Adler17,

Thank you.
I hope that I at least until the end this year will
have the role as scenario-adviser.

Sarevok,

Do you think TGW-DIV 1.2 will work with TGW 1.6?

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Shame to see such hatred towards scenario creators.
I personally don't see why anyone would see a Civ screnario as pro-war since Civ isn't really a wargame.
Sure it re-creates a terrible war in our history, but I just think that's something we can all learn of.
TGW surely combines historical accuracy and fun gameplay.

Rocoteh,
I wish you good health and long life.
Must be hard to see something you've enjoyed creating bashed like this.

Sarevok,
nice new avatar.
I hope you strength and don't let "the haters" break your spirit.
I'll give 1.6 a try. I just personally prefer DIV, because as a not very skilled player I can't handle a large number of troops.
I hope I don't get my butt kicked too much. :-)

laisak,

Thank you,
With regard to the post from unscratchedfoot, I
interpreted it as ironic.
He really likes TGW.
I assume he will post again if that interpretation was wrong.

The fact that I will withdraw from scenario-creation
related to CIV 3 has not been triggered by the sabotage-voter.
I have mentioned in PM:s to Sarevok (before the
sabotage-voter started again) that I must consider
to withdraw for personal reasons.

My message then to this person was that if I am
the target for the hate its unlogic to damage
Sarevok, since I will withdraw.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Originally posted by laisak
Shame to see such hatred towards scenario creators.
I personally don't see why anyone would see a Civ screnario as pro-war since Civ isn't really a wargame.
Sure it re-creates a terrible war in our history, but I just think that's something we can all learn of.
TGW surely combines historical accuracy and fun gameplay.

Rocoteh,
I wish you good health and long life.
Must be hard to see something you've enjoyed creating bashed like this.

Sarevok,
nice new avatar.
I hope you strength and don't let "the haters" break your spirit.
I'll give 1.6 a try. I just personally prefer DIV, because as a not very skilled player I can't handle a large number of troops.
I hope I don't get my butt kicked too much. :-)

Ive had this avatar before, just a long time ago ;)

1.6 hopefully will be a good improvement on the game, but I also intend to make TGW-DIV powerful as well. It has not had alot of DL's, so I think in this thread our agenda should be to make it get more attention.

concerning the people that dont like Rocoteh, or as im thinking this scenario topic, I have one thing to tell them:

"I have defeated you before, and I shall do so again"

Originally posted by Rocoteh
laisak,

Thank you,
With regard to the post from unscratchedfoot, I
interpreted it as ironic.
He really likes TGW.
I assume he will post again if that interpretation was wrong.

The fact that I will withdraw from scenario-creation
related to CIV 3 has not been triggered by the sabotage-voter.
I have mentioned in PM:s to Sarevok (before the
sabotage-voter started again) that I must consider
to withdraw for personal reasons.

My message then to this person was that if I am
the target for the hate its unlogic to damage
Sarevok, since I will withdraw.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Rocoteh, as much as there are many people who do not like you, I think there are more people, specifically other scenario creators that do not like me. My 3 scenarios, TOE, TGW, TTK have a virtual monopoly. Most old scenarios have been "kicked off the playing field" because of them, and I have earned the Ire of almost every scenario creator out there. I can only believe that Phoenix, who has worked with both TOE and TGW is not against me. The rest im either unsure of, or I know are openly hostile.

Maybe you guys should move the DIV download to the first post.
The link kind of gets lost in it and people don't realize there is another version available.
It would get more attention and more downloads that way I think.

I have asked Sarevok if he can take over TGW-DIV 1.3,
(should there be demand for it) and he have accepted,
which I think is very positive.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
I have asked Sarevok if he can take over TGW-DIV 1.3,
(should there be demand for it) and he have accepted,
which I think is very positive.

Rocoteh

That I have, and ill try to keep it going.

Sarevok,

Yes, you are right there are many people who hate or dislike us,
however I am think the silent majority like us and
that is important.

Rocoteh

1.6 is now up and running.

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Sarevok,

Yes, you are right there are many people who hate or dislike us,
however I am think the silent majority like us and
that is important.

Rocoteh

indeed, that is true... hopefully

1.6 is up and running.

Very good to see that TGW 1.6 now is up
for download.

I will check later on if TGW-DIV 1.2 works with 1.6.

Rocoteh

it should, though there are 3 new graphics for infantry units:

German Infnatry
French Infantry
Entente Infantry

The LMG is avalible now to all nations, though the Entente and Alliance machine guns have only a few able to build them. Russia starts with some entente guns, but cannot ever build them for example.

Excellent!
2nd download. :-)

Going to start a game tomorrow if I finish work early.

Its got all of the requested features in it as well as a few suprises hidden in it ;)

Originally posted by Sarevok
Its got all of the requested features in it as well as a few suprises hidden in it ;)

Sarevok,

Some surprises is always good to have.
I will have that in TGW-DIV 1.2 also.

Rocoteh

indeed, I think ive got a few left for 1.7 whenever that comes. I have a few things im planning to add to the scenario that I have yet to add.

In TGW-DIV 1.2 all naval units representing more
than 1 ship have been renamed.

Thus:

Submarine = Submarine Half-Flotilla ( 5 ships)
Destroyer = Destroyer Flotilla (10 ships)
Light Cruiser = Light Cruiser Squadron (4 Ships)
Armored Cruiser = Armored Cruiser Squadron (4 Ships)
Predreadnought = Predreadnought Squadron (4 Ships)

Rocoteh

thats a pretty good feature to have.

Yes this will also be mentioned in a Readme-file
(The file downloaded with the download-counter)
after the credits.

Rocoteh

uhh... dosent that belong with the normal scenario?

Originally posted by Sarevok
uhh... dosent that belong with the normal scenario?

Sarevok,

I think there will be no problem.


--------------------

Information on TGW-DIV 1.2:

TGW 1.0-1.5 was downloaded 864 times.
I want that those who have these versions and
those who have downloaded TGW 1.6 all should
be able to run TGW-DIV 1.2.

For that reason I had to change some graphics.
I have no alternative as I see it.

Rocoteh

so it works with the changes I made in TGW 1.6?

Originally posted by Sarevok
so it works with the changes I made in TGW 1.6?

Sarevok,

If I change references it works.

Thus Field-Howitzer is represented with Krupps Howitzer.

French infantry is represented with American infantry.

All German infantry are represented with Kaiserjäger.

Rocoteh

I see... Well so long as it works well :)

Originally posted by Sarevok
I see... Well so long as it works well :)

Sarevok,

As I see its no problem.

I think most people will share that opinion.

Rocoteh

I suppose feedback on 1.6 will have to wait a few days...

Sarevok,

Yes some days after the main-page ad.
It seems like the importance of the main-page ad
increase all the time.

TGW-DIV 1.2 will be completed April 27 or
April 28.
I hope people who download it understand that it is
not a stand-alone scenario, but that TGW must be
installed first.

Rocoteh

you should mention that with the notes before the download link to the scenario.

Sarevok,

Yes, but how many will read it?

With regard to the ad it has been mentioned
under requirements, but that did not make
it to the ad.

Now when you have accepted to take over
future versions of TGW-DIV you can then maybe
integrate it with the main downlad and the problem
is eliminated.

Rocoteh

Well, They have to click the download link. If you write in bold right next to it with a link to the first post it should be very noticable and obvious.

Sarevok,

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

One can always hope that someone read it.

Rocoteh

most people I think usually read some of the stuff posted there, but not usually the major descriptions.

I think most people just read the first page. If they have a problem, they might read the last before posting it.

if i'm reading this right, then there will be multi-figure naval units?

or am i just stupid

and also yall should make a WWII scenario :0

Originally posted by Captainkeyes23
if i'm reading this right, then there will be multi-figure naval units?

or am i just stupid

and also yall should make a WWII scenario :0

There are no multi-figure units for thins scenario, none whatsoever.

I am making a semi-WW2 scenario. See "The Old Empires" thread for info on that.

Originally posted by Gogf
I think most people just read the first page. If they have a problem, they might read the last before posting it.

Tndeed, that is how it seems to go.

I think the German infantry should be first represented by the Prussian Füsilier, which link I posted a few pages ago. I replaced in my game indeed the flavours.

Adler

Adler17,

I agree with that.
However it would mean that all previous downloads(1.0-1.5,
more than 800) can not work with TGW-DIV 1.2.
That would probably trigger confusion.

Rocoteh

What about DIV 1.3 and BRIG 1.7?

Adler

Adler17,

Sarevok have accepted to take over TGW-DIV 1.3.
I guess that DIV 1.3 and BRIG 1.7 can be an integrated
download with these problems solved.
I hope that we also will see the new graphics for the
Predreadnought that you suggested.
The current Ironclad-graphics looks somewhat strange
among the custom units.

Rocoteh

Yep, the predreadnough graphics I changed too. I din´t see them in battle until now. Only in preview.

Adler

I wanted to play DIV 1.2 again after installing Brig 1.6- and had loading errors concerning the Howitzer][Heavy Artillery. The ini was missing. I had to repair that. So my time lapsed until I could finally relaod it. I have in the next days little time to test, Rocoteh I´m sorry, but I have to work for my exam next year. So tests will be done if I have time. Sorry. :(

Adler

Adler17,

Thank you for the info.
I have changed graphics for the Field Howitzer to
be sure that TGW-DIV works with all versions of TGW.

I will upload TGW-DIV 1.2 within 30 minutes.
Credits will be given on the download-page and when
the upload is announced.
Thus not with a text-file as said earlier, since I think
few people read such files.

Thank you again for your playtest-reports and comments.
They have made TGW-DIV 1.2 to a better scenario.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

You can now download TGW-DIV 1.2.

Credits, TGW-DIV 1.2. Special thanks to :
Adler17 for playtesting of crucial value,advise and suggestions
to improve the scenario.
Metacomet for Order of Battle info on Bulgaria and infrastructure
info. Laisak and CellKu for playtesting ,comments and advise.


Rocoteh

Hi everybody,

After a well deserved long weekend with my baby and wife, I’m reading the posts and I don’t believe what I see. People voting I don’t like it just because don’t like Rocoteh or Sarevok. I don’t really understand this kind of people; these is suppose to be an open forum were all the people who likes CIV3 enjoy and learn more about the game.

I respect, but I don’t understand, that somebody doesn’t like the scenario, but if is someone’s case please let know the creators what you don’t like it. Maybe they can do something to create a better game for everybody.

Rocoteh and Sarevok, I don’t know if it’s important for you but at least you have my support and I like you and your hard work. This doesn’t mean that I agree with you in everything, but I think that you are open minded enough to discuss the different options with the people.

Rocoteh I’m really sorry that your health is an impediment to work in the great scenarios that you do; losing your input in the scenarios is a great loss for this forum. I only hope that you have a long and healthy live.

Sarevok, as a teacher a really need to say that you need to start focusing more in your finals and less in the scenario making, and please Sarevok’s fans don’t hate me, remember that we are in April and next month is May. You are working so hard maybe you need a little break to take your books. Sorry if you think that it’s not my business, and you right is not my business but is only a friendly advice.

Originally posted by Adler17
I think the German infantry should be first represented by the Prussian Füsilier, which link I posted a few pages ago. I replaced in my game indeed the flavours.

Adler

it is for TGW 1.6

Originally posted by Metacomet
Hi everybody,

After a well deserved long weekend with my baby and wife, I’m reading the posts and I don’t believe what I see. People voting I don’t like it just because don’t like Rocoteh or Sarevok. I don’t really understand this kind of people; these is suppose to be an open forum were all the people who likes CIV3 enjoy and learn more about the game.

I respect, but I don’t understand, that somebody doesn’t like the scenario, but if is someone’s case please let know the creators what you don’t like it. Maybe they can do something to create a better game for everybody.

Rocoteh and Sarevok, I don’t know if it’s important for you but at least you have my support and I like you and your hard work. This doesn’t mean that I agree with you in everything, but I think that you are open minded enough to discuss the different options with the people.

Rocoteh I’m really sorry that your health is an impediment to work in the great scenarios that you do; losing your input in the scenarios is a great loss for this forum. I only hope that you have a long and healthy live.

Sarevok, as a teacher a really need to say that you need to start focusing more in your finals and less in the scenario making, and please Sarevok’s fans don’t hate me, remember that we are in April and next month is May. You are working so hard maybe you need a little break to take your books. Sorry if you think that it’s not my business, and you right is not my business but is only a friendly advice.

I would personally like to hear what people's probelms are with either the scenario or us in general. I know some may be legitimate problems, but the bulk of them are personal petty problems, many of them you can see some of their posts here and they are people from other scenarios. It is probably a fact that I am hated by everyone who worked wih July 1914, save a handful of them who also helped with either TOE or TGW. This is unfortunate as I too would rather see cooperation than a bitter rivalry between scenario creators. Either way, so long as the core of people like the scenarios, That makes me feel good :)

Concerning finals Metacomet, I wrote this a few days ago...

Originally posted by Sarevok
ATTENTION:

My scenario time is going to be cut harshly for the next 7 weeks. I will be having difficult time updating any scenarios, though work on TOE WW2 will try to continute. I am asking that for TGW 1.6 people make their request aobut exaclty what they want. For me time is completely precious, and I honestly cannot waste time looking through the pages for what is wanted if I am to finish this year in good fashion and with good grades.

- Sarevok

Sarevok,

Good words.

In August it is 2 years since I joined CFC.
During that time-perod I have had conflict with some people.
Not so many after all.
I would like to point out that I do not regard these people
as "enemys". When a conflict is over its over.
If they choose to see me as an enemy its their choice.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Sarevok,

Good words.

In August it is 2 years since I joined CFC.
During that time-perod I have had conflict with some people.
Not so many after all.
I would like to point out that I do not regard these people
as "enemys". When a conflict is over its over.
If they choose to see me as an enemy its their choice.

Rocoteh

Indeed, It is a sad fate that the people with July 1914 see me as the enemy because of this scenario. I do not hate them, and Marla and I openly do not have a problem. Nor do I have a problem with Misfit or TLC with the events of earlier this year. It is truly unfortuate that the people of July 1914 have a problem with me. I know it is them doing it for a very specific reason and their mode of attack is clearly directed at TGW. TOE is untouched while negative votes against TGW have more than doubled in the last week. I personally ask that they cease this activity, I do not have an agenda against you. But I will give my traditional warning:

"You are not worth my time, dont make yourself worth my time"

In other words, Keep the peace and possible cooperation, or ill begin using my hidden weapons that are unknown to most. My goal is cooperation, not destruction.

A couple of things...

1-This is an absolutely awesome scenario...I like many of the features...Giving AI Armies to start off with...The overall detail concerning...well, everything...Tech Tree is unbelievable...Units are a very detailed...I'd say the best feature is the wonder of American War Entry producing a unit every so often...oh yeah, naval mines are an awesome idea to, only wished you could build more and move them somewhat (actually i made it so all civs could and made movement 1 so they could slowly be positioned, but not fast enough to put them on the enemies coast)...

2-I have also played Marla's scenario...and I enjoy both...Marla's is suited for people less concerned with detail and more concerned with a real fast, generic game...Your scenario is suited for the TRUE civ fanatic who enjoys detail and the hardwork that goes into a scenario (plus the patience to wait between turns...only downfall as far as I am concerned, and it isn't a big issue if you enjoy the scenario)...I've made a few attempts at them and have only produced a few scenarios on already made maps...that is time consuming enough let alone all the work concerning techs, units, etc... Thanks to you and everyone who helped you designed it... I truly appreciate the quality of the scenario...

3-I was wondering if I could use the majority of your rules...the units, most buildings, and the tech tree to create a multiplayer version of Harry Turtledove's Great War Series? (I think trying out the units in multiplayer would be extremely interesting) I believe I'd make a custom map, more for playability on-line then realism, but from the number of responses about Turtledove, it seems that people would be interested...

Please get back with me with an answer soon as you can...

Thanks for the awesome scenario,
Bkgreatwarnut

Originally posted by BkGreatWarnut
A couple of things...

1-This is an absolutely awesome scenario...I like many of the features...Giving AI Armies to start off with...The overall detail concerning...well, everything...Tech Tree is unbelievable...Units are a very detailed...I'd say the best feature is the wonder of American War Entry producing a unit every so often...oh yeah, naval mines are an awesome idea to, only wished you could build more and move them somewhat (actually i made it so all civs could and made movement 1 so they could slowly be positioned, but not fast enough to put them on the enemies coast)...

2-I have also played Marla's scenario...and I enjoy both...Marla's is suited for people less concerned with detail and more concerned with a real fast, generic game...Your scenario is suited for the TRUE civ fanatic who enjoys detail and the hardwork that goes into a scenario (plus the patience to wait between turns...only downfall as far as I am concerned, and it isn't a big issue if you enjoy the scenario)...I've made a few attempts at them and have only produced a few scenarios on already made maps...that is time consuming enough let alone all the work concerning techs, units, etc... Thanks to you and everyone who helped you designed it... I truly appreciate the quality of the scenario...

3-I was wondering if I could use the majority of your rules...the units, most buildings, and the tech tree to create a multiplayer version of Harry Turtledove's Great War Series? (I think trying out the units in multiplayer would be extremely interesting) I believe I'd make a custom map, more for playability on-line then realism, but from the number of responses about Turtledove, it seems that people would be interested...

Please get back with me with an answer soon as you can...

Thanks for the awesome scenario,
Bkgreatwarnut

1. Im glad that you enjoy the scenario. You are right to believe this took a long time, but I had a lot of time to make it when I did. I made the bulk of it over my winter break so I had 2 weeks to myself to make this completely. Concerning mines... Those may eventually be units able to be built, but those ones wont be as strong as the ones that the map have initially.

2. I agree with you on that statement: Play Marla's scenario for speedy fun games, play mine for detail and accuracy mixed with fun gameplay. Speed is the only problem I have, as the scenario dosent run fast on my comp. So it is the reality that I have never truly played this scenario more than 4 turns because that is roughly 3 hours of time spent. Concerning the work done... There is alot more still to do that Im planning on over the summer to make this absolutely perfect.

3. I believe you could, but I think custom units would make people have to download that scenario off a site, such as this one. Also, the map would have to be alot smaller that this one if it was to be an onlise scenario, such as 100X100 or smaller. Probelm is, most europe maps do not have Suez and the Caucasus on them, which is an advantage to this scenario allowing the many Ottoman fronts of WW1 to be shown that are not normally shown (Suez, Mesopotamia, Caucasus). If you can get around that, my only real rule is that you would write that the scenario is based off of this one with scenario creator names (myself and Rocoteh) included. Otherwise, I think you may do as you like with it.

I am glad that you enjoy this scenario. It is my personal goal to make sure that the scenarios I post on this forum are of top-quality so that all people can enjoy playing them.

- Sarevok

BkGreatWarnut,

Thank you for the positive words.
I am really glad you liked the scenario (s).

Good luck with the multiplayer version.

Rocoteh

1.2! Oh no! I was planning on completing some work today. :-)
Propably starting a game tomorrow.

Originally posted by laisak
1.2! Oh no! I was planning on completing some work today. :-)
Propably starting a game tomorrow.

dont worry, I think you will have alot of fun with 1.6

Originally posted by laisak
1.2! Oh no! I was planning on completing some work today. :-)
Propably starting a game tomorrow.

laisak,

I am going off line soon and will be away
for a week.

I am looking forward to comments on TGW-DIV 1.2
when you have evaluated it.

Rocoteh

err... was he talking about 1.2 or 1.6?

No matter, 1.7 is scheduled to be released in June sometime. I will hope that comments on 1.6 come so that I can start fixing things up here.

Hey. I just downloaded your scenario. It looks great. I'm going to make a few comments on the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I lived in Eastern Europe for several years (I'm an old fart) and know a bit about the area. Feel free to ignore my suggestions if you like. I'm sure you have reasons for the choices you made. I mostly just want to ramble a bit.

First off, while population figures are always a bit tricky, at the outbreak of war, there were well over a million people living in Budapest. It's hard to put it into perspective given that Hungary is mostly a footnote in Europe now, but Budapest used to be the financial and industrial capital of much of central and eastern Europe. Depending on who you believe it was either the fifth or seventh largest city in Europe during this period, larger than both Rome and Madrid (both of which are larger in your scenario).

It's also interesting that Budapest is the only city of present-day Hungary you include. (If you drew Hungary's current borders onto your map, Budapest would be its only city.) There were certainly cities in Hungary larger than the ones you've put in Transylvania, but this might not be a bad choice to allow Budapest the room to become a powerhouse.

Secondly, Budapest is actually formed from three cities. Buda is the historical capital on the west bank and is built on hills. Pest is on the East bank and is built on plains; it was the industrial center of Budapest. Obuda was to the north and was built on the ruins of Aquincum, the old Roman colony. The Danube is a sufficiently large barrier at this point in its course that it wasn't until the 1800s that a permanent bridge was built across it. This is partly why the west bank (Buda) became such a battleground at the end of WWII. With the bridges blown, the river becomes a real barrier. The question is if you want to represent Budapest by its' production center (in which case it should be on plains on the east bank) or its' historical center of Buda (in which case it should be on hills on the west bank.) Either choice has merit. I think right now you have it on grassland on the west bank which is kind of a compromise. My suggestion would be to leave it on the west bank but change the terrain to hills.

Finally I see you've used Romanian names for the cities of Transylvania. For eastern eurpoeans this is actually a politically charged choice. Transylvania was in fact a very diverse area with Germans, Hungarians, and Wallachians living side by side. (Wallachians=Romanians -- The name "Romanian" first appears in the 1860s when the theory of Daco-Roman continuity was suggested by some theologists in Rome on the basis of similarities between the languages, Latin and Wallachian.)

(I'll add parenthetically that I presonally think that "Daco-Roman continuity" is a bunch of crap. There was as much "continuity" as there was in any of the Roman provinces of Europe after the fall. And there are more linguistic similarities between Wallachian and Albanian than Wallachian and Latin, but as a descendent of Swedes living in New York, maybe I should just keep my mouth shut.)

Transylvania was also very diverse in religion with protestants, catholics, and eastern orthodox all in the mix. Both Hungary and Romania claim Transylvania as part of their ethnic homeland. Both sides have historical legends that are hard to untangle from truth. My suggestion would be to use the Hungarian names in this scenario. Hungarian was the official language and the dominant cultural group for many of the areas represented by your cities. If you do a WWII scenario, I would use the Romanian names. By this point the ethnic cleansing policies were well in effect. All Hungarian names were forbidden. (One of the major factors which brought Hungary into war on Germany's side were the promises to restore Transylvania to them.) To this day, you won't see a Hungarian street sign in Romania, even in areas that contain ethnic Hungarians. (Hungarians like to get upset about this, but truth be told, they also had policies of forced assimilation when they ruled the roost back in the 1800s under Kossuth Lajos, a man of sufficient international prestige that there is a statue to him here in my home town of NYC.)

If you make this change, the names would be:
Cluj=Kolozsvar
Oradea=Nagyvarad
Ternesvar=Temesvar
Sibiu=Nagyszeben

I may have forgotten one, but I'm at work right now and don't have access.

Anyway, congratulations again on a nice scenario. Feel free to do whatever you like with the above diatribe. :goodjob:

Leptomeninges,

Very interesting post re: Transylvania. I learned something about parts of eastern Europe that were less than familiar to me. Thank you.

Rocoteh/Sarevok,

I've downloaded TGW-DIV 1.2 and started to play-test it. I made Switzerland a human player so that I could watch how the AI plays the scenario. That way, I can 'play' without favoritism and judge the scenario more clearly.

Load/configure time is greatly improved - only 21 min. complete. More later.

jimmygeo

Very interesting post re: Transylvania. I learned something about parts of eastern Europe that were less than familiar to me. Thank you.

heh heh...

Mostly just trying to bait Romanians.
Shh... Be quiet...
We'll see if any come...
:satan:
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Just foolin' around here... No offense anyone.)
:D

some interesting info you have there Leptomeninges. Ill do what I can for 1.7

Unfortunately, I had a long reply which got swept away by the database...

In brief:
- very nice observations on the importance of Budapest, and its structure.
- Romanian is more similar (70%, actually) to Latin or Latin languages than Czech, Polish, Hungarian or Albanian. Lepto, you really need to brush up on your linguistics :) or simply try and get a Romanian to talk to an Italian in Romanian. The Italian will understand everything ;) "Ti piace molto? Da, imi place mult."
- the idea of having Hungarian names for the cities is a very good one, since the cities belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire.
- Lepto, please don't take sides :rolleyes: had the issue been presented to you by a Romanian, you'd be posting against imperialist mother Russia because of Bessarabia :goodjob: , it's just another European idiosincracy.
Apologies for the spelling,
a Romanian who got baited :love:

IT IS SOME RATHER INTERESTING BUSINESS...

A little detail I had forgotten about: the term 'Romanian' appeared in the 1300s. People from the southernmost province of nowadays Romania always refered to it as 'Tara Romaneasca' ('Valahia' or 'Wallachia' was a term invented by the Turks, which then circulated around Europe). When the two provinces of Moldavia and Tara Romaneasca united in 1859, they took up the name Romania.

The theory of Romanian being more connected to Albanian than to Latin appeared in the Austro-Hungarian empire as an argument for keeping Transylvania ("so what if the Huns were a wandering tribe? There was nobody in Romania at that time anyway"). For anyone who's ever heard Romanian being spoken, that argument is laughable.

To sum it up from my part: both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Hungarians - or Austro-Hungary - owned Transylvania for approx. 600 years. Never were Hungarians a majority there; rather the Romanians were. So one side erred on the side of history, the other on the side of population. Atrocities (Lepto, did Hungarians tell you about what Horthy did in Transylvania?) and other injustices were undertaken by *both* sides.

Sorry about all the replies to replies :lol: what really tipped me off was the notion that Romanian is closer to Albanian than to Latin :lol:

For the record: Romanian = Wallachian. In Moldavia and Transylvania Romanian is spoken, with different accents.

its alot of interesting data though, thanks :)

Have you played 1.6?

On my 1.3 Thunderbird, 512 Mbs of Ram, it freezes every time before the map is shown. Same for the division version :mad:

Its not freezing, I guess you havent really played scenarios much. The answer to your problems is to wait it out and to not disturb the computer until it is finished.

eazzy,

It's not freezing, it's just real slow - about 20+ min. to load and configure for the division version. Go have a coffee like I do when it's loading. Saved games load much faster.

jimmygeo

indeed, all you have to do is give it time.

Allright, thank you all, I will try it. If the same timespan exists between turns... :scan: we'll see. Thank you all for your advice.

First impressions after two turns and serious amounts of coffee ;) :

1) This scenario is a true piece of love.

2) This scenario is so awesome, I could play C3C with just this scenario the whole time and still feel I've spent my money right. And mind you I'm more of a WW2 geek than a WW1 geek.

3) No offense, Sarevok, should Italy or Romania be at war with the Central Powers? Italy and Romania went to war late, in 1916 (indeed against the Central Powers). One of the most interesting features of WW1 (IRL) was how Italy and Romania played a nice diplomatic game with both the Central Powers and the Antante. A lot was riding on who they were joining (think Metz, Serbia; Odessa, Budapest). My suggestion would be to make them neutral and get the player to convince them to join his/her side.

4) Being on offense is bad. Since I'm Germany, I have to be on offense. This makes for a great real-life like experience (and a lot of nerves on my part :lol: ). I have a bit the impression that the Russians are too strong for what they should be (since they're very numerous and also pretty good). We'll see.

5) In the line of historic truth, I don't think there should be such a thing as Arabia. AFAIK, the Ottoman Empire ruled all of Arabia. Maybe someone else knows more.

6) Too bad the game doesn't keep stats (the way Civ1 and Civ2 did) for how many units you've lost vs. how many units the enemy has lost. Nothing to do with the scenario, just a minor gripe towards the game.

6) Congratulations. This is an awesome scenario. I can't wait for WW2 :goodjob:

Sorry about this:

7) Romania's army defeated Bulgaria's army in the Balkanic War of 1912. The Romanian wasn't good (in 1912 or in WW1) but it was bigger. From what I recall from history class:

Romania (pre-1918) = 12 million inhabitants.
Bulgaria (pre-1918) = 7 million inhabitants.

Im glad you enjored the scenario. Concering italy and romania, I had to put them in because there are no MA or MMP's in the game. Concerning russia... Ill deal with that.

eazzy,

Good suggestions re: Italy and Romania. It's relatively easy to mod the scenario rules and take them out of the locked alliance.

I'm glad you waited long enough to get to play this awsome scenario.

jimmygeo

unfortunately, I dont see any other way for Italy and romania to join the war if they are not in the alliance without seriously messing up the structure of the game.

Civ 3 is in that means too stupid to involve. Hope Civ 4 will be better.

Adler

I hope it is alot better for these kinds of situations.

Some type of strategic warfare is a must for CIV 4.
The resources idea is a "half" idea without strategic warfare.


Rocoteh

indeed, that is something that is absolutely necceasy and ads an unparralelled level of realism to the game. Not to mention more fun!

Yes, I hope it will be high on the priority-list
when CIV 4 is done.
In fact I think its one of the most important aspects
that should be included in CIV 4.

Rocoteh

I have just downloaded 1.6 and 1.2. You made a nice download bundle! As I see the number of downloads (of the last versions) has increased again. So, you don't have to worry anymore about decreasing interest in your scenario!

CellKu

CellKu,

Yes, both 1.6 and 1.2 had an very positive response.
Both versions reflect scenario-development.

Rocoteh

yet there are no reports on 1.6...

I will need a bit time to report back, as I have just returned and downloaded 1.6. I will do it ASAP.

thank you very much :)

On changes in the future:

The U.S. Infantry division was de facto an
infantry corps. Maybe that should be reflected in future
versions. Also I would not rule out one more class of
Dreadnoughts (SuperDreadnoughts).


Rocoteh

ahh yes... the superdeadnought class... Stat suggestions as well as cost?

Sarevok,

I will be back with suggested stats later on.
The graphic for this unit does exist.

Rocoteh

sounds interesting! does the graphic work though? who was it made by?

I have tested it and it does work.

Its Queen Elizabeth-class done by W.I.N.T.E.R.

Rocoteh

Well there were the British QE class, the Royal Oak class, the Japanese Mutsu class and the German Bayern class which were used in ww1. All these ships had guns of 15" (Mutsu and Nagato 16"). I don´t know much about US ships of this time. Only the British ships saw action in the only battle, Jutland. The SMS Bayern was just put into service and the Germans thought it was not a good idea to use this new ship when all the small bugs are not repaired. Later the year this ship was part of the German offense in the north sea, where it was part of Hipper´s cruiser squadron since the Seydlitz was already under repair.
The lack of the British ships were the projectiles. They were not as effective as the Germans in general. Also the British 15" projectiles damaged the German ships but didn´t hurt them so much. However they were better than the German 13" guns, but not much. The German 15" gun was much better. I think in a battle these guns would have done much damage to the enemy ships.
Unfortunately there is no Bayern class as civ unit.

Adler

Here is a new Uboat unit:
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?p=74294

Adler

P.S. I know it is a ww2 sub, but this was build after plans from ww1.

Adler17,


Thank you for the comments and info.
I think you may find this history-site interesting:

http://www.german-navy.de/

Edit: The above site should also be very interesting for unit-creators.

Rocoteh

I know this site already, but thanks, Rocoteh.

Adler

A first little feedback to the new versions:

1.) The new units are nice! It seems as if the scenario reaches perfection in that direction! :goodjob:

2.) Flags: The ones you included are very well drawn. However, I thought only Austria was still missing. But it seem to be much more. :confused:
Thus, if you want to ask other creators to help out, you may ask
- Paasky (see his flags (not much for TWG though, but perhaps he could help) at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83603)
or
- ArbitraryGuy (his flags are at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82926 , perhaps some are useful for TGW).

For advisor flags: Civvin (have I pointed to his thread already? I am not sure. It's: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82177). Maybe he is also willing to help out.

3.) What you might want to focus on for the next version is the tech tree and the civilopedia (only with respect to graphics, the text is already nicely done!).
E.g. it seems a little odd when an "air"-techs has a vessel (naval) icon etc.

a.) Thus, I searched the graphics forum and found new tech graphics. Maybe some are useful:

Ukas with many more tech graphics:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82414

Rufus with gov-graphics (but which might also be useful for techs):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86003

and (bolchevism, also by Rufus):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85576

Goldflash's tech graphics:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87202

b.) You could also update the unit icons in the civilopedia. You still use the standard icons from the epic game. But many of the new units you included have their own ...large.pcx and ...small.pcx in their respective folders.

That's all I have to comment on for now. All in all, you did a good job! :goodjob: Keep it up!

CellKu

I've had some work hurries and haven't been able to play a decent game of civ in a while.
I'm really looking forward playing the new versions.

laisak,

I am glad to see that you are back again

The main posters are very important if a scenario
shall live or not.
A fact overlooked by some creators.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Adler17
Here is a new Uboat unit:
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?p=74294

Adler

P.S. I know it is a ww2 sub, but this was build after plans from ww1.

Very nice Adler!

Nice to see you back Iaisak!

Thanks CellKu :)

hey guys!!!! :) ive been very busy dis days that i couldnt post everyday. anyway, but to tell you the truth , ive been playing 1.6 for weeks now and im very pleased. :) i see that its achieving perfection and one of my fave scenarios. ive been playing as the germans and to tell you, ive already driven the french and russians out of the historical fronts.... ive already conquered Paris and most of eastern france as well as western cities of russia including the very mush, historically p[artitioned polish capital, warsaw. im happy that in my game, city razing by ai is minimal. only 1 city has been razed, by the ottomans bordering russia. my only comment is, did you really eliminated the ROP's in the game? coz without it i couldnt send my troops to the balkans and its just frustrating..... that mins that i have to conquer most of western russia then romania to conquer the whole of the balkan countries? nwei, are the british aND french reinforcements renamed and stat changed? overall, its the best there is!!!!! :)

Austria-Hungary just wouldn't let me pass my troops to their territory to invade the balkans...... it a long way there.........

ROP's are in the game....

Im glad that you are enjoying 1.6 :)

Carl_0914,

Welcome back.

I am very glad to hear that you liked the new versions.

Rocoteh

As am I, Aside from the superdeadnought, are there anythings that should be done to TGW 1.7?

Yes, the new graphics for the PreDreadnought
suggested by Adler17.

I have tested the graphics and its very good.

Rocoteh

where is it?

Hello All,

First off, I am a man of few words, I rarely post.

I really like this scenario, very well done!

Since I do not like to type, this will be a short play test post.

I have been playing the germs on the highest level with the most aggressive mode. Some things I have noted are:

Torpedo's do not seem to work.
I like the idea of the mines, but the British and French AI suicides on them.

I also tried the British for a few turns. I think there should be a way to negociate treaties. My BEF force just got kicked out of France to Gibralter.

How come the British have Dreadnaughts, but they do not have the tech to build new ones until they research it? Same for Marines.

Ok, there goes my attention span, I need some flashy lights now.

DocRivet

1. Cant do anything about the AI going on suicide uns against mines... Topredioes are to be removed for 1.7
2. you can have ROP's
3. To prevent imbalance in the game and to give the Central powers a chance to win.

Im glad you enoy the scenario :)

Sarevok,

i think you better check the ROP's cause i couldnt use that option. i do have embassies but still it wouldnt or couldnt be used. even with my locked allianced nations i couldnt have ROP's or even with nuetral countries... btw, if ever youll correct this, is there a way that i could have the option even in my saved game i doesnt work? its just sads coz iv been playing long and conquered so much territories...... and the submarine torpedoes doenst seem to work..... hope youll respond immediately... tnx.... :)

DocRivet,

I was considering allowing the British to build
Dreadnoughts from the start in 1.2.

Its possible it will be included in version 1.3.

Rocoteh

ill deal with ROP's

To the Dreadnoughts. This tech should be given to Germany and UK. Also the Germans had quite good marines fighting in the Eastern front, Flandres and Tsingtao, where they manged to hold the fortress against thousands of Japanese and British troops, which violenced the Chinese neutrality, until the ammo was depleted. So I suggest to give Germany a few Elite marines.

Adler

Adler17,

Yes, I agree both Germany and Britain should start
with the tech to build Dreadnoughts.
German marines. Sounds interesting. I will do some
OOB-research.
Above mentioned should be implemented in TGW-DIV 1.3.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh, here is a good site about Prussian/ German marines:
http://balsi.de/Einheiten/andere%20Einheiten/kaiserreichmarineinfanterie.htm
Unfortuantely it is in German. In ww1 they fought in France and Flandern. It was one Marine corps. I suppose the landings of Dagö and Ösel as well as the fightings in Finland the Marines took part, but I don´t know.

Adler

Oh I just forgot the Skutari Detachemet, which should protect the town of Skutari in Albania but with the war it fought in Bosnia. They were also Marines.
In ww2 there were also marines but most of them were in the last days shipmen without ships getting a gun to fight on land. One of them was my grand uncle. He got the Iron cross first class when he rescued a comrade who laid in the line of fire between the German and British lines. He made a white handerchief on his rifle and the British stopped firing. Then he robbed to his wounded friend and could bring him back to German lines. Therefore he got the IC 1 class. My grandma found the order in his sack when he returned from British prisonship. He would have never told her if she didn´t ask him. Unfotuantely he died in 1995 before he could tell me more about this time.
Back to the marines. The marines who took the Westerplatte and the British channel islands were on the other hand well trained soldiers.
Today there is a discussion to reintroduce marines in the Bundeswehr.
That´s all concerning this.

Adler

Adler17,

Thank you for the very interesting comments.
German marines should be included as Elite-forces
in TGW-DIV 1.3.

Rocoteh

when the European states expanded their requirement for rule also since stranger of continents, soon any longer the war and trading vessels were not sufficient, in order to export power, but one needed also troops, which occupied the annektierte territory, because they had to co-operate with the navy closely, were called her mostly "Marineinfanterie", the beginnings are past three hundred years on 13 July 1680 the large cure prince gave the instruction to the count Doenhoff that he habe." "auf two ships, which send its Kurfuerstliche Durchlaucht to twenty good healthy Musquetiere together with a wo1 and two NCOS of those in Prussia standing regiments duly to foot to give and selbige mundieren;, these soldiers should protect the brandenburgischen ships carrying on with Guinea at the west coast of Africa trade militarily better, them went with a squadron of six ships under captain Cornelius Claus von Bevern in lake, in order to apply Spanish ships, Spain owed the brandenburgischen treasury two million Taler and them despite negotiations yet had not paid on 18 September the squadron met Secundus" before east end the Spanish ship "Carolus;, stout filled with Brabanter points and canvas, the frigate "FRIEDRICH WILHELM" attacked, and under guidance of the wo1 Erasmus Mueller the Musketiere from the disconnection of the count Doenhoff the ship enterten and brought it in possession, four ships drove over the Atlantic to west India, two continued to bring the gekaperten Segler after Pillau, where he became to unload and from now on in the fleet of the cure prince under the name "MARKGRAF FROM BRANDENBURG" drove, equipped with fifty cannons, it the flagship of a third squadron under guidance of the captain Thomas Alders, in this squadron already 182 to sea-soldiers had been on board taken, it had also ship work to learn, in order to be able to find as a sailor use, into the brandenburgische colony in Guinea a major, two engineers, a wo1, three NCOS and 42 men were sent, which "Grossfriedrichsburg" there the fortress; built and occupied on 1 October 1684 the large cure prince placed a "Marine Kompanie" in Emden; in service, captain (captain), second lieutenant, one wo1 and 110 "seetuechtige" NCOS and crews from brandenburgischen troop units formed this unit, a half year later set up it a second and third naval company, even than after its death the colonial thought were again rejected and the navy disintegrated, for 1701 still another fourth company were established in the naval memorial place Laboe we find the representation of a "Kurfuerstlich Brandburgi Mariniers", the flag of this first naval infantry on German soil had a white front, in the four corners larger green branches with red berries, under the "Kur Hut", smaller at the sides in the center; the Zepter was shown, diagonally of a sword crossed the back of the flag, was black with same center section, as inscription stood over the cure hat "Pro for Patria", in the corners likewise green-red branches of berry 1744 did to Friedrich the large one without the naval infantry and from the units, together with a company of ostfriesischer soldiers, the garrison battalion NR. created, which was however already dissolved 1757 completely, only in the year 1816 there were 12 with the citizen of Berlin guard pioneers a small special troop with the name "Garde Mariniers", they were more a technical troop and no infantry, then they operated the "koeniglichen Lastfahrzeuge" and the river gunboat "THORN", on the Pfaueninsel (between potsdam and when lake) for September 1823, when prince Adalbert 1848 had taken over the organization and guidance of the Prussian navy, became in Stettin a "Marine Korps" was stationed; from two companies set up, in it also the "Garde Mariniers" found; of 1816 admission, to 23.10.1849 was "Marinekorps" divided into a sailor corps (freiwillige of occupation sailors) and a Marinierkorps (serve-requiring soldiers), Friedrich William IV. of Prussia issued a all-highest cabinet order on 13 May 1852 to the war Minister, with the following wording: "Ich, the past Marine Corps from now on the designation sea-battalion decided to attach to the Marinern however the designation sea-soldiers and gives you auxiliary of the execution of these Mainer Ordre the necessary proclamation anheim.", this day can be called birthday of the German naval infantry, their regulation up to the First World War remained unchanged, the sea-soldiers mainly for landing operations was trained, to which to rudders of the Landungskutter also belonged, which was sea-battalion with first three companies stationed in Swinemuende, soon became to extensions ordered, 1859 became 4., in the year 1869 5. and a 1871 6. Company set up, starting from 1865 lay the battalion in Kiel in garrison and received on 1 April 1883 its own flag, 1889 became in Wilhelmshaven the II. Sea-battalion set up, it received in the same year still its troop flag, both battalions to the inspection of the naval infantry was subordinated the naval infantry was the "schnelle Einsatztruppe" imperial Germany, the sea-battalions became from the emperor as part of the navy with "Notstaenden "zum protection of German life and Eigentums" abroad and with native rebellions and in overseas assigned, for the mobilization of the navy the required emperor does not mobilize the agreement of the Upper House of Parliament 1856 received the sea-soldiers their fire baptism at a non-European coast, which predatory Beni Julapa Kabylen had the Prussian brigg "FLORA" from Stettin applied and gepluendert, when punitive expedition seized the steam corvette "DANZIG" on 7 August with the second course of the 3. Company of the sea-battalion the slip angle of the robbers with Cap Tres Forcas over a steep reef coast on, which attack led prince admiral Adalbert of Prussia, which was wounded thereby at the thigh, to that fight drove "DANZIG" to Gibraltar, where the wounded ones were given in care, four dead ones, under it an officer, which were bring along by the battlefield, found on the cemetery of the rock fortress their last ruhestaette, to three sea-soldiers remained missed, or its corpses could not be found in the unclear Dickicht with the peaceful assumption of the island Helgoland on 10 August 1890 were three officers, 201 NCOS and crews as well as the II. Sea-battalion on the tank ships "BADEN", "WUERTTEMBERG" and "BAYERN" driven to the island, where they were located to Helgoland in solemn parade list before emperors Wilhelm II., when under the thundering Salut of the ship cannons the British flag at the mast of the governor building was down-gotten and the German war flag at the mast climbed, were by contract exchanged from 1 July 1890 against British colonial requirements on Sansibar and Wituland in East Africa the sea-battalions carried the ball helmet of the Prussian line artillery with yellow fitting, this helmet for the defense by sword blows of hostile Kavallerie particularly highly had been designed, for 1862 a blue-referred Filztschako with black leather screen were introduced, as fitting carried it a bronze anchor with the inscription: "Mit God for king and Vaterland", the officers received the sword of the naval officers, 1875 the fitting were changed, on the anchor came the flying realm eagle with the volume crown, the Tschako received yellow, flat shed chains, 1882 the black-painted Ledertschako with front and Hinterschirm were then introduced, to that up to some changes up to the 1. World war the head coverage remained on white shoulder flaps the sea-soldiers carried two crossed anchors, over it the emperor crown provided with volumes and among them the battalion number in Roman numbers, from 1857 to 1867 gave it also a sea-artillery department, which carried the same uniform as the sea-battalion, however with black collar and impact, on the likewise white shoulder flap were on an anchor of two cannon pipes as the large cruiser "KAISER" to the reinforcement of the East Asian squadron on 26 April 1895 in lake, had he went a Detachement of naval infantry into strength from one officer and 78 NCOS and sea-soldier of the II. Sea-battalion on board, in Eastern Asia the Russian-Japanese war was broken out, which remained limited to the two states, the sea-battalions trained its soldiers not only for landing operations, but "Bomas" likewise for the colonial service, tactical movements in the close shrubs, attack on; (African attachments), to overcoming obstacles, palisaden, buildings of camps etc. belonged to the training programme, which remained training in rudders and swimming to exist 1894 took place the first employment in overseas, when in Cameroon Dahomey soldiers of the police troop had gemeutert, a company from both sea-battalions were arranged and under captain by Kamptz used the III. Sea-battalion was set up in the Far East, on 14 November 1897 Kiautschau in China had been occupied, on 13 June 1898 came the list instruction, gradually became mounted 5. With two courses attached, on 6 October 1898 the battalion its flag received company, the so-called Kauliang Hussars, a naval field battery, a naval engineer company and a mg company the boxing up conditions in the year 1900 required the employment of stronger forces, the entire naval infantry, thus I. and II. Sea-battalion, became as "Marine Expeditionskorps" shipped under major general of Hoepfner sent on 3 July in Wilhelmshaven and on journey, around in far China to be used ', 5 NCOS and 45 crews under guidance of the first lieutenant count von Soden of the III. Sea-battalion the German legation in Peking three months defended against a crushing supremacy, it held out, although more than half of the soldiers was dead or wounded, count von Soden received as a first officer of the naval infantry the medal Pour le merite, the Gefreite horn got the "Goldene military earnings Kreuz" and the vice-sergeant carried, also with the rebellions in German southwest Africa became consisting in January 1904 a naval infantry battalion, of ever two companies I. and II. Sea-battalion under major von Glasenapp, in march set 1905 fought a company sea-soldier under captain of Schlichting in German East Africa for the support of the colonial force with unrests of the natives, together with the landing corps of the cruisers "BUSSARD", "THETIS" and "SEEADLER" the rebellion was down-struggled by 5 February 1906 in China 1912 in Tientsin became still the "Ostasiatische navy Detachement" with two companies as well as a mounted and a mg course stations in Peking 3 companies, to 1 course field cannons, still belonged 1 course heavy field howitzers, 1 mg course and 10 riders to it as a legation guard after the boxing up conditions an event before that 1. World war to be earned still mentioned, from I. and II. Sea-battalion became on 28 June 1913 the "Marine infantry Detachement Skutari" under captain cutter in an educated manner, it belonged from 7 July 1913 by 4 August 1914 as German contingent to the international crew of the city Skutari in Albania, on 24 August 1914 stormed it together with Austrian troops the Serbian positions with Visegrad in Bosnia, it after his return to the homeland was dissolved in Wilhelmshaven, later in Cuxhaven, were in the meantime the III. Master sea-battalion with two master companies and a master battery formed, from it went then the "Marine infantry regiment 3" by affiliation of further set up sea-battalions out, the 1. World war brought highest probation to the German naval infantry, in addition, one had set up a naval division to their end, when in the process of the army operations of 1914 the Belgian coastal region was occupied by German troops, which was mobilize-moderately before intended and for it among other things the units of the sea-battalions from Kiel, Wilhelmshaven and Cuxhaven consulted the fire baptism they, when on 8 September four Belgian divisions under guidance of the king attacked, received the emphasis lay at the naval infantry regiment of 2 after three days violent fights were repelled the attack and the possibility for the counter attack of the III. Reserve corps on Antwerp production In the middle of September 1914 was the naval division with 17,000 men completely in the field and admiral Ludwig von Schroeder subordinated, the later "Loewe of Flandern" called, in tough position fights in swampy poldern and in the light dune sand to have the sea-soldiers their obligation was fulfilled on 28 November 1914 the division to the Marine Corps extended, which became commander Kommandierender admiral of the Marine Corps and the emperor directly subordinated, on 24 November met the II. Naval division under Vice Admiral Schultz, Vice Admiral Jacobsen took over the Ith naval division, uniformly the field-grey uniform of the field army was introduced the courageously fighting sea-soldiers were not however only used at the coast, but also on the blood-soaked battlegrounds of the Somme, with Ypern and in the "Grossen battle in Frankreich" 1918 the III. Sea-battalion in Tsingtau defended the protected area against the Japanese with the few there still existing units, attacking in strength of 63,000 men, by 7 November 1914, then the governor, captain had to kapitulieren to lake the Meyer Waldeck, before the supremacy the German naval infantry abandoned no position without instruction in the entire war and returned to the armistice in full order without soldier advice to the homeland, had to leave their life to 6000 sea-soldiers in the struggle with the end of the 1. World war came also the end of the German naval infantry, neither the realm navy nor the war navy of the armed forces had a similar formation, those at the end of the II. World war educated two naval infantry divisions were lists made of personnel, who could find no maritime use more and than lock-ups to the front was thrown the German Federal Armed Forces did from the outset without a naval infantry, it however still give it in some armies of the west and the east, which United States e.g. have "Marines" as 4. Armed service

Sarevok,

Really interesting:eek: . I play the scenario and I learn at the same time that's great:goodjob: .

what do you mean?

Sarevok,

You are very good at language.

Also: I guess Metacomet mean that there are so many
historical facts incorporated in the scenario that one
can learn from it.

BTW: Your mailbox is full.

Rocoteh

Thanks for the compliment :)

Ill get the box.

Concerning historical Info, im hoping to do more to the civilopedia for 1.7. QWhat would you suggest?

I have not reflected over that yet. Will return
with suggestions later.

I wonder if many people read the civilopedia.

Rocoteh

it dosent matter, its just a really nice extra thing to have to make the scenario seem much more complete and well done.

Here is the graphic of a new coastal artillery:

http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=6915

Adler

Adler17,

It looks very good.
I think it should be included with next versions.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
I have not reflected over that yet. Will return
with suggestions later.

I wonder if many people read the civilopedia.

Rocoteh

I don't know whether many people read the civilopedia. However, I like reading it very much! Thus, I think, Sarevok's suggestion to work on the Civilopedia for 1.7 is a very good idea!!

Originally posted by CellKu
I don't know whether many people read the civilopedia. However, I like reading it very much! Thus, I think, Sarevok's suggestion to work on the Civilopedia for 1.7 is a very good idea!!

CellKu,

We can agree then, that is good idea
to have the Civilopedia reworked.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
CellKu,

We can agree then, that is good idea
to have the Civilopedia reworked.

Rocoteh

Very good!

Btw, I would like to bring in a suggestion that Sarevok made in the TOE thread:
The AI builds usually only certain units, especially artillery units seem to be "uninteresting". To get a greater variety of units available to the AI what about inserting additional unit-creating buildings into TGW? That would increase building of units that the AI usually doesn't build.

CellKu

CellKu,

Yes, there should be buildings for auto-production
of Artillery units and Naval units.
(Also other types of units that AI refuse to build.)

Naval units are (if not auto-production is used) a big
problem on Earth and Europe maps.

Rocoteh

Is it possible to play this multiplayer? Or is it single player only?

Doc Rivet

Originally posted by Sarevok
Thanks for the compliment :)

Ill get the box.

Concerning historical Info, im hoping to do more to the civilopedia for 1.7. QWhat would you suggest?

Sarevok,

Rocoteh was correct my last intervention was a compliment, and I do read the civilopedia. I think that a great civilopedia is an interesting think for the people who likes history like me:goodjob: .

Hi everybody,

I finally had a little time to play the division version 1.2; I decided to play with Bulgaria. I though it can be funny and interesting.

The first turns I received strong attacks from Greece and weak attacks from Romania. Then I took a conservative/defensive strategy, after all is WWI. Using the combat engineers, I created a fortifications line in my border with Greece and Serbia, but Serbia was busy enough with Austria. It took me 10 turns.

After I reinforce the production and happiness of all my three cities I decided to star my war against Romania and in one turn, they lost the city of crajonia (sorry I don’t remember the name). My next step is create a great army, and the corps are wonderful, to destroy Romania.

Meanwhile the Ottomans resist very well, they didn’t lose any city. In the Eastern front, they raze a few cities and now everything is quite. On the Western front Germany first conquer one city in Belgium but in a few turns they lost that city and Metz, and now the front is static.

I getr an error when I play this Scenrio. I am using Conquest 1.15. And have the 1.6 version of the scenrio.

Doc Rivet,

Its single player.

I think BkGreatWarnut works with a multiplayer version.

conehead234,

I think Sarevok can help you with this problem.
I changed references in TGW-DIV 1.2 to avoid it.

Rocoteh

Metacomet,

It will be interesting to hear how the scenario
evolves when playing Bulgaria.

Maybe its possible to expand into Serbia when Romania
has been conquered.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Metacomet,

It will be interesting to hear how the scenario
evolves when playing Bulgaria.

Maybe its possible to expand into Serbia when Romania
has been conquered.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh,

In the first week of 1915 I decided to attack the capital of Romania, before I was cleaning my country of greek and serbian forces:mad: .

I had a formidable army, 45 units, and I was sure of my success :rolleyes: , but for once the AI was smart enough. The AI was defending Bucarest with 14 fortress infantry :eek: .

They destroy my whole army :cry: :cry: :cry: ... that was a really bad strategy... now i need to form again an impressive army to take my revenge...:p

EDIT: that really was WWI, when you kill a whole army for nothing

Originally posted by conehead234
I getr an error when I play this Scenrio. I am using Conquest 1.15. And have the 1.6 version of the scenrio.

you most likely need at least 1.18 to play the scenario. If the probelm persists, post here.

unfortunately, I dont see any other way for Italy and romania to join the war if they are not in the alliance without seriously messing up the structure of the game.

Sarevok,

I don't agree with you. But I'll playtest with Italy and/or Romania neutral to see if it indeed messes things up. I'll post results here.

jimmygeo

Metacomet,

Wow! You sure have guts to play as Bulgaria - and to keep on after losing so many units. :goodjob: Good luck, and keep us up to date on your progress.

jimmygeo

most likely, the minor powers are not reccomended to be played as.

most likely, the minor powers are not reccomended to be played as.

Hey, Sarevok, where's your sense of excitement and adventure? It's only a game, after all ;)

jimmygeo

When I'm playtesting a game/scenario, I usually do so as a minor player and turn on the 'debug' or simalar mode, so that I cane watch the game play out without having to worry too much about winning or losing.

jimmygeo

When I'm playtesting a game/scenario, I usually do so as a minor player and turn on the 'debug' or simalar mode, so that I cane watch the game play out without having to worry too much about winning or losing.

jimmygeo

isnt it better to just play a normal game?

isnt it better to just play a normal game?

No. If one were to just play 'normal' games, then there would be no need for developing scenarios or mods. Customization is one of the strengths of C3C.

jimmygeo

isnt it better to just play a normal game?

Sorry. I thought your comment was directed to my wanting to change TGW to make Italy and Romania neutral. :blush: But you were referring to my method of playtesting.

When I am playing just for entertainment, I do play a 'normal' game, but playing and playTESTING are different just like driving and test driving. An auto manufacturer might try to see what happens when his cars roll over or run into a wall. No 'normal' driver would do such on purpose.

In a C3C scenario with 22 civs, like yours, the AI does most of the playing. It's important, therefore, to see how the AI handles things without having to pay attention to one's own winning or losing.

jimmygeo

I see your point then. It dosent really matter how you test it out, but be sure to play it without debug ;)

Got my computer upgrades yesterday.
I'm trying out new games I wasn't able to play with my old comp.
So, no Civ for a while.
But i'm sure i'll get bored of the new effects soon and return back to civ and tgw.

Edit: btw the new forums are really confusing. :-)

most likely, the minor powers are not reccomended to be played as.

Sarevok,

I know that I'm not supose to play with Bulgaria, but I think that is a really fun experience. Sometimes I don't like to play with a huge player as Germany, to be honest I really enjoy a lot when I take a little one to create a big empire. I really like the challenge :crazyeye: .

I can explain something more about the big Bulgarian Empire :lol: ,

After my defeat in the gates of Bucarest, I lost all my army, I created a new army in a few turns. Now with my new army I decided to change my strategy and I forget about Bucarest, with 14 fortress division is a really hard goal, and I decided to attack the rest of the cities in romania.

With my 20 units army I can conquer all the cities, excep jassay that the ottomans take and the russians raze :cry: , except Bucarest. I have a few big battles with the russian army, they lost a lot of units and I only lost 3-4.

Now I'm moving my army to serbia, I decided to left bucarest behind and try to conquer a few Serbian cities. I have constant attacks from Greece but my line of fortifications is working fine :p .

The eastern and western front are statics no changes in a long time. The ottomans destroy Arabia but they lost Gaza and two arabian cities thanks to the british army.

Evarything is static like the real WWI, you did a wonderful job with the scenario. :goodjob:

well first id like to compliment the game on its greatness and its significant improvement since 1.5, with better Ai, mines helping the Germans, etc, but
I did notice something wrong witht the art files that I downloaded. Apparently the howitzerHeavy Artillery was spelled Howitzer][Heavy Artillery(the words were spelled right except for the ][), thus resulting in a crash in the game(cannot find howzitzerHeavy Artillery). I am going to attempt removing the ][ to see if it works but you may want to correct this.

note:also inside the folder is a file named Howitzer Heavy Artillery when it should be HowitzerHeavy Artillery

note2: ok i noticed the folder is completely lacking an ini file thus resulting in the games crash ><

Please bear with my spelling i know its horrible

JosefStalinator,

I glad to hear you like the scenario.
Thank you for the bug-report.


Metacomet,

I think it will be very intersting to follow your experiment
with Bulgaria. It has an good strategic situation and its possible
to expand in three directions.

Rocoteh

ill get that bug ASAP.

Here is a special ww1 destroyer:
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=6960

Adler

Here is a special ww1 destroyer:
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=6960

Adler

Thanks, I've been looking for a unit graphic like this ever since starting with TGW. :cool:

jimmygeo

Sarevok, I saw that Walter Hawkwood is around again and takes request for flags. Which ones are still missing?

CellKu

I have just download it last week and played it since then. It is a great scenario.
But i have a question about it, playing as germany, i did not have any saltpeter so i can't build flamethrower. I tried to trade it with AI but there is none avaible. Another thing is about submarine, i have the technology and the required resources, but i can not build it. same thing with tank. I also found out that i can not build any destroyer

otherwise of that problems the scenario is fantastic, definitely better than any that i 've ever seen.

Arvin

Sarevok, I saw that Walter Hawkwood is around again and takes request for flags. Which ones are still missing?

CellKu
all I nkow is that Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain are accounted for.

I have just download it last week and played it since then. It is a great scenario.
But i have a question about it, playing as germany, i did not have any saltpeter so i can't build flamethrower. I tried to trade it with AI but there is none avaible. Another thing is about submarine, i have the technology and the required resources, but i can not build it. same thing with tank. I also found out that i can not build any destroyer

otherwise of that problems the scenario is fantastic, definitely better than any that i 've ever seen.

Arvin
I was already planning on "reworking" the rescourse system in the game and the requirements. Ill be sure to get all of this. Thank you very much :)

Historically it is correct. Germany has no Salpeter. Indeed until 1914 all German Salpeter had to be imported from South America. But that was impossible now. So the German chemicans had to synthezise Salpeter. They were successful. Otherwise the German ammo would have been depleted before christmas.

Adler

so I ought to give them some anyway?

Sarevok,

The same holds true for oil and rubber with regard to TOE WW2.
Germany started large production of synthetic oil and rubber already in 1938.
That production increased during the war despite strategic bombing.

Rocoteh

So Germany should get the resource- or a tech which allows the production of this units for a higher price- but I doubt this is possible.

Adler

There is no quantity aspect with regard to resources in CIV3.
Considering how important resources are in the game-engine I really
hope we will see a change in CIV4 and also a strategic warfare module,
but that maybe hope for to much.

Rocoteh

Its possible I will do a TGW-DIV 1.2a version at the end
of this month.
Most of the changes will be related to naval stats.
I think they can be better.

I am going off-line some hours from now and will be away for a week.

Rocoteh

so I ought to give them some anyway?

Well in my opinion, it doesn't really matter if they(the German) has it or not, as long as someone has a surplus of it.

Arvin

im planning to deal with units and rescources for 1.7.

Play-test report TGW-DIV 1.2
Playing at Brigadier Gen. level in DEBUG mode as the neutral Swiss, with Italy and Rumania also neutral.

Week 30, 1914: The Germans storm across Belgium, wiping out all the border guards without losing a unit themselves. They take Liege, but fail at Antwerp, losing two cavalry divs. and having a couple more with only 1 HP each. The border guard unit is possibly too weak to make a difference, try it with +1 def.

Bulgarians attack the Greeks at Salonika without success. They mass 7 divs. for another assault.

Greeks lose a destroyer, sinking a Turkish destroyer and light cruiser; bombard Smyrna

Austrians and Serbs slug it out, each side losing about the same. The Austrian infantry units seem to be about the right historical strength. The AI seems incapable of taking advantage of the Austrians' freedom from attack from Italy and/or Rumania. :confused:

Week 31: At sea, the Germans lose 4 BBs and 2 armored cruisers, but later inflict equal losses on the Brits, especially with attacking mines!!!? (How completely unrealistic!) :eek: The Kriegsmarine has a great advantage in that the Brits have to fight alone in the North Sea as the entire French fleet is in the Mediterranean (is this historical?) This along with the powerful attacking mines, gives the Germans a great naval advantage, even if played by the AI.

On land, the Germans finally take Antwerp, but lose 3 divs. taking Ypres. They are getting distracted by French attacks around Metz.

The Austrian navy in the Adriatic bombards Antivari (Montenegro) and keeps on even when it can do no more (all units reduced to 1 HP and only 1 pop. left in town). This is just tedious and stupid, but hey every one agrees that the AI IS stupid.

On land the Austrians suffer heavy losses against the Russians, who can absorb any of their heavy losses because of their enormous numbers.

The Bulgarians lose 5 divs in an unsuccessful attack on Salonika; :cry: the Greek counter-attack fails and they lose 1 div.

A Turkish pre-dreadnought sinks the Greek pre-dreadnought at Smyrna.

In the Baltic, the Russians sink a Greman light cruiser and 2 desttroyers, but lose 4 destroyers in the Greman counter-attack.

Comments: Although it's still early in the game, a few things seem to appear. The naval mines with a high attack rating are much like warships which gives an advantage to the German navy. I'm not against mines, but I think that they should have a high def. and an attack of, say, 1, and be immobile. They are, after all, a defensive weapon aimed at keep the enemy out of some place.

So far, the neutrality of Italy and Rumania don't seem to make that much difference, except possibly that the Greeks who have had to bear more of the brunt of the war from the Bulgarians. The Austrians should be able to concentrate on fighting the Russians, although so far they have not been too successful at this. We'll see.

jimmygeo

Very good report! Ill be sure to try to mnake the approrpriate changes. Keep me updated!

I wonder if you have thought of the fact that the British channel had been mined by the British (and patrolled by them) to keep the German navy from being able to enter the atlantic through it.

I wonder if you have thought of the fact that the British channel had been mined by the British (and patrolled by them) to keep the German navy from being able to enter the atlantic through it.
so no U-boats?

Hey, I'm not sure if you guys are aware or not, but Wyrmshadow just released a great quality WWI era destroyer. It would be perfect for your mod. The link is here (http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=6960)

Play-test report TGW-DIV 1.2
Playing at Brigadier Gen. level in DEBUG mode as the neutral Swiss, with Italy and Rumania neutral.

Week 32, 1914: I forgot to mention the load times in the last report. They are: initial load and configure = 22 min. which for this size of scenario is not too bad. Load saved game time is approx. 2 min. for the early turns. :goodjob:

On to the combat. I traded for rubber from Russia (which had 7 spare) so that I could build fortress divs. to protect Berne.

The Turks sank a Brit transport by Dodecanese.

The Brits bombard Ypres by land and sea. They sink a couple of Germ. subs and destroy some mines by Bremen. They also unsuccessfully attack An Najaf in the east but destroy one Turkish unit.

Austrian navy again bombards Antivari almost into oblivion. Talk about carpet bombing with your navy! Maybe there should be mines at Antivari. ;)

French attack Ypres unsuccessfully although they do destroy a German div. and damage some others.

The Russian Black Sea fleet bombards Sinope, doing some damage.

German navy sinks 1 Brit. BB, a Pre-dreadnought, a lt. cruiser and armored cruiser. On land they counter-attack around Ypres cleaning up damaged French units, French lose 4 infantry and 1 armored car unit. Germans attack Calais, losing 4 divs, and do not succeed.

The Greeks lose a destroyer trying to sink a damaged Turkish pre-dread. They bombard Bulg. inf. with their lt. cruiser and attack and destroy 1 Bulg. cav. unit at Salonika. So far the Bulgarians are getting the worst of it in Greece.

Week 33: Brits sink 2 Germ. BBs, losing one of theirs. They bomb Ypres and clear mines near Bremen.

Arabs unsuccessfully attack Medina, but destroy Turkish MG and 1 Sipahi.

Austrian navy once again bombs Antivari almost to anihilation, then attack with a large force. They lose a cav. unit taking the town, defended by 2 inf. both reduced to 1 HP each because of the naval shelling. Such daring heros :rolleyes:

French destroyer sinks Austrian sub off so. Italian coast. In the north, they bomb Ypres by land and sea, and make another unsuccessful attack upon the Germans there. Germans lose a couple of units. It looks like it will be a looong war (oh well, so was the real thing!)

The Russian navy again bombs Sinope, but they are more successful in the Baltic, sinking 2 German destroyers and 3 light cruisers! German counter-attack sinks 4 or 5 Russian destroyers.

In North Sea, German navy sinks 6 Brit BBs, losing 2 of theirs plus a sub. On land, there is a lot of artillery bombardment in the Metz-Strassburg region with some confused attacks on forts, etc. Around Arras a German corps is almost destroyed (down to 1HP) while the French hold on but only just.

Victory Points at end of turn: Central powers - 6492; Allies - 4618

Comments: It's still early days yet, but their are indications of things to come. If the Germans can concentrate on moving west along the Channel coast (= Schlieffen plan), they can easily capture towns in the French rear areas, cripling their production capacity. To do this they will have to not get distracted by French attacks on Metz, etc. Also, they should not worry too much about the Russians as the Austrians will keep them somewhat busy long enough.

The Brits have to destroy the German North Sea fleet and block or hinder the German westward push. The French have to stop the Germans "at the Somme" as they did in reality. This will force a war of attrition (a LOOONG one), which they can eventually win with the help of their allies. Since there is no provision for surrender in C3C with locked alliances, the French don't need to worry about losing until they are completely destroyed.

The Russians? Ah well, what can be said? What they lack in quality they make up for in quantity, although I dread having to watch 50 or 60 units one after another attacking one defended town only to be destroyed. That is truly tedious! :sad:

So far, the neutrality of Italy and Rumania still don't seem to make much difference, and the Greeks are holding up well against the Bulgarians. Even without the Italians to worry about, the Austrians are as wimpy in this scenario as they were in the real WWI. More to come.

jimmygeo

Hey, I'm not sure if you guys are aware or not, but Wyrmshadow just released a great quality WWI era destroyer. It would be perfect for your mod. The link is here (http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=6960)

I D/Led this unit and put it into the scenario. It look great, especially with the smoke coming out of the 4 stacks. Thanks!

jimmygeo

can the submarine missles actually succeed in bombarding? Ive launched em a million times and everyone has failed

can the submarine missles actually succeed in bombarding? Ive launched em a million times and everyone has failed

The problem seems to be that the rate of fire is set at 0. So, although torpedoes have an att. of 20, you can't really fire them.

Sarevok, take note. The ROF should be at least 1 to make them useful.

jimmygeo

torpedo's are being taken out anyways...

torpedo's are being taken out anyways...

That's probably for the better, since subs already have a good attack strength.

jimmygeo

plus, the AI cant really use them anyways...

they r kinda annoying, just disbanding them constantly, i guess its 5 free shields :)

also, why are we unable to make barracks? is it cuz veterans have 5 healthand actaully have to be verterans to get to it? even with barracks (made with wonder) units are not promoted....

well, I expect to finish 1.7 next weekend.

@ Sarevok

Sorry for the late reply :) To knowledge most german submarines did not make it further than the north sea.

Btw, the british were able to make a very effective blockade of Germany, thus forcing ther germans to ration food which did end up in several food-riots. I wonder if that can somehow be implemented in the game ??

As for the wonder regarding american intervention in the war, I admit I haven't played it that far, is Germany able to build it also ?? They should, because if it hadn't been for a german faux-pais (the Zimmermann note of Jan. 19th 1917) where they urge Mexico to invade USA, they might have swayed the US over to their side, due to the amount of people there of german and irish decendancy

Just a few words from me now :) Hope it is useful somehow

The German Uboats were very successful in the Atlantic. They sunk so many ships the British would have asked for peace in 1918 if the US wouldn´t have intevened. Also in England were famine problems.

Adler

well, I expect to finish 1.7 next weekend.

Wow, so perhaps you have use for another tech icon (trench warfare):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=88160

Btw, I looked briefly through SpicruS' three flag packs and saw an Ottoman Empire flag. Doesn't that work for TGW? One thought about flags for the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands: couldn't you use the flags from the WWII conquest? SpincruS made U.S. and Britain as well (just in case you would want to include them in the download and thus you have problems with copyright issues)

CellKu

The German Uboats were very successful in the Atlantic. They sunk so many ships the British would have asked for peace in 1918 if the US wouldn´t have intevened. Also in England were famine problems.

Adler

I'm not at all aware of this, Adler. Could you provide some detailled evidence for "very successful" Uboat activity in the Atlantic, especially after early 1917.
Thanks in advance.

jimmygeo

They sank as huge amount of cargo points, and actually sank enough to starve Britain out of food and supplies, which led to the 3rd Battle of Ypres. The U-boats also led to the US entry into the war.

They sank as huge amount of cargo points, and actually sank enough to starve Britain out of food and supplies, which led to the 3rd Battle of Ypres. The U-boats also led to the US entry into the war.

I'm still unconvinced. You will have to cite more specific instances. Just stating this is not enough.

jimmygeo

On U.S. entry into WWI. It was highly unlikely that the U.S. would have entered the war on Germany's side, if they entered the war at all. The U.S. was highly isolationist, at least in regard to Europe and its wars, before WWI. Americans often cited George Washington's advice to stay out of European wars. Besides, the immigrants from German/Austrian lands (as were my father's parents) both wanted to leave the political problems of their homelands behind them in order to make a new life in their adopted country, and they had little influence, being new-comers to the country, in national policy.

However, the closest neighbour to the U.S., Canada, entered the war on Britain's side almost immediately, and those with British connections and pro-British sentiments in the U.S. were influential in the corridors of power. So, if the U.S. entered the war at all, they would have done so (as they actually did) on the side of the Allied Powers. Incidents like the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram merely provided acceptable excuses for what the U.S. wanted to do in the first place. The best that the Central Powers could hope for was that the U.S. stayed out of the war altogether.

jimmygeo

Believe me I know lots about WWI, I didnt make this scenario off assumed knowledge. Thats the reason the game "feels" like actual WWI combat with Static defense and the power of defensive innovations. Im not going to write an essay here to convince people that the submarine war was important, Ill leave it to them to read about it. I is unfortunate that it cannot be truly simulated in TGW with the lack of convoys and strategic resources that deplete through usage. I may saound harsh, but I wanted you to know that I am not going to waste any time when it is not neccesary.

Play-test report TGW-DIV 1.2
Playing at Brigadier Gen. level in DEBUG mode as the neutral Swiss, with Italy and Rumania neutral.

Week 34, 1914: Arabs again unsuccessfully attack Medina, losing 3 guerillas and 1 cavalry and fail to destroy Turish MG. The Turks counter-attack, killing 1 heavily damaged cavalry unit with a sipahi.

The Brits again bombard Ypres by sea. They sink one Germ. BB, 2 subs and 2 pre-dreads, but lose 1 BB themselves. They are quiet in the East.

Austrian navy loses 3 destroyers attacking some French ones off southern Italy, but they do succeed in sinking a Brit. Lt. cruiser. Their land campaign to the east vs. the Russians is undecisive. They lose about as many units as they destroy. If this keeps up, the Russians will eventually crush them with shear numbers.

French lose 3 inf. divs. attacking Ypres unsuccessfully although they do destroy a German MG and damage some others. They destroy a severely damaged German corps and 2 inf. divs. by Arras.

The Russian Black Sea fleet bombards Sinope, doing some damage. In the Baltic, they sink 2 German Lt. cruisers. They destroy some Austrian units near Krakow, but lose more themselves.

German navy sinks 1 Brit. BB, a Pre-dreadnought, a lt. cruiser and a Russian pre-dread, but they lose 1 BB themselves. On land they again counter-attack around Ypres cleaning up 3 damaged French units, losing 2 divs. attacking a large Brit. land force. This is looking more and more like the real thing - a loooong, drawn-out slugging match in Flanders/NE France, which may not be too good for the Central Powers.

The Greeks wipe out a couple of unretreated Bulgarian units at Salonika, but lose a cav. unit unsuccessfully attacking Dede-Agach. So far the Bulgarians are still getting the worst of it vs. Greece.

Victory Points at end of turn: Central powers - 7409; Allies - 5483 (Central Powers are widening their win)


Comments: In the coastal town (e.g. Iraklion) the AI is building floating mines. They seem to be a 'best buy' since they are fairly strong and very cheap.

jimmygeo

Believe me I know lots about WWI, I didnt make this scenario off assumed knowledge. Thats the reason the game "feels" like actual WWI combat with Static defense and the power of defensive innovations. Im not going to write an essay here to convince people that the submarine war was important, Ill leave it to them to read about it. I is unfortunate that it cannot be truly simulated in TGW with the lack of convoys and strategic resources that deplete through usage. I may saound harsh, but I wanted you to know that I am not going to waste any time when it is not neccesary.

Hey, Sarevok, calm down. You made an unsupported statement that I found hard to believe, that's all. I did not accuse you of making this scenario based on assumed knowledge. Nor did I ask you to write an 'essay' for me (although your response is almost an essay). All I asked for was an example or two to support your statement.

As to 'wasting time', your response took longer than supplying a couple of facts would have. Besides, what do you think I am doing, play-testing TGW-DIV. It does take a lot of time and I'm doing it for YOUR sake, not mine. I think you have basically a good thing here or I wouldn't bother with it.

Having been myself a partner in a game publishing company for a number of years, I know what fragile egos game-developers can have and how sensitive they are about their creations, but unless one can defend their decisions before others, they really do not deserve to be taken seriously. Sorry, but that's how the world works.

jimmygeo

Hey, Sarevok, calm down. You made an unsupported statement that I found hard to believe, that's all. I did not accuse you of making this scenario based on assumed knowledge. Nor did I ask you to write an 'essay' for me (although your response is almost an essay). All I asked for was an example or two to support your statement.

As to 'wasting time', your response took longer than supplying a couple of facts would have. Besides, what do you think I am doing, play-testing TGW-DIV. It does take a lot of time and I'm doing it for YOUR sake, not mine. I think you have basically a good thing here or I wouldn't bother with it.

Having been myself a partner in a game publishing company for a number of years, I know what fragile egos game-developers can have and how sensitive they are about their creations, but unless one can defend their decisions before others, they really do not deserve to be taken seriously. Sorry, but that's how the world works.

jimmygeo
you are implying that I should "Cite" every piece of information I give. I am an future major in military history, and I would not lie about facts, and if I didnt know the answer, I wouldnt give one. You can ask Rocoteh when he comes back, he may give you the same answer except he will have something in addition. That however, it more to an age gap between us as he has the answers and sources ready to be found, most likely on-hand while I have not gone quite that in-depth... yet. If it helps at all, my WWI book is The First World War by Keegan.

Jimmygeo, in ww1 German Uboats sunk 5.234 merchant vessels with 12.284.757 t. Additional 10 battleships, 18 cruiser, 20 destroyer and 9 subs were sunk by them. All figures include mined ships, where the mine was laid by a uboat. 187 Uboats were lost.

Adler

P.S.: Source: Ulrich Elfrath, Die Deutsche Kriegsmarine, Band 1, Augsburg 1994, ISBN 3-89350-699-3, page 9

If I may ask Sarevok, what are the major changes you will make in the TGW v1.7? What features will you keep and let go?

- Torpedo's Removed
-some changed population figures
- a few minor changes
- Som new graphics
- A new naval unit: The Superdreadnought
- graphic bugs fixed
- and much more

Jimmygeo, in ww1 German Uboats sunk 5.234 merchant vessels with 12.284.757 t. Additional 10 battleships, 18 cruiser, 20 destroyer and 9 subs were sunk by them. All figures include mined ships, where the mine was laid by a uboat. 187 Uboats were lost.

Adler

P.S.: Source: Ulrich Elfrath, Die Deutsche Kriegsmarine, Band 1, Augsburg 1994, ISBN 3-89350-699-3, page 9

Thank you, Adler. This is the kind of reply I was looking for. But it sort of makes one wonder why the Central Powers lost the war and had to submit to so humiliating a peace treaty.

BTW the source I had available here at home, Koch, The History of Warfare , quotes the figure as 8 million tons. But there's no indication that this was in the Atlantic as opposed to the North Sea and coastal waters around the British Isles. Moreover, between the sinking of the Lusitania in October 1915 and February 1, 1917, the German Uboats were not permitted to attack neutral (=U.S.) shipping, and much of Britain's supplies came in American ships. Also, we need to determine how big a portion of the total British merchant fleet those 5,234 ships were. If it were, say, a half of the total, this would be significant. But if it were less than one-fourth, it may not have caused too much shortage in Britain.

On the other hand, German merchant shipping was virtually cut off entirely from access to any trade routes other than those in the Baltic. And after the destruction of von Spee's fleet at the Falklands, the threat to Allied shipping on the high seas was insignificant.

jimmygeo

Perhaps the figure of Koch does not include mined ships. Nevertheless the British did starve in many things because of the loss of ships. It is said they would have had only a few months less in 1917 when the US entered the war. Their shortage was getting bigger and bigger the losses higher and higher. If the US stayed neutral the Entente would have made peace. The best consequence of the German victory: No Hitler.

Adler

While doing some reading up on WWI, I came across this interesting analysis of the relative strengths and availability of resources for the combatants, from H. W. Koch, History of Warfare, c 1987, p. 496:
"The Allies had at their disposal some 250 divisions, against which the Central Powers could bring approximately 160 divisions. The Allied supremacy was even greater at sea, the oceans being dominated by the Royal Navy. But most important, the Allies enjoyed an unquantifiable superiority in the supply of raw materials. The markets of the world were open to them - naval supremacy ensured that - while they were closed to the Central Powers. This superiority was demonstrated with a vengeance when the Allies carried out the long-range blockade of Germany, showing that fighting from interior line without sufficient raw materials and foodstuffs was hopeless against adversaries with unlimted access to all that they needed. Ersatz (artificial) materials including food, as developed by Germany's chemical industries, could alleviate the situation in some sectors but could not solve the problem."

jimmygeo

The Germans had 192 divisions vs 178 allied divisions prior to the Kaiserchlacht offensives in 1918, mostly due to the russian withdrawl from the war. They had 40 infantry and 3 cavalry divisions as occupation in the east. If it had not been for the American arrival, the Germans would have won the war in 1918.

These figures must be from middle 1918 after beginning of the Kaiserschlacht. The US were the factor. But even in 1918 the Germans could have taken Paris. This would have lead to a peace in which the status qou ante would have been more or less would have been written. As for the Britains: Yes they had a big fleet, but their ships were not able to supply Britain totally. They couldn´t afford any losses in ships. So the ships they lost were of a high value. Mainly food and oil had to be imported and both became rare. Until the US sent their help.
No Germany would have won in 1918, if the US didn´t declare war or arrive in time.

Ader

Sarevok,

I hope you will include the PreDreadnought graphic,
suggested by Adler17 in version 1.7.

Its a very good graphic.

Rocoteh

Sarevok,

I hope you will include the PreDreadnought graphic,
suggested by Adler17 in version 1.7.

Its a very good graphic.

Rocoteh
yes, I did. It is very good!

These figures must be from middle 1918 after beginning of the Kaiserschlacht. The US were the factor. But even in 1918 the Germans could have taken Paris. This would have lead to a peace in which the status qou ante would have been more or less would have been written. As for the Britains: Yes they had a big fleet, but their ships were not able to supply Britain totally. They couldn´t afford any losses in ships. So the ships they lost were of a high value. Mainly food and oil had to be imported and both became rare. Until the US sent their help.
No Germany would have won in 1918, if the US didn´t declare war or arrive in time.

Ader
I take it youre reffering to Jimmygeo's stats?. The Americans gave about 80 divisions to the allies (American divisions had 28,000 men rather than 14,000 so it was a bit over 2 million men). It is very true that if the US did not show up the germans would have won WWI.

Sarevok,

I hope you will include the PreDreadnought graphic,
suggested by Adler17 in version 1.7.

Its a very good graphic.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh

I am trying to look for PreDreadnought graphic in the thread but i could not find it.
So do you mind if you show me the preview, a link will do it.
Thank you.

Arvin

it is several pages back.... somewhere in the late 60's

Adler17,

Can you post the link again?

Rocoteh

the graphic is on CDG...

the graphic is on CDG...

That is no problem.

Rocoteh

I know, but it may befor other people who want to load that up as they would have to join that site.

http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=5780

Here it is. But again this unit of Wyrmshadow is thought to be a Monarch class Armoured Cruiser, k.u.k. Austrian- Hungarian Navy.

Adler

Adler17,

Thank you.
I think this graphic is very good.
It gives a PreDreadnought impression.

Rocoteh

To whom it may concern

Thank you very much

Arvin

Its possible I will include Armored Cruisers as single ships in
a TGW-DIV 1.2a version. However there seems be to few graphics to
use for such a unit.
Any ideas?

Rocoteh

there are few graphics for any naval units in anycase...

That is true.
However with regard to WWI Light Cruisers and
Armored Cruisers the situation is extreme (bad).

Rocoteh

I think the best off would be either battleships or carriers.

My general impression is that WWI does not draw
interest from many unit-creators, and the naval aspect has
minimal attention.
Its strange when one consider that WWI was a more "clean"
naval war than WWII.
I mean: During WWII the ASW and antiaircraft aspects had become crucial.

Rocoteh

WWII is just a considerably larger and much more known topic.

Hmm, at CDG are many naval units. However most are indeed ww2 units. In ww2 there are only missing many light cruiser but all other units are represented well. From Sboat to Bismarck, Iowa and Yamato. But ww1?

Adler

One can only hope that unit-creators pick up some units
from this link:

http://www.german-navy.de/

This site is superior in every aspect to other naval sites I have seen.

Rocoteh

I have one simple question!Does anyone want to create scenario about Serbian Empire of greatest Serbian Emperor "Dushan-Silni(The strongest)"?!?
I saw creating abilities of Sarevok and Rocotech I can get you infos about his Empire and that time situation and then we can make boom for Civ players from the Balkans!!!

Emperor Dushan,

I turn over the question to Sarevok, since he is one
of the most productive scenario-creators that exists.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

I have one simple question!Does anyone want to create scenario about Serbian Empire of greatest Serbian Emperor "Dushan-Silni(The strongest)"?!?
I saw creating abilities of Sarevok and Rocotech I can get you infos about his Empire and that time situation and then we can make boom for Civ players from the Balkans!!!
Perhaps, though unfortunately I know nothing of when he ruled or even who that is. With that, I wouldnt know exactly how to create a scenario. I traditionally make scenarios on topics im very strong in historically (WWI, The Three Kingdoms) or I made my own history based of a history I knew well (Red Europe, TOE). Sorry, but if I know nothing of the topic, I cant make a scenario on it... :(

i finally figured out why all the custom scenarios pop up the error about being unable to find heavyartillery etc, even wehen they dont use any custom units.

Apparently, the noramal artillery, the one that comes with the game, tries to load the heavy artilley.ini file. I have no idea why but the only soltion i see is fixing the heavyartillery howitzer (misc). files


really strange....

that file is officially being removed for TGW 1.7

that file is officially being removed for TGW 1.7

o ur not gonna fix it?....
argg... time to reinstall conquests....

That is fixing it.

no i thought u were gonna include an .ini file, not remove it entirely

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrg NOW IT WONT REINSTALL (i give up)

error loading support files? same error i get on my other comp...UNFIXED

no more civ3 :( o well.... guess ill have to wait till i get a new comp

I will soon be away for a week again.
However I have decided to make TGW-DIV 1.2a.
It will include a large number of naval units, so 1.2 will still
be available for download for those who think that 1.2a
will have to many units.

Light Cruisers and Armored Cruisers will be named and represent
1 or 2 ships. Pre-Dreadnoughts will represent one named ship.
Research is going on and playtesting have given good results.

Rocoteh

alright, I leave that to you.

TGW 1.7 is delayed for a time, ive had a death in the family.

My condulences.

Adler

alright, I leave that to you.

TGW 1.7 is delayed for a time, ive had a death in the family.

I am very sorry to hear that.

Rocoteh

My condolonce for you. Don't worry about TGW take your time.

Arvin

ive had a death in the family.

I am sorry to hear that, Sarevok. Accept my condolences, as well.

CellKu

Message to Sarevok and Rocotech!

I have all the info you need to create that scenario(of course if you are in mood for that)!!Just give me any mail or something like that,and I confirm that you'll be very interested in creating it!

Info: He ruled in middle ages!He controlled almost whole Balkans except part of Vizantija(Byzanty empire - Constantinopol and etc.)!He realized Ottoman danger from the east and he started to negotiate with Roman Pope for Crusade war against Turks but he died soonly after negotiations under very strange circumstances.His son came to the Serbian throne after Dushan but he couldn't accomplish his fathers ideas!Story For two scenarios Rise and the Fall of Serbian Empire(Rise with Dushan,Fall with Urosh nejaki-"Urosh the weak")!Thank you for your attention!

P.S. Sarevok I heard about death in your familly!I'm sorry to hear that!Very sad thing!Accept my condolences!!

Emperor Dushan,

I hope Sarevok can do a scenario on this subject.
He is young and very productive.
I am old and not so productive compared to when I was young.

Rocoteh

ill consider it...

Message to Sarevok and Rocotech!

I have all the info you need to create that scenario(of course if you are in mood for that)!!Just give me any mail or something like that,and I confirm that you'll be very interested in creating it!

Info: He ruled in middle ages!He controlled almost whole Balkans except part of Vizantija(Byzanty empire - Constantinopol and etc.)!He realized Ottoman danger from the east and he started to negotiate with Roman Pope for Crusade war against Turks but he died soonly after negotiations under very strange circumstances.His son came to the Serbian throne after Dushan but he couldn't accomplish his fathers ideas!Story For two scenarios Rise and the Fall of Serbian Empire(Rise with Dushan,Fall with Urosh nejaki-"Urosh the weak")!Thank you for your attention!

P.S. Sarevok I heard about death in your familly!I'm sorry to hear that!Very sad thing!Accept my condolences!!


phhhhh, serbs, we all know that the real:) rulers of the balkans are the Bulgarians. The Bulgarians have, during the reign of "Simon the Great", taken over the balkens, from the austro-hungarian empire to bysitine, they sieged constantiople (this was only stopped by the death of Simon), they killed the bysitine emperor, and, they haven't been massacering people lately! :)

im going to stay out of this fight...

Yeah, if these posts are starting a fight, you better refer to pm. Moreover, that is not even a bit related to TGW. Don't spoil this thread!

CellKu

it dosent matter, I want suggestions for 1.7, not a fight over scenario creation.

GeZe i dont want to argue with you I just want to say that we won in WWI,WWII,Balkan wars!You fought against us and You lost!Your rulers kissed boots of Car Dushan!He had taken over half of your Bulgarian state!HE WAS EMPEROR OF SERBS,BULGARIANS,GREEKS,and etc.!Borders:From the Danube to the Athens,From Drina river to the Constantinopol!True facts admit!


I respect your nation and I don't want to fight with you about Balkan history!If you don't respect Serbian nation, I don't care!I've just given a suggestion!If you have one let's hear it!

Oh boze!

Thanx Sarevok!You consider about this!Cooperation is gold!

As I said, I dont want a fight in here.

Ya, I was kinda joking :) with the bulgaria thing.

(note the :) in the post)

sorry Sarevok, didn't mean to start anything, please continue making awsume scenarios.

Okay, so, does anyone happen to have any non political feedback?

I do at least! Sarevok, I have always loved your scenarios, and this one is no exception.

"Me here!"

Sarevok, sad to hear about your loss. My condolences for that.

I've started a new game playing germany with DIV 1.2. Played 9 turns so far.
I won't be doing any in-depth playreport of it, but I will report any bugs/oddities/suggestions that I might find.

I'm glad to see that the whole political debate has ended, since it has no place in this thread.

I've really enjoyed the navy aspect on my current game.
It's rare to have so large amounts of ships and it's quite fun to lure the enemy and give them a shelling they'll never forget. I'm going to a refresher course in the finnish navy in June. It's fun to see if I can use my Civ skills there. :-)
I really like the minefields since I'm a mine-underofficer by training.
One thing I'm looking in to is Russia having minefields in the Gulf of Finland (or what it was called at the time) during ww1. I'm sure there was some.
Seems that "Kuopio" is still called "Central Finland Region", must have slipped your mind, Rocoteh? :-)
Sorry for my narrow area of concentration, but I'm just not that good at history. :-)

Belgium is still really easy to conquer in one turn (and without going through the Netherlands), then again I don't remember what happened in real life.

Glad to see the AI using armies, no idea how you guys made that happen. They are really rare in other scenarios. The bad thing is that they are still very easy to ambush in to grasslands.

The French seem very passive. I haven't had any serious setbacks from their counter-attacks. The AI just moves their huge piles of units, but are afraid to attack with them.

I have no idea what the Brits are doing with their groundtroops since they haven't tried any ambitious landings to mainland. I hope they aren't only producing navy units.
Maybe it's too early to tell. What I remember from my own game with the Brits that they don't start with a lot of groundtroops. Just waiting....

So basically my game has concentrated on the navy and trying to achieve sea superiority and kicking french ass on the mainland.
I'm guessing I'll have to start an assaul against Russia soon before they produce too much units.

Keep up the good work Sarevok and Rocoteh!

Sarevok, sad to hear about your loss. My condolences for that.

I've started a new game playing germany with DIV 1.2. Played 9 turns so far.
I won't be doing any in-depth playreport of it, but I will report any bugs/oddities/suggestions that I might find.

I'm glad to see that the whole political debate has ended, since it has no place in this thread.

I've really enjoyed the navy aspect on my current game.
It's rare to have so large amounts of ships and it's quite fun to lure the enemy and give them a shelling they'll never forget. I'm going to a refresher course in the finnish navy in June. It's fun to see if I can use my Civ skills there. :-)
I really like the minefields since I'm a mine-underofficer by training.
One thing I'm looking in to is Russia having minefields in the Gulf of Finland (or what it was called at the time) during ww1. I'm sure there was some.
Seems that "Kuopio" is still called "Central Finland Region", must have slipped your mind, Rocoteh? :-)
Sorry for my narrow area of concentration, but I'm just not that good at history. :-)

Belgium is still really easy to conquer in one turn (and without going through the Netherlands), then again I don't remember what happened in real life.

Glad to see the AI using armies, no idea how you guys made that happen. They are really rare in other scenarios. The bad thing is that they are still very easy to ambush in to grasslands.

The French seem very passive. I haven't had any serious setbacks from their counter-attacks. The AI just moves their huge piles of units, but are afraid to attack with them.

I have no idea what the Brits are doing with their groundtroops since they haven't tried any ambitious landings to mainland. I hope they aren't only producing navy units.
Maybe it's too early to tell. What I remember from my own game with the Brits that they don't start with a lot of groundtroops. Just waiting....

So basically my game has concentrated on the navy and trying to achieve sea superiority and kicking french ass on the mainland.
I'm guessing I'll have to start an assaul against Russia soon before they produce too much units.

Keep up the good work Sarevok and Rocoteh!
thanks for the report! :)

now... how do I add another level of realism to the scenario?