayer 1.1: cancelled.

The reason for that is general conclusion-comments
in the MP-thread that is overall negative.

Time I can allocate to CIV is restricted.
MP-versions only interest 10% of those who play
the basic scenario.

Thus when I have to save time versions disliked
goes to the axe first!

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

BkGreatWarnut

Nov 12, 2004, 06:02 AM

That is very disappointing to hear...

Rocotech, I would happily work on improving the MP 1.1 Version with your approval. Especially since the major changes required are that of the rules. If you see this as a viable option, please e-mail me any notes that you have on both Div 1.3 (or latest) and from previous play of MP 1.0.

Thanks,
BK

Edit: E-mail is bmklee at svsu dot edu

Rocoteh

Nov 12, 2004, 07:02 AM

BkGreatWarnut,

With all repcect, but I do not want any spin-offs done
on Sarevok/Rocoteh scenarios.

There are several reasons for that. One is that people
have "loaned" research to their scenarios from us without giving credit.

Another reason refers to things that occured long ago
at CFC. I do not want to dig in old wounds but it also
have impact.

Thus should I in the future change my mind, (and make a new MP) I do
not want to abstain from that since I give away the option now.

Edit: You can of course always make a personal version and share
that with people you want to have in a multiplayer game.
Thus I here define "spin-off" setting such a version up for download.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Rocoteh

Nov 13, 2004, 01:37 AM

According to "view public profile" Sarevok now have not
visited CFC for 14 days. None of the PM:s I have sent him have been read.

Thus: Should Sarevok have decided to take a time-out
from CIV-related things or worse have quitted CFC I must change
the "production-schedule" for all projects I am working with.
However November 25 still stands as target date for WW2 Global.

Should this month pass and Sarevok is still away I must assume
he has quitted CFC. In such a case the CIV-community have lost
one of its most talented scenario-creators.

If this should occur I will in early December tell which projects
that will go to the axe and which will be supported.

Rocoteh

Adler17

Nov 13, 2004, 04:09 AM

I hope he has only a lot of work in school. Can you send him an E- Mail?

Adler

Rocoteh

Nov 13, 2004, 06:31 AM

I hope he has only a lot of work in school. Can you send him an E- Mail?

Adler

Adler,

He have no E-mail.(At least not one that can be reached
from CFC-members.)

Rocoteh

CellKu

Nov 13, 2004, 09:46 AM

That seems to be a bad situation! I hope Sarevok hasn't left CFC for good.
In case he has I hope that the major Sarevok&Rocoteh scenarios will still be supported by Rocoteh, although I totally understand the time constraint (with so many scenarios!).

CellKu

Sarevok

Nov 13, 2004, 11:31 PM

it isnt over until i say it is over ;)

Sarevok

Nov 13, 2004, 11:33 PM

I hope he has only a lot of work in school. Can you send him an E- Mail?

Adler
thats exactly what happened actually, and its not over. Give me a week and I can "come back"

Rocoteh

Nov 14, 2004, 02:01 AM

thats exactly what happened actually, and its not over. Give me a week and I can "come back"

Sarevok,

Of course.

Take the time you need.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Xink

Nov 14, 2004, 11:25 AM

I would like to congratulate both Sarevok & Rocoteh for what they have achieved with this mod, as well as those others that have contributed so much to this on going project.

I have not played much of it, the reading of many of these 134 pages dealing with its introduction and maturing in to what it has now become has been fascinating.

With this and the Barbarossa mod I am really spoilt for choice as both campaigns intrigue me to want to play either of them first, although the Barbarossa one does seem to be close to a newer updated version and so this one might be my first choice.

I can imagine that due to the changes that are put in place with any updated revision, of either mod, then it would be desirable to start a campaign from the start and not to continue one...?

Again many thanks for the attention to detail in both of these epic creations :)

Sarevok

Nov 14, 2004, 12:16 PM

Thank you :)

Rocoteh

Nov 15, 2004, 01:01 AM

Morgan UK,

Thank you for the positive words.

With regard which one to choose first I would
play TGW or TGW-DIV first since these are more complete
than Barbarossa.

Once again: Thank you.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Adler17

Nov 15, 2004, 08:31 AM

Die oberste Heeresleitung zz Koblenz gibt bekannt:
On January 6th 1915 5 corps and several divisions invaded England near Dover. The attack was a total surprise. There was no fightings on the shores. Within a week London was bombed by sea and land. A tough fighting took plasce. Many German divisions and corps were damaged or destroyed (all corps survived) and London was taken. There a dreadnought and a destroyer were scuttled before our brave troops could conquer them The Royal Navy lost in the meantime 7 dreadnoughts. Unfortuantely we have to admit the loss of the dreadnought SMS Kaiser, which got lost in a tough fight with a British dreadnought of the Iron Duke class. Nevertheless this ship and an escorting sistership which sank one of our destroyer were also sunk.
In Greece Athens fell after a tough fight. Now only Sparta resists on the continent.
In Spain Valencia was taken and Bilbao will be attacked next week.
Also it is now reported that Portsmouth is now in German hands. Two corps and a cavalry division took the city.
In Russia the Heeresgruppe Mitte reports the fall of Izhevsk. So only Perm is resisting in the center. With Novorossisk, Batum, Kars and Petrowsk we could also connect Turkey in the Caucasus. It is only a question of time until also the last cities there will fall. In The northern part of the eastern front only Archangelsk and Murmansk are in Russian hands after the amphibious assault on Tornia.

The British invasion countermeasures are not worth to be mentioned. I have only one marine division and so they could have fortified them on the island but even when I landed they did not strengenthed the defenses of London. It was a tough fight. It was an the edge of the knife and with a stronger force I would have not been able to take the capital but so?
Russia and Greece are beaten, Spain is the most powerfull enemy after Britain perhaps. The Arabs lost also many territory to the Ottomans.
The British attack near Protsmouth.

Now it is my turn. I will soon be victorious. I have 194.534 VP.

Adler

Adler17

Nov 15, 2004, 08:43 AM

http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=7924

A coastal gun. Usefull replacement.
Also why is Germany an absolute monarchy? Indeed it was a constitutional monarchy which was de facto a parlamentarian one.

Adler

Rocoteh

Nov 16, 2004, 01:13 AM

Adler,

Thank you for the report.

The coastal gun. A very good graphic.

"Indeed it was a constitutional monarchy" Adler

OK, it will be changed in TGW-DIV 1.4.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

CellKu

Nov 16, 2004, 02:53 PM

it isnt over until i say it is over ;)

I am relieved to hear that! So, no need to worry.

CellKu

Rocoteh

Nov 17, 2004, 12:16 AM

I am relieved to hear that! So, no need to worry.

CellKu

I am also relieved.

I repeat what I have said earlier:

Sarevok is an outstanding talent!

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Rocoteh

Nov 17, 2004, 06:23 AM

Statement of policy:

To make versions of Sarevok/Rocoteh productions without
consulting us, is not OK with me or Sarevok.

This is not related to the MP-version discussed here earlier
but to other facts.

None of us want to see part of our scenarios "loaned"
without credit or permission.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 17, 2004, 11:21 AM

After a new analyse on CIV-time available I have
changed my mind and will make Multiplayer 1.1, based on TGW-DIV 1.3.

Changes proposed by members of the PBEM-game at CFC
will be implemented in the new version.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Dazz_G

Nov 18, 2004, 07:08 PM

Great news regarding Multiplayer 1.1

I am eagerly awaiting the new version.

Rocoteh

Nov 19, 2004, 12:00 AM

Great news regarding Multiplayer 1.1

I am eagerly awaiting the new version.

Dazz_G,

Thank you.

Work with Multiplayer 1.1 will start when WW2 Global
have been completed.

Rocoteh

Dazz_G

Nov 19, 2004, 03:55 AM

Wow, WW2 Global, which i'm really looking forward to, followed by TGW MP 1.1 ..... I don't think the kids are going to see much of me this Christmas ;)

nathand

Nov 19, 2004, 04:14 AM

may be changing the topic somewhat, but.. newbie forumer, old civ player, but this has to be one of the most historically accurate games i have ever palyed. "I have palayed Germany, Great Britain, France and Turkey, and all have turned out historically accurate in the sense of what if? Espaecially as a kiwi to be able to take Gallipolli, awesome! I congululate you Sarevok

Dazz_G

Nov 19, 2004, 04:18 AM

nathand

Nov 19, 2004, 04:52 AM

forgive my rudeness, it is a late night, congratulations to Rocoteh as well, and all tose who contributed to the game, great game

Rocoteh

Nov 19, 2004, 06:49 AM

I think Rocoteh may have played some small part in how this scenario turned out ;)

Dazz_G,

Thank you.

I appreciate your comment.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

BkGreatWarnut

Nov 19, 2004, 05:50 PM

Rocotech, Sarevok, and all others involved:

THANKS...That is all I have to say about the news that you will pursue an updated MP Version of TGW.

BK

Rocoteh

Nov 20, 2004, 12:50 AM

Rocotech, Sarevok, and all others involved:

THANKS...That is all I have to say about the news that you will pursue an updated MP Version of TGW.

BK

BkGreatWarnut,

I will allocate more time to TGW-DIV and the multiplayer
version now since I am sick and tired of all the nit-pickering
directed against Barbarossa.

Rocoteh

Sarevok

Nov 20, 2004, 01:04 PM

BkGreatWarnut,

I will allocate more time to TGW-DIV and the multiplayer
version now since I am sick and tired of all the nit-pickering
directed against Barbarossa.

Rocoteh
I will deal with barbarossa.

Rocoteh

Nov 21, 2004, 12:57 AM

I have no target date for TGW-DIV Multiplayer version 1.1 yet,
but my working schedule is like this:

I have done my part of Barbarossa 1.2. For reasons already
known I do not plan (at least not now) to allocate more time
to that scenario.

WW2 Global shall be completed by December 1.
After that I will focus on MP 1.1.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 21, 2004, 10:06 AM

The different versions of TGW and TGW-DIV have now
been downloaded more than 7 000 times (7 172).

I am not sure, but I think this is a record with regard to C3C scenarios.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 23, 2004, 05:44 AM

January 1 - November 23 2004 171 scenarios have been
presented at CFC by 125 scenario-creators.

What these 125 scenario-creators think about TGW we
do not know, since its a closed poll.
However we know what they think about Barbarossa.

Barbarossa is not a popular scenario among scenario-creators.
Only 4 (3.2%) out 125 have voted "excellent".
2 out 125 have voted "bad".

The vast majority have not voted at all.
In the special poll for Barbarossa 73% out of 101 voters so far have
voted excellent.

In a PM send to Thunderfall today I have suggested a
"Best Scenario 2004" poll when this year have come its end.
I have suggested these rules:

"Scenarios that have been presented at
CFC January 1 - December 31 2004 can be nominated
by anyone including creator/creators.

The poll should be open. This is important
to hold cheating at a minimum!

You can only vote one time on one scenario.

You can vote on one of your own scenarios.
No hypocrisy!

Should 2 or more scenarios get the same
number of votes, there should be a new poll
to get one winner."

Add: Only CFC-members can vote!

I see several reasons for a poll:

Interest for scenarios are downwards at CFC.
A poll can (hopefully) break the trend.

Scenarios are low-prestige stuff at CFC.
Maybe a poll can change that (somewhat!)

For scenario-creators the info-value/feedback would
be of high value.

Number of voters will in itself give a good objective indication
on the current interest for scenarios.

Rocoteh

Edit: It is with intention I have posted info about suggestion here
in the TGW-thread, since I do not want it "drowned" in
the general C&C!

Thus the intention is for "your information" not to
start a debate.

El Justo

Nov 23, 2004, 09:36 AM

@rocoteh
this is a great idea. i support it wholeheartedly.

Rocoteh

Nov 23, 2004, 09:48 AM

@rocoteh
this is a great idea. i support it wholeheartedly.

El Justo,

I am very glad to hear that.

Rocoteh

Sarevok

Nov 23, 2004, 11:37 AM

sounds good to me!

BkGreatWarnut

Nov 23, 2004, 12:57 PM

Rocoteh

Nov 24, 2004, 12:50 AM

After reading the answer from Thunderfall on my PM
I have decided to withdraw my proposal!

Rocoteh

El Justo

Nov 24, 2004, 06:55 AM

I have never made a scenario from scratch and based on my experience with scenario making, albeit minor, I personally feel this is one of the best scenarios out there. Especially concerning the accuracy of the number of troops and other units. I can't understand why any other scenario creators would downgrade this particular scenario... Without question it is one of the best and of the highest quality!
no question this is one of the best. it's the knuckleheads who harbor jealousy and resentment who downgrade them. i ignore these people entirely as should every other scenario creator/enthusiast.

Rocoteh

Nov 24, 2004, 07:41 AM

no question this is one of the best. it's the knuckleheads who harbor jealousy and resentment who downgrade them. i ignore these people entirely as should every other scenario creator/enthusiast.

Thank you!

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Fox Mccloud

Nov 24, 2004, 05:32 PM

I don't like it, it is too big to load quickly.

Rocoteh

Nov 24, 2004, 07:44 PM

I don't like it, it is too big to load quickly.

Fox Mccloud,

Have you tried TGW-DIV Fast 1.0?

Rocoteh

Dazz_G

Nov 25, 2004, 06:26 AM

I don't like it, it is too big to load quickly.

Personally, I find the quality of the scenario to be well worth the slight delay.

LouLong

Nov 25, 2004, 07:06 AM

Well, Rocoteh, the way you prepare your scenarios with Sarevok is following some choices, which is perfectly normal but it does not mean everybody understands scenarios the same way you do. Meaning scenarios are pretty different, in scale, time, objective,... and it is difficult to compare them.

Exemple : you complain about the poor interest regarding Barbarossa. I cannot say what the others think but as far as I am concerned, this is the recreation in Civ3 terms of a wargame. It is very nicely done but it is not what I am looking for in a Civ3 scenario (albeit I kind of enjoyed wargames a lot). That's why I prefer TGW a lot.

Most scenarios obviosuly include conflict or conflicts but not everybody likes the same period or the same approach to these conflicts, and it depends as well how you play the scenario (SP vs MP).

For instance : USCW is a scenario I quite like in MP (PBEM actually) because the wargame aspect fares well against a human opponent. But playing it once in SP was enough for me. Of course some people have different preferences and might be especially interested in the recreation of "wars". I am not criticizing your choices (I have nearly done one which is pure war as well), just want you to understand not everybody will try all scenarios because some might not interest them because of their type and they might give a bad vote if they play it (by mistake I would say), once again judging the type rather than the quality of the scenario creation.

There was an interesting thread about it in the Conquests subforum with a poll about the different conquests (or Friaxis' scenarios) and it showed clearly there were actually 3 types of scenarios and that many players did not like one of them (especially one of the extremes).
These were :
- epic like (Mesopotamia, MesoAmerica, Middle-Ages and especially Sengku)
- "mixed" (I know the wording is poor) : Rise and Fall of Rome, Age of Discovery
- combat (WWII Pacific, Napoleon)

And that's just for the "type". Then you have got the era. BkGreatWarnut (I hope hes odes not mind my quoting him) for instance is appealled by modern stuff. On the other hand some are fanatics of anicent or medieval stuff.
Then you have got the scale, some liking very precise order of battles with most cities, some prefering continents or the whole world.
Scale can play on role on size as well. For technical or playability reasons some don't like scenarios that play too slowly (loading and in-between turns mostly). And I must say I am surprised when Sarevok is unhappy when some write they don't like one of his scenarios because of loading time while until Barbarossa (IIRC) he stated himself he could/would not play his own scenarios because of the same issue ?!?!?!

With that it is apparent to me every scenario caters for only a part of the community. Sometimes larger, sometimes smaller. And even then you cannot please everybody by definition so no need to worry about critics since they are a matter of preferences and (most of the time) don't concern at all the technical qualities of your scenarios.

Rocoteh

Nov 25, 2004, 07:36 AM

"Exemple : you complain about the poor interest regarding Barbarossa"

LouLong

I have never, I repeat never complained about "poor interest
regarding Barbarossa".

Rocoteh

LouLong

Nov 25, 2004, 08:04 AM

Sorry, I should have read more carefully, I refered to that :
"What these 125 scenario-creators think about TGW we
do not know, since its a closed poll.
However we know what they think about Barbarossa.

Barbarossa is not a popular scenario among scenario-creators.
Only 4 (3.2%) out 125 have voted "excellent".
2 out 125 have voted "bad"."

But I thought your remark which is precisely about scenario-maker was about players in general.

My bad.

Sarevok

Nov 25, 2004, 12:52 PM

"Exemple : you complain about the poor interest regarding Barbarossa"

LouLong

I have never, I repeat never complained about "poor interest
regarding Barbarossa".

Rocoteh
Nor have I. Barbarossa is by far the best scenario we have created. TGW is CRAP compared to it. Barbarossa is not just some crap imitation of a wargame, it is a civ3 scenario in its purest form with all the accuracies and elements put in to create the most accurate scenario of the eastern front that anyone has ever seen in civ3.

Most scenarios obviosuly include conflict or conflicts but not everybody likes the same period or the same approach to these conflicts, and it depends as well how you play the scenario (SP vs MP).

DO NOT INSULT ME! You are calling these scenarios "just like the others" concerning conflicts. Are you insane?

Overall, I know exactly why you are doing this, and that reason disgusts me. I would think an individual such as yourself would be more honorable and decent, but I was clearly wrong! Do not try to jump at pathetic opprotunities to go for your own power. Everyone who has tried to do that with me has been dealt with.... roman style. Piss me off more and ill make certain your pitiful attempts to try to defame Barbarossa will be paid back with brutal efficiency and terrible force.

- Sarevok

Rocoteh

Nov 26, 2004, 12:54 AM

I have completed a TGW-DIV 1.3a version.

However I will probably not release it, but instead use
it as a working tool for Version 1.4.

In this version only Railroad-artillery and Counterbattery artillery
have a range of more than one.

Portugal and Romania starts as neutrals.

That also holds true for Italy, which have been placed in
its own alliance-group.

Rocoteh

Dazz_G

Nov 26, 2004, 04:20 PM

nivekclough

Nov 26, 2004, 07:21 PM

at the risk of making an enemy of a man i admire greatly (loved your red europe/ blue europe scenarios) but sarevok, i dont think loulong was trying to insult you... like he said its a matter of preference... he prefers his scenario (im asuming, not his words but mine) and thats his right, i think his great armada scenario sounds good, but so do yours, you are both great scenario creators, so why dont we all get along ;)

let me close by saying this again, this isn't an attack against you, just a n00b on the seen speaking his mind ;) (btw cant wait for my next pay check so i can get conquests and try barbarossa :goodjob: )

Rocoteh

Nov 27, 2004, 12:00 AM

Mmmm ... making Italy neutral could certainly be interesting for MP - Austria is now free to concentrate on Russia, possibly coordinating with the Ottomans. Could certainly help constrain the Russians somewhat.

Dazz_G,

Yes, I agree.

If one look at the current version (with both Italy and Romania
at war with Austria) it creates a very bad strategic situation for Austria
that did not exist in reality.(August 1914)

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 27, 2004, 06:26 AM

On problems with loading.

Should you face such problems I suggest you try this:

Right-click on the zip you have downloaded.
Choose explore. Copy the folder you now will see.
Choose the scenarios-folder for Conquests.

Paste the folder into the scenarios-folder for Conquests.
Should there still be problem with loading:
Post here and report it and we will try to help you.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 29, 2004, 02:51 AM

More than 10 months have passed since the launching
of TGW. Thus I think the time have come to close the poll!

Rocoteh

Sarevok,

What do you think?

Xink

Nov 29, 2004, 03:59 AM

Rocoteh

Nov 29, 2004, 10:13 AM

Close it or now expand it with a more detailed poll of the aspects of The Great War that people like the most / least or what they would like to change / include...?

If that is possible...?

Just a thought :)

Morgan UK,

I am not 100% sure, but I think current rules only allows
closing the poll.

Rocoteh

Fasttrack v7

Nov 29, 2004, 12:53 PM

Morgan UK,

I am not 100% sure, but I think current rules only allows
closing the poll.

Rocoteh

Forutnately I found it in time before the end of the poll.

I have tried many scenarios, and in my modest opinion this one of the best scenarios I have played. The same with Barbarossa. I share the opinion of Lou Long regarding the "type" of the scenario, but Barbarossa is just amazingly good. There are very small errors, i.e. romanians were kept by mistake as persians (or other civ I don't remember) used as "base" to make the romanians, but the "feeling" of Barbarossa is tremendously real, I was delighted to play same as German or as Soviets.

Fortunately the A.I. are stupid enough to avoid a quick defeat, so I could win in both sides.

My congratulations for the creator team, and motivations to refine the scenario. :goodjob:

Rocoteh

Nov 29, 2004, 03:08 PM

Forutnately I found it in time before the end of the poll.

I have tried many scenarios, and in my modest opinion this one of the best scenarios I have played. The same with Barbarossa. I share the opinion of Lou Long regarding the "type" of the scenario, but Barbarossa is just amazingly good. There are very small errors, i.e. romanians were kept by mistake as persians (or other civ I don't remember) used as "base" to make the romanians, but the "feeling" of Barbarossa is tremendously real, I was delighted to play same as German or as Soviets.

Fortunately the A.I. are stupid enough to avoid a quick defeat, so I could win in both sides.

My congratulations for the creator team, and motivations to refine the scenario. :goodjob:

Fasttrack v7,

Thank you.
Its really good to hear that.

Positive feedback are always of high value!

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 29, 2004, 11:23 PM

I have changed my mind concerning TGW-DIV 1.3a.
It will be released.

Before that I consider to increase the defense-value of
rivers further. Rivers were important as defense-lines both
in WW1 and WW2.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

Nov 30, 2004, 05:52 AM

I have just checked the Completed Scenarios section
with regard to polls.

With the exception of Sarevok/Rocoteh, Sarevok and luiz scenarios
the poll have nearly become extinct!

For that reason and the fact that TGW with
205 voters is the scenario (what I can see) that have most
voters, I think that the poll should not be removed.

Rocoteh

Sarevok

Nov 30, 2004, 08:55 AM

Rocoteh

Dec 01, 2004, 08:55 AM

TGW-DIV 1.4 have been released.

It includes many proposed changes. (However no graphic changes
this time.) Impact of artillery reduced. Most artillery now have
range 1. Cavalry (of all types): move down to 2.

Most infantry: one more in defense.

Increased defense value for rivers and fortifications.

Submarines and mines much stronger.

Romania and Portugal starts as neutrals.
(Italy however still with the entente since I wanted to avoid
to much "what-if".)

The general goal with this version is to stress (more) that
WW1 was a war of defense.

Rocoteh

Link to download:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Sarevok

Dec 01, 2004, 05:23 PM

very cool!

Rocoteh

Dec 02, 2004, 12:30 PM

very cool!

Thank you.

Production schedule:

Will now complete WW2-Global, and
then return to TGW, and complete TGW-DIV Multiplayer 1.1.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.4:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Rocoteh

Dec 03, 2004, 08:44 AM

Sarevok,

Will version 2.1 be the last TGW-BRI version?

With CIV 4 now announced for 2005, all my own
CIV 3 projects will be dependent on the target month
for the release of CIV 4.

This is due the fact that the day CIV 4 reach the market next
year all CIV 3 scenarios will be stonedead!

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.4:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Sarevok

Dec 03, 2004, 05:20 PM

I believe 2.1 is the last version. Who cares about this ancient scenario anyway?

Adler17

Dec 04, 2004, 04:00 AM

Well, I do.

Adler

Rocoteh

Dec 04, 2004, 04:10 AM

Well, I do.

Adler

Adler,

I am glad to hear that.

Then there are at least 2 who cares about TGW:) :)

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.4:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

BkGreatWarnut

Dec 04, 2004, 06:33 AM

Chalk up a 3rd!

I definitely care too! Actually, I care more about an updated MP version, but since it is based off of TGW, I care! Anyways, patiently awaiting the next release...

BK

Rocoteh

Dec 04, 2004, 07:38 AM

Chalk up a 3rd!

I definitely care too! Actually, I care more about an updated MP version, but since it is based off of TGW, I care! Anyways, patiently awaiting the next release...

BK

BK,

I am glad to hear that.

I will start to work on the Multiplayer version as soon as WW2-Global
have been completed.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.4:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Highlander_

Dec 05, 2004, 03:06 PM

Hi everyone,

I have recenly tested TGW scenarios and i think its a great job. However, I found some bugs comparing to basic TGW 2.0 scenario.

There are many incorrect civilopedia links for units, therefore it is impossible to get info about the real unit strength and shield cost ("SC"):

1) "Alliance machne guns" On-map units have SC=180, but units to produce are called "German Machine Guns", their SC in civilopedia = 180, but city with 63 shields can produre such unit in 2 turns (in scenario editor SC=110)?

2) German A & R infantry (city view) have the same civilopedia entry with SC=130. However, existing "R" unit have correct civilopedia link.

3) Kavalerie division has diffirent parameters as a unit and in civilopedia

4) The worst thing is artillery: 210mm, siege & coastal. 210mm and siege have diffirent params in each TGW version, and also in civilopedia.

5) I don't what it is the sense of counterbattery artillery. I has only 5 pts firepower and range = 1 and shield cost more than 210mm?

6) Garrison unit has cost=240 and params 1/4/1. What is the reason for creating such a unit?

7) Fortress div is weaker but more costly than German A infantry

Does anybody have such problem with this scenario?

Rocoteh

Dec 05, 2004, 03:56 PM

Highlander,

I have no time to allocate to the Civilopedia.

On Counterbattery artillery.
Its lethal!

On Garrison units and Fortress divisions.

This is to direct AI-production.
There are such aspects also.

Have you played TGW-DIV or TGW-DIV Fast more than 2 or 3 turns?
Anyway there seems to be many cons, so my advise is that
you return to TGW-BRI.

Post what you want, but your post is in my opinion:
nit-picking.

Edit: To me it seems that your reason for register at CFC today
was to deliver this post!
OK, I will abstain from more comments.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.4:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Highlander_

Dec 05, 2004, 05:31 PM

Rocoteh,

As is said at the beginning, I'm really impressed by the TGW scenarios and the your work. I didn't mind anything. TGW-BRI civilopedia was correct, so I thought I've installed the TGW-DIV in wrong way - thats why I presented those bug-looking examples.

Of course I had to register to deliver a post - anonymous guest are not allowed, how else could I confront my TGW doubts (or if you prefer "nit-pickings")?

About your answers:
Civilopedia - ok.
Garrison/Fortress - if its for AI, ok.
I played TGW-BRI few times to 30-60 turns, TGW-DIV - only one turn.
I wouldn't like to return to TGW-BRI because I strongly support the unit changes made in this version: artillery range reduced to 1 (no more London bombardments from France territory), cavalry speed to 2, or introducing "A", "R" and landwehr type of infantry divisions. Map area reduction and making units more defensive was also a good idea.

Bye,
Highlander

BkGreatWarnut

Dec 05, 2004, 06:47 PM

Highlander,

Just one thing about the machine gunners... I don't know this as a fact, but I believe that there reason for two different types of machine gunners is to represent a real life fact. The Germans could produce machine guns far quicker and more easily than the rest of their allies. The shield difference is on purpose. German Machine Gunners are suppose to, for historical reasons, be cheaper than Alliance Machine.

Just wanted to help you understand that...

BK

Larkin

Dec 08, 2004, 09:49 AM

Rocoteh

Dec 08, 2004, 10:07 AM

Hi lads,

just installed the scenario

but i have the following problem:

I translated it from German, so don't mind a few mistakes, i hope you understand.

Load Error

Error while reading Text of ...

Mising File (Post?) in "text\pedialcons.txt.ANIMNAME_PRTO_TE"

I have Conquests, the current version (1.22)

and installed all in the right place!

What else could it be?

Thanks!

I hope you can help me! I am really looking forward to play this Scenario!

Larkin,

I think this will work:

Right-click on the zip you have downloaded.
Choose Explore (or the German word for that).
Copy the Folder and then paste into the scenarios-folder in Conquest.

I hope the scenario now will load.

Rocoteh

Larkin

Dec 08, 2004, 10:12 AM

ok, no i am copying the files,

it takes a while! I hope it will work!

Rocoteh thanks a lot!!!!!!

Larkin

Dec 08, 2004, 10:13 AM

must i do that with the normal version, AND with the update???

Larkin

Dec 08, 2004, 10:35 AM

ok i've done that,

but the problem remain,

anything else i can try?

Thanks a Lot! For your Help!

Rocoteh

Dec 09, 2004, 12:09 AM

ok i've done that,

but the problem remain,

anything else i can try?

Thanks a Lot! For your Help!

Larkin,

That was bad news.

Its hard to say what the problem can be.

Does anyone have an idea?

Rocoteh

Download TGW 1.4:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Larkin

Dec 09, 2004, 02:16 AM

i have tried another scenario, the warhammer, and there they told me to use a program which rewrite the unit names, from german to english.

Now the Warhammer Scenario works.

But the two scenarios, GreatWar, Barbarossa, do not work.

Perhaps, someone can help!

Rocoteh, i am looking forward to play your scenarios, thanks for your gracious help!

Rocoteh

Dec 09, 2004, 02:36 AM

froglegs

Dec 09, 2004, 11:44 AM

It is good that you shortened the cavalry movement. With 3 movement in 1.3 I still took out all of Belgium and the 2 French northwestern cities on the first turn -- with a little luck.

I last was playing Austria-Hungary and getting stomped. With enemies on 80% of my boarders it was just too tough. In real life Austria needed a lot of German help but I just could not get my ally to come to my aid. Making Romania neutral will help. I still would like to play the Brits. They had the greatest number of options in the war. It always seemed too easy to take out German cities as Britain. Essen -- I think that was the one -- in particular. I play at the most difficult level setting.

Last game as Germany I had all of France except for Paris by week 1 of 1915. Paris had 25 French divisions in it so I was building up chlorine gas and artillery for the final assult.

andis-1

Dec 09, 2004, 03:32 PM

Pfeffersack

Dec 09, 2004, 04:35 PM

What do you mean by "stop loading"? Are you getting an error message or it is just the problem it didn't seem to make any progress in loading? If it is the latter...keep in mind that some scenarios take (depending on you CPU) very long to be loaded.Which version of TGW have you tried? There are versions with less units, called "division versions" especially for players with not-so-fast CPUs.

Rocoteh

Dec 10, 2004, 02:56 AM

Rocoteh

Dec 10, 2004, 02:59 AM

I have little problem with this scenario. It somehow stops loading the scenario when I try to play it. i have tried to remove and install folders again but it didn't work. what now? I wanna so much to play this scenario...... :(

andis-1,

On 512 MB RAM, 1.2 Ghz Celeron it will take about
20 minutes to load TGW-DIV.

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.4:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069

Adler17

Dec 11, 2004, 05:04 AM

Rocoteh

Dec 11, 2004, 05:49 AM

61 hours, 36 minutes and 24 seconds. I won the game (TGW DIV fianlly I started long before (I mentioned it here). 202480 VP. I conquered continental France, Italy, Belgium, Spain until the lien Bilbao and Valencia, Greece until Sparta, Russia until Murmansk, Archangelsk, Perm, Tiflis, Baku and Yerewan and in Britain Birmingham and all cities south of it. The Turks conquered all of Arabia but Al Huluf and Ad Duwayd. The Austrians Montenegro.
This was the last play report to this version. I don´t know if I have much time now and in the near future to start a game in the new variant. Nevertheless I had to complete that game. Nevertheless I stay here with my proposals (one would be the reintroduction of a long range artillery, at least for siege guns and 210 mm guns.)
I hope you enjoyed my reports.

Adler

Adler,

Yes, your reports have been of high value.

As stated in the credits, your support for TGW-DIV have been of
crucial value. I hope you will continue to comment on TGW-DIV
in the future.
Notes have been taken on artillery. I am prepared to change to
the old system, if the new one not should work good.

11 months after the launching of TGW, the thread is somewhat
out of steam. Several of the Main Posters no longer posts here.
However I do not complain! One can not expect that someone
shall post in a thread forever.

Also: The first 6 months after the launch interest for TGW
was exceptional! I doubt there will be such a interest for any
scenario again. Should there be, that scenario will be a very good.

Once again:

Thank you for your long support of TGW-DIV.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Download TGW-DIV 1.4:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1694069#post1694069